Posted on 12/28/2012 11:11:11 AM PST by Kaslin
Early in 2012, I opened a column with this question: "Is there a single public official who is examining -- who cares about -- the murder spree by Afghan security forces against Western troops and security contractors in Afghanistan?"
Nearly one year has passed, during which 62 Americans and other Westerners have been killed by Afghan forces "inside the wire." The president has yet to call for "meaningful change"; in fact, he has said nothing about it. The Congress has said nothing about it. During the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said nothing about it. Such silence is a national disgrace, but it's an answer to my question. No. They don't care. Not about the men. Not about their families. What they care about is the storyline -- the fraud that has kept the national arteries to Afghanistan open, fueling the American-led "counterinsurgency" fantasy that an ally, heart-and-mind, exists in the umma (Islamic world), if only Uncle Sam can mold it and bribe it and train it into viability.
But this trail of blood shed by our men -- fathers, husbands, brothers, friends -- leads in another direction. If We, the People, were to follow it, drop by drop, we would begin to understand there is no ally, no "partner" in Afghanistan, no matter how hard our leadership lies to us. We would see for ourselves that the difference between the "extremists" and the "moderates" in a sharia-supreme culture is ultimately inconsequential, and that the gulf between Islam and the West is too deep to plumb without losing ourselves in the process. If we were to keep following this trail of blood, we would even conclude that our leaders, from President Bush to President Obama, have been wrong, criminally, recklessly wrong, ever since 9/11/01, when they began doing everything possible to deny the centrality of jihad in Islam even while sending America and her allies to combat jihad in the Islamic world.
Silence, thus, becomes the way our leaders can keep both their delusional ideology intact and their places in power secure. Deflection, too. In March 2012, a month in which three Afghan attacks took the live of two British soldiers and three Americans, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey deemed such shootings as "additional risk" necessary for "national security." In April, he would order all branches of the military and the service academies to scrub any training materials deemed "disrespectful of Islam" -- another blow to the study of jihad. In August 2012, midway through a month in which 12 American and three Australian forces would be killed in seven "insider attacks," Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen actually offered excuses for the murders -- the strain of Ramadan fasting, summer heat and fast operational tempo. The following month, after four Americans and two British troops were killed in two separate shootings, Obama campaign adviser and former senior Pentagon official Michele Flournoy minimized the attacks as a "very occasional" problem and a sign of "Taliban desperation."
"It's very tragic and it's very upsetting when these things happen," said Flournoy, who is currently touted as a possible nominee for secretary of defense. "But they are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage of the overall interactions that are happening." This argument echoed the NATO line as expressed by spokesman and German Brigadier Gen. Gunter Katz. "Yes, we had 27 very tragic incidents," Katz said in August, about a dozen very tragic incidents ago. "We take them very, very seriously. But we must not forget that on the other side we still got almost 500,000 soldiers and policemen who work together, as we speak right now actually, in order to crush the insurgency and fight for more stability and security here in this country."
A tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage? Let's think about that. Out of those 500,000 security forces in Afghanistan, about 100,000 are non-Afghans and thus potential "green on blue" murder victims. (About 68,000 forces are American). One military source estimates that of these same 100,000 forces, probably about 25,000 war-fighters and other personnel actually assume the roles of trainers and partners to Afghan security forces. Thus, a more realistic way to think about these often weekly shootings is to consider that 62 Westerners from a pool of 25,000 were killed by their Afghan partners and trainees in 2012.
It's also important to remember that these are not battlefield deaths. They are mess hall, gymnasium and barracks deaths -- murders inside the community. It is not an unreasonable stretch, then, to compare the 25,000 partners and trainers among the larger group of 500,000 forces to a population of 25,000 university students among a larger community of 500,000 people. Imagine how 62 murders in a school year, even spread across a large state-wide university system, would strike us -- not as a "tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percentage," and, given the official silence, not taken seriously at all.
It should be the Scandal of 2013.
IIRC, Pete King said something.
Yes, it should be a scandal, but is not at this point in time.
I wonder...how much money the power players in Chicago are making off the poppy fields in Afghanistan?
Perhaps what is being done, is considered classified and being taken care of by the military?
He sure did
“Is there a single public official who is examining — who cares about — the murder spree by Afghan security forces against Western troops and security contractors in Afghanistan?”
.
You want somebody to care? Send Piers Morgan.
Good question
Since we have made F ghanistan the number one worldwide leader in (heroin) production you KNOW they are raking it in.
That lunatic needs to be deported. Afghanistan sounds like the perfect place
We haven’t fought a war since 1945 the way it needs to be fought.
Was there ever a real objective to the war in Afghanistan? Ostensibly it was about getting Bin Laden, but you don’t send an army to get one man. The politicians and policy wonks in Washington had fantasies about turning Afghanistan into a western style democracy, and it failed miserably. Now, nobody wants to admit that it was a mistake from the beginning. All those lives lost, for what?
Conservatives don’t want to admit that Bush and his advisers made the decision that has led to nothing but misery and loss. My heart goes out to the families of those who were maimed or killed in this misadventure.
Obama doesn’t care if troops are dying there. He will keep them there until there is a political reason to bring them home. After we leave, the place will look the same as it did before we invaded, maybe worse.
Obama is keeping Americans in combat in Afghanistan because it is doing the same thing to America that it did to Russia.
Obama, America’s first Muslim President, is doing everything he can to destroy the country.
Obamacare-drive up prices and destroy healtcare
Energy policy: Keep buying from overseas sending $Billions to terrorist countries
Arab Spring: Overthrow government that have been at peace with the west and replace them with terrorists
Egypt- Muslim Brotherhood in control
Libya- Terrorists are working to control the country
Iraq- US troops removed and terrorist attacks are way up
Syria- Obama wants to overthrow the government to give radicals control
Iran- Has made no effort to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
All of these things are exactly what a Muslim terrorist would do if he wanted to destroy the country. He can’t be too obvious or even Joe Six Pack might figure out who he is. Americans are the biggest fools in history.
Bin Laden was always a separate mission. Afghanistan was primarily about removing the radical Islamic Taliban from power and by default removing the safe haven and training ground for terrorists that Afghanistan under the Taliban provided.
The Kenyan Marxist now openly supports radical Islamists region wide and as well allows the Taliban a seat at the table and negotiates with them regarding the ordered retreat of his homosexual sex military.
“Afghanistan was primarily about removing the radical Islamic Taliban from power and by default removing the safe haven and training ground for terrorists that Afghanistan under the Taliban provided.”
Well, that didn’t work out too well. It’s ludicrous to think it would have worked when all the terrorists had to do was to slip through the porous border with Pakistan and find safe havens in any number of other Islamic countries.
What the US did initially worked much better - bomb those mountains flat and use special ops and CIA. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq were the dumbest military moves since Custer decided it would be a good idea to pimp with a few Indians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.