Reply With QuoteThe same can be said of the UK.
U.S. not reporting all Afghan attacks on American and other foreign troops
WASHINGTON — The military is under-reporting the number of times that Afghan soldiers and police open fire on American and other foreign troops.
The U.S.-led coalition routinely reports each time an American or other foreign soldier is killed by an Afghan in uniform. But The Associated Press has learned it does not report insider attacks in which the Afghan wounds — or misses — his U.S. or allied target. It also doesn't report the wounding of troops who were attacked alongside those who were killed.
In recent weeks an Afghan soldier opened fire on a group of American soldiers but missed the group entirely. The Americans quickly shot him to death. Not a word about this was reported by the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the coalition is formally known. It was disclosed to the AP by a U.S. official who was granted anonymity in order to give a fuller picture of the "insider" problem.
ISAF also said nothing about last week's attack in which two Afghan policemen in Kandahar province fired on U.S. soldiers, wounding two. Reporters learned of it from Afghan officials and from U.S. officials in Washington. The two Afghan policemen were shot to death by the Americans present.
Just last Wednesday, an attack that killed a U.S. Army special forces soldier,
Staff Sgt. Andrew T. Brittonmihalo, 25, of Simi Valley, Calif., also wounded three other American soldiers. The death was reported by ISAF as an insider attack, but it made no mention of the wounded — or that an Afghan civilian also was killed.
The attacker was an Afghan special forces soldier who opened fire with a machine gun at a base in Kandahar province. He was killed by return fire.
That attack apparently was the first by a member of the Afghan special forces, who are more closely vetted than conventional Afghan forces and are often described by American officials as the most effective and reliable in the Afghan military.
More at then Link:
SOURCE:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-reporting-afghan-attacks-american-foreign-troops-article-1.1070174
So now we aren’t getting the truth from the administration about the attacks on our people.
The same can be said of the UK.
And any other administration.Originally Posted by wotsnext
Yes, I'm sure, tough when one gets their legs blown off and its not deemed news worthy.
After 11 years the societies get used to it. Sad but true.
We wouldn't want to make our "allies" look bad now would we?This is BS, and it's not the first time I've heard about it. It's sh*t like this that pisses me off.
I also saw this and I have friends currently in the AOR. I get frustrated at the whole mess.
Me too. I'd like to say we should just get out now. I just heard on the radio that Obama is signing a deal with Karzai (within the last few hours) that will guarantee a US presence for a long time after combat troops pull out... What KINDS of presence is going to be in that plan?
Not really. The Danish military brings updates about even the most insignificant shoot & scoot episodes.
This is from the latest update:
Thursday 5th april, a Danish tank was fired upon by small arms fire while it was supporting the Afghan Army in the northern part of Gereskh Valley. The tank platoon did not fire back.
http://forsvaret.dk/HOK/Internationa...april2012.aspxTorsdag den 5. april blev en dansk kampvogn beskudt med håndvåben mens de støttede den afghanske hær i den nordlige del af Gereshk Valley. Kampvognsdelingen besvarer ikke ilden.
Great point and who would want to be that presence? You would be a target that all.
A presence is good, otherwise it really was all for not. The entire point of being there boils down to increasing influence in the region.
Seems to be quite the bloodied month.
http://www.unknownsoldiersblog.com/2...-than-day.html
x2. Strategically it's worthwhile. I always shrugged at those who demanded an immediate full force pull out, really makes no sense.
Not sure why they are not reporting attacks like they typically do. Wasn't it the deadliest or one of the deadliest months for coalition troops as well... ?
Some people like to keep informed about the events unfolding overseas.
The conflict is written off and a pullout imminent.
What will happen is that the US will guarantee Karsai a certain (and significant) amount of money to provide security and he'll do that with a combination of semi-earnest security measures (for his own security primarily) and a program of paying the right people. The US will keep a base there (whether labeled as a base or not) and carry out occasional missions as need be. US companies will invest into raw material development and employ contractors for security.
I personally do not believe that the Taliban will just take over when the US and ISAF leave. They may even go quiet under the right conditions, i.e. money and a guarantee to be left alone in certain areas.
Posting Permissions
