CBS/AP/ August 11, 2012, 6:26 AM

3 U.S. service members dead in second "green-on-blue" attack

(CBS/AP) KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan working on an installation shared by Afghan and foreign forces shot and killed three American service members Friday - raising to six the number of U.S. troops killed by their Afghan partners in 24 hours.

In an earlier attack, an Afghan police officer shot and killed three U.S. Marines after sharing a meal with them before dawn Friday in Sangin district of Helmand province. 

Coalition spokeswoman Maj. Lori Hodge said Saturday that the three additional foreign service members were gunned down Friday night. The second incident occurred in Garmser district of Helmland province, according to province spokesman Daud Ahmadi

The Taliban claimed responsibility for both of the attacks in Helmand province, located in southern Afghanistan. The province is an area where Taliban insurgents have wielded their greatest influence.

Hodge says the shooters in both attacks have been detained.

The most recent shooting brings the number of "green-on-blue" incidents - in which Afghan security forces turn on their Western allies - to 26 over the last 12 months. Thirty-four coalition service members have now died this year at the hands of Afghan forces or insurgents disguised in Afghan uniforms, according to NATO - a dramatic rise from previous years.

Gen. John Allen, the commander in Afghanistan, said insider attacks are rare compared to the overall number of troops in what's officially called the International Security Assistance Force - ISAF for short.

"Every case where one of these occurs," said Allen, "that same day there are tens of thousands of interactions between the Afghans and ISAF forces that don't go that way."

While the Taliban often claim they have infiltrated the Afghan security forces and are carrying out these attacks, CBS News reporter John Bentley reported in July that a U.S. Defense Department report maintains the attacks are not carried out by insurgents.

"Investigations have determined that a large majority of green-on-blue attacks are not attributable to insurgent infiltration of the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces), but are due to isolated personal grievances against coalition personnel," the report said.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
35 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
kroguej says:
Well you can't fault their strategy.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Rejco100 says:
EVERY Afghan wants ALL AMERICANS in their country DEAD; this "TRAINING" them nonsense is getting old; Afghans have been fighting enemies for thousands of years; they don't need any training.
reply
kroguej replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Every" is always wrong.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
0bama2O12 says:
Thank you Mr. President for getting us out of Iraq!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jmn122736 says:
In past wars, that is real wars, like WW1 and WW2 Solders, in most cases attack the enemy in a head-on charge, knowing the chances of being killed were great, and the fear they must have faced was terrible. And although many battles lasted for days, weeks or even months, individual assaults were generally fairly quick and the soldier knew who the enemy was and could easily recognize them, well before being fired upon. Therefore the fear was restricted to relatively short periods at a time.

In the Iraq fiasco and Afghanistan, the enemy looks just like the civilians and they reside in the same areas.
The fact that American soldiers had to patrol in those and were not allowed to fire their weapons until, and unless, they were being fired upon, made the fear factor far worse than WW1 or WW2.

That coupled with multiple and prolonged duty tours, drove the post dramatic stress problem to record heights. Now with their so-called "comrades in arms" randomly killing them, today's soldiers are facing even worse stress.
That is a major reason the draft, with no religious or other personal choice deferments allowed should be required by law.

If the wealthy and/or their son and daughters were equally subjected to the draft, all of these unnecessary "wars" would be avoided, and the Iraqi fiasco would never have happened.
reply
kroguej replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Ya, but we didn't all choose these stupid wars. I think those that believe in them should be the ones volunteering for them.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hypnotoad72 says:
So what will President Romney do about this?
reply
Rejco100 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
He'll send YOUR SONS in to replace them, NOT HIS!
kroguej replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What do you think he's going to do, he would no doubt maintain the same exit strategy that we have now.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jmn122736 says:
In past REAL wars, like WW1 and WW2 Solders, in most cases attackd the enemy in a head-on charge, knowing the chances of being killed were great, and the fear they must have faced was terrible. And although many battles lasted for days, weeks or even months, individual assaults were generally fairly quick and the soldier knew who the enemy was and could easily recognize them, well before being fired upon. Therefore the fear was restricted to relatively short periods at a time.

In the Iraq fiasco and Afghanistan, the enemy looks just like the civilians and they reside in the same areas.
The fact that American soldiers had to patrol in those areas and were not allowed to fire their weapons until, and unless, they were being fired upon, made the fear factor far worse than in WW1 or WW2.

That coupled with multiple and prolonged duty tours, drove the post dramatic stress problem to record heights.

And now, with their so-called "comrades in arms" randomly killing them, today's soldiers are facing even worse stress.

That is a major reason the draft, with no religious or other personal-choice deferments allowed should be required by law.

If the wealthy (like Romney) and/or their sons and daughters were equally subjected to the draft, all of these unnecessary "wars" would be avoided, and the Iraqi fiasco would never have happened.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RDriftwood says:
The gop are the masters of the blame game. If Obama ends the war now the gop will claim that Obama is "soft on terror". If Obama doesn't end the war now the gop will claim that Obama is getting people killed unnecessarily. The gop needs to stop flip flopping and take a stand, which is it? Does the GOP want Obama to end the war in Afghanistan now, or does the GOP want to continue the war for defense contractor profits?
reply
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
*BINGO*

Obama can compromise on every single issue and the GOP will spin it either way.

Good point at the end, about profiteering...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fiddlestickawshucks says:
I just read under the "News" on my homepage that an Afghan policeman has shot and killed 10 AFGHAN policeman.

When is our government going to learn you cannot trust these filthy savages any further than you can throw the White House.??!!!

"Our troops are safe in Afghanistan".

Like hell they are.!


6 American troops killed by Afghan police officers or troops in 24 hours.!

Does that sound like our troops are safe to you.???

If Obama wants to continue the fighting in Afghanistan, bring out troops home and send him, Congress, the DOD and the people in the Pentagon over their and let them fight our battles.

This way; there will be no more American blood on their hands except their own.!!!!!
reply
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"You are either with us or against us" and "Support _our_ troops".

Do you recall those?

Sounds like you're a Liberal... :)

Oh, wait, you're a Republican?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sobobx says:
GET OUT OF THAT DUMP NOW!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
usunus says:
The horrid price the U.S is paying to maintain the myth that Afghanistan is secure for the American soldiers.
reply
See all 35 Comments