When I respond, or seek responses, I think of the Internet Republic and the people [[whump]] and the places who have made our water world Eden brave and free and fair. Permitted, required, and impossible. Stand alone or stand with, whose choice to what degree [[Thn/]] O[[thn/]]ne water world Eden under "We the people" – created by whom?

“Anyone who uses tough and derogatory language will get a similar reaction,”

Afghan Attacks on Allied Troops Prompt NATO to Shift Policy
Published: August 18, 2012

Single Page

KABUL, Afghanistan — After months of military leaders’ attempts to tamp down worries over the killings of American and NATO troops by the Afghan forces serving beside them, Gen. John R. Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, called an urgent meeting of his generals last Wednesday to address the escalating death toll.

Two Americans Killed by Afghan Recruit (August 18, 2012)

World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

In a room crowded with more than 40 commanders, the general underscored the need to quickly stop the bloodletting that is sapping morale, according to NATO officials, part of a new emphasis on protecting American and NATO forces after a spate of attacks that included the killing of six Marine trainers this month.

In one of a series of recent steps, the military decreed that American and NATO service members should always carry a loaded magazine in their weapons, to save precious moments if attacked by Afghan forces. Another initiative, now a priority, is a program named “Guardian Angel” that calls for one or two soldiers to monitor the Afghans during every mission or meeting, officials say.

The “angels,” whose identities are not disclosed to the Afghans, must be prepared to fire on anyone who tries to kill a coalition service member.

The military has also analyzed the attacks. But the results have been worrisome. Only a handful of the 31 attacks this year have clearly been a result of Taliban activity like infiltration. That suggests a level of malaise or anger within the Afghan forces that could complicate NATO’s training program, which relies on trust and cooperation.

The stepped-up efforts to stop the attacks are indications of how destabilizing the deaths of coalition troops at the hands of Afghan colleagues have become, and how much of a threat they pose to the transfer of control to the Afghans when NATO is set to leave in 2014.

They also come at a politically delicate time, just months before the presidential election in the United States and amid increasingly vocal complaints from outraged parents of dead Marines and soldiers that could diminish support for what is already an unpopular war back home.

It remains to be seen if the new measures will make a substantial difference; the attacks have continued despite earlier protections put in place. Just two days after General Allen’s emergency session, there were two more assaults, which left two Special Forces trainers dead and two other American soldiers wounded.

“Regrettably, there will be more setbacks along the way,” General Allen said through a spokesman on Saturday, “but our resolve is fierce, and our commitment to this fight is total.”

But even the new emphasis on stopping the killings carries risks: introducing more barriers between NATO forces and the Afghan soldiers and police officers they are training runs the risk of worsening cultural and personal clashes that have led to some killings.

“We have to have a balancing act between protecting our soldiers and not offending the Afghans we are partnering with,” said Col. Thomas W. Collins, the director of public affairs for the American-led NATO coalition in Kabul.

The catalyst for the latest efforts to protect coalition forces was the attacks on Aug. 10 in Helmand Province that one military official called “game changing.”

Shortly after midnight in Sangin, where Marine Special Operations troops met with the Afghan local police they worked with, an Afghan wearing a National Police uniform opened fire, killing three of the Marines. Hours later, a boy who worked as a tea server at a base a hundred miles to the south sprayed machine-gun fire inside a makeshift gymnasium, killing three other Marine trainers.

What was most alarming to some officials was that all of the casualties in Helmand involved military trainers and not conventional infantry, typically the targets of such attacks. Because they were thought to have closer relationships with the Afghans, the trainers were believed to be safer.

“Wherever someone is from, they cannot tolerate negligence and degradation of their country’s sanctity,” said Alaudin, an Afghan soldier in Khost Province. Anyone who trains Afghan forces and “uses tough and derogatory language will get a similar reaction,” he said. Those who say “the Taliban infiltrated in the army” and are behind the attacks, he said, are “totally wrong.”

Sayed Rahman, a commander in Kunar Province, blames many attacks on soldiers from rural areas whose customs clash deeply with those of their American mentors.


Next Page »

Reporting was contributed by Jawad Sukhanyar and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul; an Afghan employee of The New York Times from Khost Province, Afghanistan; and Matthew Rosenberg from Washington.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: