0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
American and Afghan officials are expanding the range of explanations for a surge in "insider attacks" on U.S. troops, adding on Wednesday the theory that the burden of fasting during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan combined with the summer heat may have prompted more Afghan soldiers and police to turn their guns on their American partners.Whatever the underlying reasons, the attacks are taking a toll and raising questions about the risk of American and other coalition troops working side by side with Afghan troops as advisers, mentors and trainers. The close contact is an essential element of the U.S. strategy for putting the Afghans in the lead combat role as the U.S. prepares to pull out its last combat troops at the end of 2014.The top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John R. Allen, said Thursday that while the reasons for the killings are not fully understood, the effect of Ramadan fasting is likely among the causes."The idea that they will fast during the day places great strain on them," Allen said, adding that the stress may have been compounded by Ramadan falling during the heat of summer and the height of the fighting season. He acknowledged that hunger and heat are not the primary causes for the killings, but it is among many "different and complex reasons for why we think this may have increased" lately.He also cited Taliban infiltration of Afghan security forces and personal Afghan grievances against U.S. troops, who Afghans have in some cases accused of being brutish and insensitive to local culture and customs.Insider attacks have been a problem for the U.S.-led military coalition for years, but it has exploded recently into a crisis. There have been at least 32 attacks so far this year, killing 40 coalition members, mostly Americans. Last year there were 21 attacks, killing 35; and in 2010 there were 11 attacks with 20 deaths.Allen acknowledged that U.S. and Afghan officials have struggled to determine what's behind the rise in attacks. For months U.S. officials said the Taliban were to blame in some cases, but that most of the shootings were triggered by personal grievances against American and coalition troops by Afghan soldiers and police.In many cases — possibly 40 percent — no reason can be determined - P. , according to a U.S. defense official who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.The uncertainty reflects, in part, the fact that most of the shooters are either killed on the spot by return fire or they escape and remain at large. And even when they are captured, U.S. officials say, some shooters offer no coherent explanation. That was the case when an Afghan soldier shot Marine Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus of Greenville, Miss., on Jan. 31 at their joint base in Helmand province. No clear motive was ever established, officials said.Allen said U.S. officials believe that about 25 percent of the shootings can be linked to the Taliban, either through impersonation of an Afghan security force member or through coercing or radicalizing him. Pentagon officials said Allen was referring to 25 percent of cases dating back to 2007. They said only about 10 percent of attacks in 2012 can be blamed on Taliban infiltration.... Prior to its start this summer {Ramadan - P.}, U.S. officials made no mention, at least publicly, of its potential to raise the security risk for U.S. and other coalition troops working alongside their Afghan counterparts.Allen said U.S. officials took precautions during Ramadan and will review what adjustments should be made in the future."We were very careful, actually, during Ramadan this year to undertake operations during those times that would not place great physical strain on the troops — their troops, as well as ours— given the partnership requirements," he said.Mark Jacobsen, a defense specialist at the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. and a former senior NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan, said Allen's theory about the role of Ramadan in the insider attacks is "very reasonable."
The U.S. Army has issued a pocket reference guide – ”Inside the Wire Threats – Afghanistan Green on Blue” – to help troops protect themselves from the increasingly common phenomenon of attacks from Afghans who are supposed to be allies. Men in the Afghan military and police force suddenly turn on and murder the Americans who are training them; there have been eight such attacks in just the last three weeks, and they are growing more frequent. The Army’s recommendations revolve around the central premise that such attacks are the U.S.’s fault.According to Truthout.org, Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan General John Allen “recently ordered U.S. forces to carry loaded weapons ‘around the clock’ following the recent spate of ‘green on blue’ attacks.” That they weren’t already doing so is insane, but true. According to Truthout, the pocket guide stipulates: “If U.S. soldiers are unarmed during a ‘green on blue’ attack they should ‘execute rehearsed actions on contact,’ and ‘have an escape route and plan in mind — hopefully two.’” They would be unarmed, of course, to show good will towards the Afghans. The fact that these instructions need to be included in the guide illustrate how these gestures of good will are all too often returned.Further, the pocket guide states that American troops can try to prevent their gestures of good will from being answered with murderous rage by establishing a “bond of trust” with their Afghan counterparts. They can do this by being careful to “avoid arrogance, i.e., belief that ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] culture is superior to Afghan culture.” American military personnel must always “maintain professionalism, respect, and dignity of ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] officers and soldiers.” This respect includes avoiding “public rebukes” of Afghan soldiers, and always demonstrating respect for “Islam, Koran or a mosque,” as well as “Afghan women, elders and children.”It tells troops to apologize and to offer “compensation” if they anger the Afghans in some way.What if American soldiers do not labor assiduously at establishing a “bond of trust” with their Afghan counterparts? What if they do demonstrate “arrogance,” perhaps even disapproving of the poisoning of girls who dare to go to school, or the honor killing of women, or the jihad/martyrdom suicide bombing, or the execution of adulteresses, or the beheading of converts out of Islam? What if the ANSF forces who witness this arrogance consider it a lack of respect and an affront to their dignity? What if the Americans even go so far as to point out the Koran’s verses mandating warfare against unbelievers and the subjugation of women? Would that constitute an arrogance and lack of respect for Islam so intolerable as to warrant a green-on-blue attack?By focusing on what the Americans must do in order to forestall such attacks, the guide leaves the unmistakable impression that such attacks are triggered by American behavior. The message: if the Americans were just a bit less arrogant, a bit more respectful, then all would be well. The pocket guide thus engages in the same patronizing of Muslims that characterizes so much of today’s discourse: Muslims are never responsible for their actions but are only passive reactors to the actions of the big bad West, which carries all the responsibility. It’s striking how ethnocentric these people who profess to believe in the equality of all cultures really are.The denial, dhimmitude, and subservience of the pocket guide are drearily familiar. Last February, General Allen issued a notoriously weak, pusillanimous video repeating abject apologies to “the noble people of Afghanistan” for the burning of Qur’ans that had been used by jihadists to communicate with one another. For all his “respect for Islam” and avoidance of “arrogance,” Allen has not learned enough about Islamic culture to know that it respects strength and sees apologizing and conciliation as weakness to be despised.Just last week, Allen attributed the rise in green-on-blue attacks to the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Fasting made the Afghans tense and irritable, you see, and who wouldn’t grab a rifle and commit mass murder in such a situation? When Allen attributed the attacks to Ramadan, he obviously did not have in mind the words of Muslims in Bulgaria, who said: “Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators.”The noble people of Afghanistan couldn’t possibly think that, could they?In reality, no amount of “respect for Islam” and humility from American troops will prevent green-on-blue attacks, because the imperative for them doesn’t stem from American behavior. American troops could be the most respectful, humble, deferential people on the planet, and still Afghans would sometimes turn on their trainers and benefactors and start shooting. They are motivated to do so by Islam’s doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, which calls for war against non-Muslims simply because they are not Muslim. It does not take into account arrogance or disrespect.But since the U.S. Army prefers to pretend those doctrines don’t exist, we get ridiculous farragoes like the pocket guide. Our troops, and the American people they are ostensibly protecting while on this fool’s errand in Afghanistan, deserve better.
