Bomber Kills 11 In Afghan Police Station

Suicide Attacker In Cop Uniform Got Into Headquarters In Southern Helmand Province

(CBS/AP)  A suicide bomber in a police uniform detonated explosives he was carrying inside a police headquarters in southern Afghanistan on Monday, killing 11 people and wounding 29 others, the Interior Ministry said.

The bombing followed a surge in violence in Afghanistan over the weekend that led to the deaths of eight foreign troops, including four Americans.

The bomber Monday set off his explosives after slipping inside the main police building in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, while the police were exercising, said Asadullah Sherzad, the provincial police chief.

The attack killed nine police and two civilians and wounded 29 others, mostly police, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

The attack is most likely the work of Taliban militants, who regularly use suicide bombers in their attacks against Afghan and foreign forces in the country.

In a separate incident Monday, CBS News' Fazul Rahim reports that another suicide bomber tried to enter the police headquarters of Delaram district, in the neighboring Farah province, but was shot dead before he could enter the building. The bomb he was carrying exploded and killed one police officer, according to Interior Ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashari.

Afghanistan's lightly armed police force has suffered greatly in Taliban attacks, with more than 800 officers killed in 2008 alone.

Southern Afghanistan is the center of the Taliban insurgency. The U.S. is sending thousands of new troops to the south this year to try to reverse Taliban gains. The Islamic militants have made a violent comeback the last three years following an apparent initial defeat after the 2001 U.S. invasion.

Violence has also increased along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan, a mountainous region believed to be home to many Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

As many as 50 militants attacked a terminal for trucks carrying supplies to U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan early Monday, in the second such assault in northwest Pakistan in two days. (Damaged military hardware from the attack seen at left.)

Increasing Taliban attacks have raised doubts about the reliability of critical supply routes through Pakistan, prompting the U.S. and NATO to seek alternatives.

The assailants attacked the al-Fasil terminal early Monday, outnumbering security guards and throwing gasoline over 10 container trucks carrying supplies and setting off explosions, said guard Janab-e-aali. There were no reports of injuries or deaths.

"They disarmed all the guards and warned us not to be smart, they snatched our weapons too," the guard said.

It was unclear if the torched supplies were destined for foreign troops in Afghanistan or for the Western-backed Afghan army, which uses similar imported equipment.

On Sunday, attackers at another terminal in the city burned about 20 vehicles, including several Humvees.

Afghan-based U.S. and NATO forces get up to 75 percent of their supplies via routes through Pakistan.

Meanwhile, attacks in Helmand over the weekend killed three British troops, while a roadside bomb in the east Sunday killed four U.S. troops. A French soldier was also killed in a clash on Saturday, making the weekend one of the deadliest two-day periods for international troops in weeks.

The spike in violence is an early indication that roadside bombs and other ambushes are likely to surge as some 17,000 U.S. forces arrive in Afghanistan this year to bolster the record 38,000 Americans already in the country.

[noloyalisti]

Afghanistan is Arabic for Vietnam. Just like Iraq. No one has ever successfully conquered Afghanistan and no one ever will.

[promaclaura]

Felons destroy Police Stations. His syndicate is guilty of serious sexual offenses. Criminals commonly perpetrate forcible rape, child pornography, frequenting kiddie prostitutes, and commit narcotics-induced assaults on women. Kabul should not tolerate flagrant violations of the law. They must request technology from NATO to thwart these abominations.
Posted by sean1z at 9:06 AM : Mar 16, 2009

It's too bad NATO cannot recognize the felons easily. The Afghans can, but their own people keep blowing them up. I'd like to believe technology is the answer, because I'm not sure NATO "boots on the ground" is ever going to be the answer.

[promaclaura]

Pakistan was always THE problem. The Taliban, after all was born in Pakistan. Your defense of the Bush administration by likening the Obama administration's policies toward Afghanistan/Pakistan to Bush's is funny. Hahahaha.

The fact remains that Bush put Afghanistan/Pakistan on the back burner to invade Iraq. I maintain that the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan would not have spiraled out of control if not for GW's invasion of Iraq.
Posted by gravyboat63 at 7:00 AM : Mar 16, 2009

I still think that Afghanistan would not be a "done deal" even if Bush hadn't went into Iraq. We still would have had to maintain a size-able force at the border to keep the Taliban out, this scenario just insures we would be there for decades due to no resolutions concerning Pakistan.

The way I look at is that we could have poured gobs of money into Afghanistan, modernized it, investing all our treasure, then to our dismay Pakistan/Taliban keep on coming from Pakistan to knock it all down again.

I'm glad you said you think Pakistan is the problem too. Also, I'm not trying to compare Prez. Obama with Bush to "get him", I think that they are seeing the reality of what can and cannot be accomplished in Afghanistan and proceeding cautiously. I probably would be harder on Obama if he had just threw a bunch of troops in Afghanistan saying that it was all we needed to do to come home, I don't think this is true, so I'm glad they have mentioned that we can't fix Afghanistan financially and that a "surge-style" approach wasn't going to work either. I actually feel sorry for any Prez. dealing with this scenario as their doesn't seem to be a "win" on the horizon, ever.

[DAV4567]

The bombers keep killing themselves it seems in some cases, hopefully they eventually take themselves out completely!!


http://www.TheCommentDepot.com

[sean1z]

Felons destroy Police Stations. His syndicate is guilty of serious sexual offenses. Criminals commonly perpetrate forcible rape, child pornography, frequenting kiddie prostitutes, and commit narcotics-induced assaults on women. Kabul should not tolerate flagrant violations of the law. They must request technology from NATO to thwart these abominations.

[Questionews]

Nay, you give it up and pull Bush out of your rear-end while you're at it since YOU are so immersed in him (much more than I've ever been). Read your posts, it's always about Bush for you. My main point involves Bush, but he's not the main thrust for me, like he is for you. I would argue that Bush should have entered into Pakistan to try and irradicate the Taliban that fled there, he didn't trying to win an ally in Pakistan. We did get some high profile al qaeda, but Pakistan failed to help us at the border and THAT HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM SINCE 2001.
Posted by promaclaura at 6:16 AM : Mar 16, 2009

I'm no Bush fan & have slammed him often for his stupidity, but floydzepp and some others really do have a psychotic obsessions with this guy. No matter how unrelated the topic they goes to great lengths to show just how bad thier obsessions are. One can easily imagine they sitting in a dark room for hours on end flipping the light switch on & off repeatedly mumbling Bush...Bush....Bush.....Bush.
The dingbat is back in Texas chugging whiskey, snorting coke
& sitting on his porch shooting jackrabbits with a pellet gun. It's time to pay attention to the guy currently driving the car. Although for some it's always about looking in the rear view mirror.

[promaclaura]

PAKISTAN IS STILL A PROBLEM.
Posted by promaclaura at 4:24 AM : Mar 16, 2009
----------

Give it up. Your hero Bush LOVED Pakistan for exacrly what it was......nice try.
Posted by floydzepp at 5:18 AM : Mar 16, 2009


I might add that you could have agreed with me that PAKISTAN IS STILL THE PROBLEM, because it is to anyone that isn't blinded by "Get Bush" syndrome. No, you had to make it about Bush once again, because your goal is ALL ABOUT GETTING BUSH. I laugh at you because you try to pretend you're above all the other Bush morons, but you're not with glaring immaturity and Bush Blinders glued to your mindset.

[promaclaura]

PAKISTAN IS STILL A PROBLEM.
Posted by promaclaura at 4:24 AM : Mar 16, 2009
----------

Give it up. Your hero Bush LOVED Pakistan for exacrly what it was......nice try.
Posted by floydzepp at 5:18 AM : Mar 16, 200

Nay, you give it up and pull Bush out of your rear-end while you're at it since YOU are so immersed in him (much more than I've ever been). Read your posts, it's always about Bush for you. My main point involves Bush, but he's not the main thrust for me, like he is for you. I would argue that Bush should have entered into Pakistan to try and irradicate the Taliban that fled there, he didn't trying to win an ally in Pakistan. We did get some high profile al qaeda, but Pakistan failed to help us at the border and THAT HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM SINCE 2001.

[promaclaura]

the Islamic militants made a comeback following their initial defeat in 2001.

-Interesting wording for CBS, "initial defeat in 2001" means the ball wasn't dropped by the Bush Administration, defeat being the key word. Yes, they've re-surged out of Pakistan where they've been protected, but they were defeated in Afghanistan. Only a large U.S. presence indefinitely stationed at the border would have kept them in Pakistan, in other words a substantial occupation with no end in sight. Our current President and his Defense Secretary have stated we can't build their society as it's a money pit with little modernization and that a "surge-style" counter insurgency is not feasible either. So that means we clean them out again and lo and behold, PAKISTAN IS STILL A PROBLEM.

[promaclaura]

NATO needs peace treaties with every militant organization who espouses morality, but disagrees politically. They do not accept Israel, NATO occupation, and American oil dependence on the Middle East. It makes better sense to work out the differences with those demanding law and order in the region. Other Militants who engage in felonious activity must be punished by Kabul or Islamabad.
Posted by sean1z at 2:50 AM : Mar 16, 2009

It's pretty hard to separate these guys into groups, especially when they sneak in and blow up their own law and order. Did you see in the article that 800 police officers were killed in 2008 by the Taliban. Jeez, if they want us to leave they shouldn't be taking out the NATO trained police, it's sort of like shooting yourself in the foot. So who is going to punish the militants, when they won't even allow a police force for their people?