Afghanistan police officer kills 2 U.S. troops in latest "green-on-blue" attack
U.S. Marines and Afghan local policemen (ALP) during a training session at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Jackson in Sangin, Helmand province, June 6, 2012. / Getty
(CBS News) LONDON - Two U.S. troops were killed in the western Afghan province of Farah when an Afghan Local Police officer turned his gun on them, one of two so-called green-on-blue attacks to hit NATO forces Friday amid a dramatic escalation of the incidents during the last year.
The police officer was shot and killed, according to NATO, which said an investigation was underway. Local sources told the Associated Press that the shooter had been recruited to the Afghan Local Police - a network of regional militias backed by the international military alliance and trained largely by NATO forces - just five days ago.
In the second attack on Friday, a member of the Afghan security forces shot and wounded two foreign troops in the southern Kandahar province, coalition spokesman Brig. Gen. Gunter Katz tells CBS News reporter Kitty Logan. Katz said the shooter was in custody, but could provide no further details on the incident.
With Friday's attacks, Afghan security forces working in partnership with Western troops have now turned weapons on their allies 31 times in 2012. At least 39 coalition forces have been killed in green-on-blue attacks this year, according to the Pentagon, including 25 Americans.
There were two separate green-on-blue attacks last Friday, also, which left six American troops dead.
Taliban claims infiltration of Afghan forces
3 U.S. troops dead in 2nd "green-on-blue" attack
"Green on blue" attacks a growing problem
The shooting comes one day after a statement released by the head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar, claiming that militants had successfully infiltrated Afghan security forces to carry out such attacks.
"Thanks to the infiltration of the Mujahideen (holy warriors), they are able to (safely) enter bases, offices and intelligence centers of the enemy," claimed Omar in the statement, released to mark the Islamic holiday of Eid al Fitr, the end of the holy month of Ramadan.The Taliban often claim responsibility for green-on-blue attacks, but the U.S. Defense Department maintains the attacks are not generally not carried out by insurgents, but rather individual members of the Afghan security forces who may develop a grudge against their Western allies.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced earlier this week that new counter-intelligence measures had been adopted during the past year to try and prevent the green-on-blue attacks. While he acknowledged that some of the incidents have been connected to insurgent groups, he insisted that the vast majority of the attacks appear to be carried out by people with no known links to, or coordination with, the Taliban or other militant organizations.
Even the Taliban leader conceded in his written statement that not all of the attacks were carried out by his militants, but he expressed his appreciation to the "conscious Afghans in the rank and files of the enemy," some of whom, he claimed, had gone on to "join the ranks of Mujahideen, carrying their heavy and light weapons and ammunition."
U.S. military officials note that the majority of the attackers in green-on-blue incidents are actually killed or captured soon after they turn their weapons on their colleagues.
In conjunction with Afghan commanders, the U.S. has used an eight-point vetting process to try and identify and exclude Afghan recruits who pose a threat, but neither Panetta nor other U.S. commanders have elaborated on what news steps are being taken to confront the problem.
The number of international forces killed in green-on-blue attacks in 2012 has already surpassed the toll from 2011, when 35 Western forces were killed.
CBS News correspondent David Martin reported earlier in August that about 84,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, along with 40,000 from other NATO countries - all working with 332,000 Afghan army and police personnel to try and defeat an enemy which numbers at just 20,000, according to estimates.
Those numbers will change as the U.S. draws down its forces to 68,000 by October, in line with the Pentagon's plans, but Martin notes that the Americans who stay in the country will remain vulnerable to the insider attacks.
Operating side-by-side with Afghan forces is the linchpin of the American strategy in Afghanistan, says Martin, giving them the support they need to take over the fighting so U.S. troops can come home.
The trust between American forces and the Afghan police and soldiers they are training and supporting has been dealt such a blow by the green-on-blue attacks that the Pentagon instituted a "guardian angel" program early this year, whereby members of U.S. military units are picked to watch their fellow troops' backs as they eat, sleep or patrol with Afghan counterparts.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
One year after Afghan massacre, villagers work with U.S. troops One year after U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians, the villagers in the town where the atrocity took place have joined the U.S. special forces stationed there to assist in the fight against the Taliban.
- 50th Paris Air Show 13 Photos
- Widespread protests in Brazil 23 Photos
- Italy top court cites "erotic game" hypothesis in Knox case 84 Comments
- Torrential rain devastates Northern India 15 Photos
- Protesters clash with Brazil police in Sao Paulo
- Egypt and Ethiopia try to roll back threats of war
- One of FBI's Ten Most Wanted nabbed in Mexico
- Basement living in China 6 Photos
* 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. 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.
AfPak Mission on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
AfPak military strategy blog
http://peterdow.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/afghanistan-pakistan-afpak-military-strategy-and-the-war-on-terror-15-2/
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).
Quote:
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)?
This should be a clear sign that there is an infiltration and maybe at an upper level in the Afghan ranks.
Two killed today.
Thirty-eight suicides in July for the Army alone.
But people would rather rally for the support of three russian brats who desecrated an Orthodox cathedral.
Tell me this sacrifice wasn't in vain.
Can't wait to see what President Romney will get us into. After all, Romney is getting $100 Million from a casino owner to make sure the USA supports whatever Israel does.
Hey, so we go to war with Iran and lose a few thousand American lives,,,,BFD.