After spate of "insider attacks," NATO lessens Afghan partnership

Lieutenant Jameson Bligh (R) of 1st Platoon, Delta Coy, 1-64 AR of the U.S. army - operating under NATO sponsored International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) - talks with an officer from the Afghan National Police, near Kandahar Air Field on September 12, 2012. / GettyImages

(CBS/AP) KABUL, Afghanistan - NATO says it has scaled back operations with Afghan soldiers and policemen to lower the risk of insider attacks and reduce local tensions over an anti-Islam film that prompted protests in Afghanistan.

So far this year, 51 international troops have been killed by Afghan forces or militants wearing their uniforms - a development that has fractured the trust between NATO troops and their Afghan allies.

Lt. Col. Rich Spiegel with the U.S.-led coalition said Monday that Lt. Gen. James Terry issued the directive on Sunday.

Until now, elements of NATO companies numbering roughly 100 soldiers routinely conducted operations - like patrolling or manning an outpost- with Afghan soldiers. NATO said such operations are no longer routine and require the approval of the regional commander.

Anti-U.S. protests linger after deadly weekend of "insider attacks" in Afghanistan
4 U.S. troops killed in Afghan "insider attack"
NATO tackles "insider attacks" with empathy push

The surge in insider attacks is a sign of how security has deteriorated as NATO prepares its military exit from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The U.S. is days away from completing the first stage of its own drawdown, withdrawing 33,000 troops that were part of a military surge three years ago. The U.S. will remain with about 68,000 troops at the end of September.

NATO and U.S. forces are working with the Afghan government to tighten vetting procedures and increase security between the forces, but nothing has so far been able to stem the attacks on troops, which NATO frequently asserts are standing "shoulder by shoulder."

[Jaylah54200]

It should be obvious to everyone that the US presence in Afghanistan is not welcome. Why anybody thinks we need to remain there (or even have invaded that country in the first place) is unfathomable to me.

For those (like UForgotPoland and Sam671) who think Afghanis are backwards or "insane", have you bothered to consider the fact that perhaps they like their lives as they are and are living that way by choice?

The idea that our system of democracy works for us (and there is mounting evidence that it doesn't) is no "proof" that it will work for anyone else.

And how likely do you think it is that we would have adopted this form of government had it been forced upon us by an invading/occupying nation?

Our system of government is barely 200 years old, and already serious flaws are beginning to show. The idea that any culture or country that doesn't want to be just like us is "insane" is American arrogance at its worst.

[Daid132]

Are you talking of the 9-11 attacks?????

[Jaylah54200]

What an ignorant reply. No infrastructure was destroyed on September 11, 2001. Yes, a couple of buildings were entirely destroyed and several others badly damaged, but a handful of buildings are hardly our entire infrastructure. Our culture is barely 200 years old, which is a LONG way from 10,000 years. No women were raped on September 11, 2001, and no children were tortured on September 11, 2001. At least not by the terrorists during the attack. No books were burned on September 11, 2001. And no corpses were urinated on during the attack of September 11, 2001.

I'm not excusing acts of terror. But to equate the two things just shows incredible ignorance.