U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform

[High_Gravity]

We can't even beat a bunch of heroin addicted losers in PJs. We should surrender, Praise Allah, and go home.

Um no, we should just leave.

Shouldn't we at least pay homage to the victors?

You always have some smart ass bullshit to say.

 

[ima]

Um no, we should just leave.

Shouldn't we at least pay homage to the victors?

You always have some smart ass bullshit to say.

We should build something like the Viet Cong victors wall where we listed all the Americans they killed in their overwhelming victory.

 

[High_Gravity]

Shouldn't we at least pay homage to the victors?

You always have some smart ass bullshit to say.

We should build something like the Viet Cong victors wall where we listed all the Americans they killed in their overwhelming victory.

Go fuck yourself Ima.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know, someone needs to tell Washington.

We can't even beat a bunch of heroin addicted losers in PJs. We should surrender, Praise Allah, and go home.

Um no, we should just leave.

"Nuke the place from orbit.

Only way to be sure." - Aliens

 

[ima]

We can't even beat a bunch of heroin addicted losers in PJs. We should surrender, Praise Allah, and go home.

Um no, we should just leave.

"Nuke the place from orbit.

Only way to be sure." - Aliens

We should nuke everybody we couldn't beat in a war: Nam, Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, well, pretty much everyone we've faught since WWII.

 

[High_Gravity]

Um no, we should just leave.

"Nuke the place from orbit.

Only way to be sure." - Aliens

We should nuke everybody we couldn't beat in a war: Nam, Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, well, pretty much everyone we've faught since WWII.

You are in super troll mode today aren't you habibti? besides, alot of the places you listed already look like they have been nuked.

 

[ima]

"Nuke the place from orbit.

Only way to be sure." - Aliens

We should nuke everybody we couldn't beat in a war: Nam, Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, well, pretty much everyone we've faught since WWII.

You are in super troll mode today aren't you habibti? besides, alot of the places you listed already look like they have been nuked.

Cmon man, somalia kicked our ass. SOMALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can the US army be any bigger losers?

 

[High_Gravity]

We should nuke everybody we couldn't beat in a war: Nam, Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, well, pretty much everyone we've faught since WWII.

You are in super troll mode today aren't you habibti? besides, alot of the places you listed already look like they have been nuked.

Cmon man, somalia kicked our ass. SOMALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can the US army be any bigger losers?

No bitch, 19 soldiers that day died compared to thousands of skinnys, you are just being a hateful anti American bitch as always.

 

[SayMyName]

High_Gravity, et al,

I think this was the point of the earlier thread.

Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.

Our Troops seem to be getting shot at by their Afghan counter parts every damn day now, and the media are burying these stories.

We need to get our men and women out of that shit hole.

Afghanistan Soldier Attacks On American, Foreign Troops Underreported​

​

(COMMENT)

The Afghani must want an alternative to the Taliban Regime. Remember, the Taliban is the weaker force. It has no combat air support, no massive overhead intelligence platform, no surveillance drones, no helicopter, armor, or larger combat vehicles. It is an inferior force all the way around by any measure you choose to make; yet, after a decade of facing off with the US/NATO (ISAF), it is still around. And it is strong and dangerous enough to be considered a major threat to the security.

WHY? Do they know something we don't? Do they have a secret weapon? Do they have a superior anything? No! But they have a "resolve." They want to defeat ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces. And that is the difference. If the people of Afghanistan really wanted an alternative to the Taliban, and they really were the majority, they could defeat the Taliban with only the same weapons that the Taliban has to use. But the people of Afghanistan don't have that resolve to become a democracy or an autonomous nation. So we (US/NATO) try to offset the lack of initiative on the part of the people by trying to equip them the same way we are equipped, and teach them our tactics, and provide them our intelligence, so that they can overcome the Taliban. We are trying to get them to do the same things, with the same stuff, with the same concepts, that have been so unsuccessful in eradicating the Taliban for a decade.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at Insanity: doing the same thing... at BrainyQuote

If overwhelming force with superior weapons and knowledge have failed the US/NATO for a decade, why would we think it would work for the Afghani? And there in is the problem.

Our goal is confounded because we believe we can give the Afghani something the Taliban already has - which has made them so resilient over the last decade: "resolve to win." And if the Afghani does not have the resolve to win, no matter how much superior firepower we give them, their nemesis (the Taliban) will never truly be defeated and will ultimately take Afghanistan.

We think we can overcome this lack of resolve by making them mimic US/NATO. It simply will not work! The Afghani must want to defeat the Taliban, they must want to cut the support the Taliban receives from the every source, and strangle the movement --- cutting them off from all aid and assistance --- so that they wither and die. But the people of Afghanistan do not have that resolve, and therefore cannot win politically or militarily.

The Taliban of Afghanistan [(Taliban AF)most ultra right Pashtun tribesmen and militants under Mullah Mohammed Omar)] is not exactly the same as the Taliban of Pakistan [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the TTP) under Hakimullah Mehsud/Maulana Toofan]; they are not directly related. The Taliban AF is the Government in Exile of Afghanistan, while the TTP is more of a coalition of various anti-Government (PAK) subversives.

• The Taliban AF has the goal of ousting the US/NATO Occupation to re-establish its leadership and re-institute the extremist practice of the Deobandi model of Islam. It is a struggle for (from their view) liberation from Western Empires, saving the virtue of the people, and the accumulation of power and influence.
  
  
• The TTP is a coalition or umbrella alliance of a number of subversive elements with the goal of establishing governance under Shari Law, to openly oppose US/NATO forces operating in Pakistan, and to establish a resistance movement against PAK military forces. The TTP believes that the citizenry is being victimized by the state via the imposition of military force.

The US has had an extensive amount of experience in combating 4th Generation Warfare (4GW - insurgency) opponents. And it has recently gained an extensive amount of experience in the evolving 4th GW (organized non-state supported actors) opponents; or quasi-evolving 4GW.

Some might agree that the US has limited experience fighting in a guerrilla environment. But that is a misunderstanding on two counts.

• The US has extensive experience fighting in a guerrilla environment. It just believes that the overwhelming application of conventional forces is the better strategy than the use of counter-guerrilla operations that engage in unconventional fashion.
  
  
• It pre-supposes that what they experience in terms of engagements by the Taliban, is a type of guerrilla operation; as oppose to more stealthy conventional small unit tactics. While there are some special insurgent tactics applied in the inner-city, typical to insurgent operations, the US leadership believes the correct application of static defenses and roving security is a better use of resources.

The real problem facing US Forces is a leadership that it is principally composed of leaders heavily influenced by 20th Century thinkers, and very slow to evolve with the change in challenges. The military leadership certainly did not know how to tactfully express shortcomings to the civilian leadership expectations; especially when it came to questions of outcomes on decisions of occupation and counterinsurgency development and containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Excellent synopsis of the situation.

 

[B. Kidd]

Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.

Our Troops seem to be getting shot at by their Afghan counter parts every damn day now, and the media are burying these stories.

The media covers volunteer armed services a helluva lot different then they used to cover a drafted armed service.
I've lived long enough to see the difference.

 

[laughinReaper]

This keeps happening more and more.

U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two gunmen wearing Afghan army uniforms killed a U.S. soldier and wounded two others Tuesday, hours after Afghanistan's defense minister stepped down following a weekend no-confidence vote in parliament.

The exit of Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak leaves a vacancy at the helm of the ministry that has overseen rapid expansion of the nation's army. Afghan soldiers are increasingly taking their positions on the front lines of the war as foreign combat troops withdraw.

NATO's goal is to turn over security responsibility to local forces by the end of 2014.

Wardak's resignation comes at the peak of the summer fighting season. Violence on Tuesday hit eastern and southern Afghanistan, where militants have their deepest roots.

The two gunmen wearing Afghan National Army uniforms fired on NATO troops at a base in Paktia province of eastern Afghanistan, killing a soldier, according to the U.S.-led coalition and Afghan officials.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shooting, the latest in a rising number of so-called "green-on-blue" attacks in which Afghan security forces, or insurgents disguised in their uniforms, kill their U.S. or NATO partners.

The international military coalition did not disclose the nationality of the service member killed, but a U.S. official said he was American.

A second American official said two U.S. service members were wounded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/afghanistan-us-troop-killed_n_1752010.htm

We got Bin Laden, so why are we still there again?

 

[ima]

This keeps happening more and more.

U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two gunmen wearing Afghan army uniforms killed a U.S. soldier and wounded two others Tuesday, hours after Afghanistan's defense minister stepped down following a weekend no-confidence vote in parliament.

The exit of Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak leaves a vacancy at the helm of the ministry that has overseen rapid expansion of the nation's army. Afghan soldiers are increasingly taking their positions on the front lines of the war as foreign combat troops withdraw.

NATO's goal is to turn over security responsibility to local forces by the end of 2014.

Wardak's resignation comes at the peak of the summer fighting season. Violence on Tuesday hit eastern and southern Afghanistan, where militants have their deepest roots.

The two gunmen wearing Afghan National Army uniforms fired on NATO troops at a base in Paktia province of eastern Afghanistan, killing a soldier, according to the U.S.-led coalition and Afghan officials.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shooting, the latest in a rising number of so-called "green-on-blue" attacks in which Afghan security forces, or insurgents disguised in their uniforms, kill their U.S. or NATO partners.

The international military coalition did not disclose the nationality of the service member killed, but a U.S. official said he was American.

A second American official said two U.S. service members were wounded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/afghanistan-us-troop-killed_n_1752010.htm

We got Bin Laden, so why are we still there again?

Haliburton hasn't gotten its cut yet. There are tons of minerals and probably oil there.

 

[Indofred]

The US invaded a country.
The US is losing troops in that country.

I really don't see the big deal.
If you don't want dead troops, don't start wars.

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

Hummm,

Haliburton hasn't gotten its cut yet. There are tons of minerals and probably oil there.

(QUESTION)

Politically and philosophically, there are a number of reasons for being in Afghanistan. I certainly don't agree with many of them. But what "oil" connection do you see and what "resource issues" do you see?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

ima, et al,

Hummm,

Haliburton hasn't gotten its cut yet. There are tons of minerals and probably oil there.

(QUESTION)

Politically and philosophically, there are a number of reasons for being in Afghanistan. I certainly don't agree with many of them. But what "oil" connection do you see and what "resource issues" do you see?

Most Respectfully,
R

Just that the minerals in Afghanistan are visible from the surface because no one has ever done large scale mining, that's why we'll stay, just like Iraq.

What philosophical reasons do we have to stay?

 

[Peter Dow]

This keeps happening more and more.

I hear ya buddy. On the case.

Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution

The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it! )

The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).

Wikipedia: Afghan National Army
The new Afghan National Army was founded with the issue of a decree by President Hamid Karzai on December 1, 2002

Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.

Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.

Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)

So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.

That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.

No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.

However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.

Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy

Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army

recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?

Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?

Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.

Again the US ends up funding corruption.

If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?

Nobody gets held responsible.

Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.

What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?

Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?

The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -

• a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. ("dark green")
  
  
• a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. ("light green")

So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green so to speak. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.

Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.

So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.

 

[SayMyName]

This keeps happening more and more.

I hear ya buddy. On the case.

Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution

The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it! )

The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).

Wikipedia: Afghan National Army
The new Afghan National Army was founded with the issue of a decree by President Hamid Karzai on December 1, 2002

Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.

Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.

Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)

So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.

That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.

No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.

However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.

Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy

Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army

recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?

Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?

Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.

Again the US ends up funding corruption.

If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?

Nobody gets held responsible.

Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.

What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?

Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?

The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -

• a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. ("dark green")
  
  
• a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. ("light green")

So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green so to speak. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.

Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.

So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.

A sound analysis of the situation and proposition. Sadly, no one in the positions of power will go for it.

 

[Sunni Man]

The main lesson of our misadventure in Vietnam was, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age - when they are still living in the stone age"

Unfortunately, that costly lesson was forgotten when we invaded Afghanistan.

 

[Peter Dow]

The main lesson of our misadventure in Vietnam was, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age - when they are still living in the stone age"

Unfortunately, that costly lesson was forgotten when we invaded Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan and in the global war on terror, we are fighting a space age enemy - ourselves. We are the ones who created TV satellites and launched them into space. We are the ones who hire satellites out to absolute Arab monarchies so that they can broadcast pro-terror TV to incite the population to war against us.

The advanced countries of the West such as the USA are the ones who sell space-age military technology to the Saudis and pay bounties to the back-stabbing Pakistani state for Al Qaeda small-fry and for protection racket pay-offs to get our supplies through to Afghanistan which allows the Pakistani military an income to spend on building more nuclear weapons.

We need to stop providing our enemies the space-age hi-tech weapons they use or could use against us.

In another topic I posted my

My 4-point plan to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror

and that's the kind of strategic approach we need to be sure that the space-age technology is being used by and for our side in this war, not by and for the Taliban's side.

 

[Sunni Man]

We need to stop providing our enemies the space-age hi-tech weapons they use or could use against us

and that's the kind of strategic approach we need to be sure that the space-age technology is being used by and for our side in this war, not by and for the Taliban's side.

Yea, those Star Wars light sabers and ray guns the Taliban have been using are deadly weapons for sure.