Xtra News Community 2
March 30, 2024, 01:16:13 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

AFGHANISTAN

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: AFGHANISTAN  (Read 11776 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #225 on: March 14, 2013, 06:24:36 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Moving mountains of war gear home from Afghanistan

Major General Kurt Stein has to figure out how to move $48-billion worth of
war gear back home from landlocked, mountainous and war-torn Afghanistan.


By DAID ZUCCHINO | 5:59P - Wednesday, Marth 13, 2013

Bringing billions of dollars' worth of military gear back from Afghanistan poses a logistical challenge. — Photo: Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press/March 11th, 2013.
Bringing billions of dollars' worth of military gear back from Afghanistan poses a logistical challenge.
 — Photo: Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press/March 11th, 2013.


FORT BRAGG, North Carolina — For the last 11 years, the U.S. military has stuffed bases in Afghanistan with Humvees and bullets, radios and radars, armored vehicles and surveillance balloons. Army Major General Kurt Stein has less than two years to move $48-billion worth of weapons, gear and equipment back home.

Before U.S. combat troops leave at the end of 2014, Stein has to figure out how to transport 35,000 vehicles, 95,000 shipping containers and mountains of other war materiel out of a landlocked, mountainous country in the middle of a war.

It's not the first monumental moving job for Stein, 54, a burly former enlisted man with 37 years experience in military logistics. He was a top commander of the massive effort to move gear and equipment out of Iraq two years ago.

"Hard but not that hard," Stein said of moving tons of materiel on paved Iraqi highways into relatively safe and orderly Kuwait. "Afghanistan? Big difference. We don't have the road networks or the ports."

There's one more thing: Stein doesn't know how much stuff to leave behind, if any, because he doesn't know how many troops will remain after 2014, if any. That is still being negotiated by the U.S. and Afghanistan, with a target date of November 2013.

"All we can do now is get after what we know today," he said. The rest, he said, "depends on the end state, which we certainly don't know."

Stein estimates moving the materiel will cost taxpayers about $6 billion. The job is being tackled by more than 86,000 people, military and civilian, under his command.

Stein is technically deployed to Afghanistan, but he commutes to Fort Bragg. Chronically jet-lagged, Stein lives on Afghan time, starting work at 4:30 a.m. at Fort Bragg to stay in sync with operations in Afghanistan. Clocks on his office wall are set to times in North Carolina, Greenwich Mean Time, Iraq and Afghanistan.

He hasn't had time to finish setting up his office here because he's usually traveling — his territory covers 6 million square miles. He took command on a Friday last June, then flew to Afghanistan the following Monday.

Until last month, Stein spent millions of extra dollars to fly out gear and equipment because Pakistan would not guarantee truck passage through the Khyber Pass to Pakistani ports. After lengthy negotiations with U.S. officials, Pakistan agreed in mid-February to allow daily ground shipments across the border, but it could still close the crossing at any time.

Trucks are carrying materiel to Pakistani ports, where it is shipped to the U.S. Separately, military aircraft and contracted civilian planes are taking some materiel to ports in Jordan, Dubai and Oman, where containers are loaded onto ships headed to U.S. ports. From there, goods are trucked to military depots and arsenals around the country.

In the meantime, Stein has to continue to pour in supplies, weapons and ammunition, plus food and water, to the 66,000 U.S. troops still manning bases and outposts in the 11-year-old war. The stuff coming in crosses paths with the stuff going out. About 1,500 vehicles and 1,000 cargo containers exit Afghanistan monthly.

U.S. forces have shut down or turned over to Afghan forces 619 bases and combat outposts, with 193 still to be handed over or dismantled. All that equipment has to go somewhere. Some — portable toilets, concrete barriers, vehicles, modular housing — is going to Afghan security forces because it costs more to ship than it's worth. Other stuff — wood and metal from temporary buildings and barriers, plus old vehicles and trailers — is being crushed and sold to Afghans as scrap.

Some of the stuff is just plain worn out and will be destroyed. "The Afghans don't want junk, either," Stein said.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-moving-afghan-20130314,0,829078.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #226 on: April 02, 2013, 10:25:44 am »


from World Politics Review....

Strategic Horizons: Iraq Today is Afghanistan Tomorrow

By STEVEN METZ | Wednesday, 27 March 2013

THE recent 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq sparked a flurry of attention. Op-eds, blogs, conferences and panels of all sorts sprouted, most dealing with the "lessons" the United States should draw from its initial decision to invade and subsequent long involvement in the country. As the lesson fest subsides, attention is shifting to Iraq's current security predicament and its relationship with the United States. Unfortunately, it is not a pretty picture.

With war raging in neighboring Syria and the Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad continuing to exclude Sunni Arabs as much as possible, al-Qaida is on the rebound in Iraq, its terrorism growing in scale. In a single day last week, more than a dozen suicide attacks and car bombs killed nearly 60 people in Baghdad's Shiite areas. Yet there is little the United States can do. As Iraq spirals downward with little sign of a political resolution to its sectarian and ethnic conflict, America's voice has "been reduced to a whimper". In the words of Saleh al-Mutlak, an Iraqi deputy prime minister, "No one thinks America has influence now in Iraq."

This matters because Iraq itself matters. But it also offers a window into the future. If everything goes exactly right, Afghanistan tomorrow may look much like Iraq today. This is a depressing thought. It certainly wasn't what Americans expected as they poured blood, money and effort into the two conflicts. No so long ago, the belief was that Iraq and Afghanistan would become stable, pro-American nations playing a major role in combating violent Islamic extremism. But unsurprisingly, things went badly wrong.

Two “big ideas” help explain why counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan don't turn out the way Americans hope or expect. One is what can be called the "partner problem." When the United States elected to become an active global power following World War II, it recognized that it could not directly apply power everywhere, so it opted for an indirect approach, strengthening partners with advice and aid. That worked in places like Europe, Latin America and Northeast Asia, where allies with effective governments shared American priorities and objectives. But it foundered where America's partners were weak or deeply flawed regimes with radically different priorities and objectives. In those places — and Iraq and Afghanistan are both examples — politics is a spoils system. The ethnic group, sect, tribe, clan or region that controls the state uses it to benefit its own narrowly defined group at the expense of all the others. Since the stakes of political competition are so high, participants go to great — and often nefarious or violent — lengths to win. Once they win, they cling to power for as long as possible. Being gracious in defeat and alternating power between competitors simply make no sense in such an environment.

Not surprisingly, this type of political system is conflict-prone since the losers have few nonviolent means to promote their interests. And those in power have little incentive to change the system since they have a vested interest in maintaining it. They may make token gestures or engineer superficial reforms to attract outside — particularly American — support, but they will not address the structural problems that generate violent opposition. In fact, some degree of violence is helpful for holding Washington's attention and keeping assistance flowing.

When the United States stumbles into a situation like this, it avoids pushing its partner too hard lest the insurgents or terrorists win. The more committed the United States is to a partner, the less leverage Washington has. American threats are not taken seriously since the partner regime knows that any U.S. president would pay a heavy price for abandoning a partner after convincing the public and Congress that supporting it was a vital national interest. Abandonment would be seen as a U.S. defeat, and the American political system does not take kindly to architects of defeat. Afghan President Hamid Karzai fully understands this and has made clear that he feels that he has more leverage over the United States than Washington has over him. Thus he can vilify Americans at will and ignore Washington's calls for deep reform of his corrupt and inept government.

The second big idea is that insurgencies seldom end as Americans expect. Americans consider counterinsurgency to be a variant of war and hence expect a clear and decisive victory. More often the government and its security forces become just effective enough to prevent an outright insurgent victory. This lowers the elites’ incentive for deep reform even further. The insurgents then hang on and play for time, undertaking enough violence to remind their enemies and supporters that they are still around and plotting a comeback. This is not hard: Terrorism doesn't require extensive public support — only a handful of fanatics and a modest amount of money. Explosives, arms and information are easy to buy. So the losers of a large-scale insurgency can continue to bomb, raid and assassinate for a very long time.

This pattern of insincere political reform and persistent terrorism is now playing out in Iraq. Afghanistan might some day follow suit. Even if Karzai leaves power when his term of office expires in 2014, whoever follows him will invariably be cut from the same bolt of cloth and know how to use political power to fuel patronage. The faces and names might change, but the system will persist. Those excluded from the gravy train will continue to resist. In a nation with a deep martial tradition, plenty of arms and little memory of peace, resistance will be violent.

A future Afghan government, whether under Karzai, if he finds a way around constitutional barriers to re-election, or a Karzai clone, will probably control Kabul and a few other major cities. Perhaps the government will be able to maintain control of the roads that connect those cities as well as those that connect the country to its neighbors. Government corruption will remain the norm, paralyzing economic development and stoking anger. The regime will turn a blind eye to violent extremists who only target neighboring countries or the president's opponents. It will sustain a quiet working relationship with local drug lords and arms smugglers. It may make a few token reforms if that will keep American aid flowing, but it will not change Afghanistan's political, economic or social structure in any meaningful way. To do so would, from the perspective of the future regime, be stupid, even suicidal. Bombings, raids and assassinations will continue unabated. And American leverage will remain modest at best.

In the broadest sense, this is Iraq now, minus Afghanistan’s drug lords. This is not what Americans who paid a great price to help defeat the Iraqi insurgency hoped for. Sadly, however, today's Iraq is what successful counterinsurgency looks like. Perhaps tomorrow Afghanistan will look the same. This is very far from what Americans wanted but probably the best that can be expected.


Steven Metz is a defense analyst and the author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy". His weekly WPR column, Strategic Horizons, appears every Wednesday.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12824/strategic-horizons-iraq-today-is-afghanistan-tomorrow
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #227 on: April 02, 2013, 10:56:57 am »

Unfortunately, the rest of the world is also paying for Americas ill advised adventurism.
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #228 on: April 09, 2013, 12:30:09 pm »



Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #229 on: April 28, 2013, 12:29:14 pm »




Our Afghanistan embarrassment

Matt McCarten on politics

HERALD on SUNDAY | 5:30AM - Sunday, April 28, 2013

Official closing ceremony of Kiwi Base in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. — Photo: NZ Defence Force.
Official closing ceremony of Kiwi Base in Bamiyan, Afghanistan.
 — Photo: NZ Defence Force.


LAST Sunday morning I was on TVNZ as a Q+A panelist.

One of the guests was Major General Dave Gawn, the head of our army. He was asked, now we are leaving, whether our more than decade-long mission in Afghanistan was a success.

His extended pause was the answer. The best he could come up with was that he hoped the locals would remember our presence fondly after they return to their pre-invasion status. Presumably he wasn't referring to the families of the locals who died in the US-led mission.

Our original mission in invading Afghanistan was to help the US capture Osama bin Laden. On arrival, the western armies overthrew the zealot Taleban rulers and corrupt government made up of brutal warlords nominally headed by a US puppet.

Embarrassingly, after blunders by US politicians, bin Laden and his entourage decamped to Pakistan.

After bin Laden's departure, no one could think of what to do next. In lieu of any strategy, New Zealand was assigned as the occupation force in the Bamiyan province.

As propaganda, our troops built schools and hospitals as our elite SAS and killed Afghan resistance. For political cover we label them al Qaeda, although that group as a force no longer really exists in Afghanistan.

Our evacuation leaves the people of Bamiyan to the rule of the victorious Taleban, who even the most ardent supporters of the invasion acknowledge will play the key role in the post-occupation government.

As admission of our failure, we brought our military's 33 Afghan interpreters and their families to New Zealand. If we had left them behind they would have been arrested and possibly executed for collaborating with the foreign occupation. Hardly the actions of a government that believes we won over the people of Bamiyan.

It's a pity thousands of Afghans and 10 Kiwi soldiers had to die because a delusional bin Laden, a former ally of the US, financed 17 of his fellow Saudis to fly a couple of planes into the Twin Towers.

Afghanistan has parallels with Gallipoli. On Thursday, like many Kiwis, I attended an Anzac ceremony.

We want to believe the sacrifices of our soldiers mean something noble. But at Gallipoli and in Afghanistan we fell over ourselves to invade another country at the behest of a super-power. We killed peasants defending their own country. Wouldn't we defend our country in those circumstances?

Despite our superior troops and armament, we lost.

The answer to the question on whether our Afghanistan mission was a success is simple. It was not.

At Anzac services attendees are solemnly urged to remember the lessons of Gallipoli. Yeah, right.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10880130
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #230 on: May 03, 2013, 02:03:03 am »



Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #231 on: May 03, 2013, 08:07:22 am »

Matt McCarten is not naοve, but would appear so above.  To my chagrin, [I do try to avoid leftist mantra] I actually agree with the sentiments expressed in the article, but know there are many more counters on the table beyond merely jumping at the command of a superpower.

Apart from both being a disaster, to compare Afghanistan with Gallipoli is facile.  One was a facet of a major world wide conflict, the other an aspect of Americas oil wars.
I suppose both actions were promoted by an incompetent, one the First Lord of the Admiralty who had no grasp of military tactics either then or later once he regained the ability to destroy further Commonwealth soldiers in Greece, Crete and Dieppe - The other in an effort to outdo daddy and boost the fortunes of his oil companies.
[Don't mistake me, Churchill was an amazing mover of men - he just had no ability as a military tactician - but after a few of his disasters, did actually start to heed the advice of his war cabinet]
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #232 on: October 13, 2013, 03:00:00 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Talks on U.S. future in Afghanistan make headway

Karzai and Kerry report progress after their talks on the U.S. role after 2014. But the
issue of immunity for U.S. troops from local prosecution remains a key sticking point.


By PAUL RICHTER and HASHMAT BAKTASH | 7:42PM - Saturday, October 12, 2013

U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry greets Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their joint news conference after their talks in Kabul, the Afghan capital. — Photo: Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty Images/October 12th, 2013.
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry greets Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their joint news conference after
their talks in Kabul, the Afghan capital. — Photo: Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty Images/October 12th, 2013.


WASHINGTON — U.S. and Afghan officials claimed progress Saturday in long-running negotiations that will determine whether American forces remain in Afghanistan after next year, but said the key issue of immunity for U.S. troops from local prosecution remained unresolved.

After hours of talks between President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry in Kabul, the Afghan leader said the issue of which country would have jurisdiction after 2014 over any crimes committed by U.S. forces would have to be resolved by an assembly of Afghan elders and by his nation's parliament.

"It was a hard discussion," Karzai told reporters at a news conference that had been postponed three times as talks were extended. "Afghanistan had its own vision and interests, and the United States had its own vision and interests."

Kerry said the U.S. could prosecute any crimes committed by American armed forces.

"The one issue that is outstanding is the issue of jurisdiction," Kerry said as he met alongside Karzai with reporters. "We need to say that if the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved, unfortunately there cannot be a bilateral security agreement."

U.S. officials have long insisted that their troops around the world be insulated from local prosecution.

U.S. and Afghan officials said they had made progress on other issues and had a draft agreement. They face an end-of-the-month deadline for a long-term security agreement.

Karzai said the draft framework agreement included his demands for the protection of Afghan sovereignty and rules on how military operations are to be carried out on Afghan territory.

"Tonight we reached some sort of agreement," Karzai told reporters. U.S. forces "will no longer conduct operations by themselves. We have been provided written guarantee of the safety of the Afghan people. And a clear definition of ‘invasion’ was provided."

President Obama has long promised there would be at least a small residual U.S. military force in Afghanistan after 2014, and a failure to reach an agreement would be a setback after the 12-year U.S. commitment. The administration failed in its efforts to win Iraq's consent for a residual force there, leading to a U.S. troop withdrawal in December 2011.

Kerry signaled the gravity of the issue by traveling Friday to Afghanistan to meet with Karzai.

The issue of how much autonomy U.S. forces might have after 2014 was punctuated in recent days by the announcement that American troops this month had captured Latif Mehsud, a senior deputy to the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, as he traveled in eastern Afghanistan's Logar province. Afghan intelligence and security officials reportedly were not happy about the U.S. operation, saying that Mehsud was in their custody when he was forcibly taken by U.S. troops.

U.S. authorities have signed previous agreements with Afghanistan that promised close U.S.-Afghan collaboration in fighting terrorism. But Afghan officials contend that U.S. officials have not lived up to the terms.

Karzai has complained bitterly in recent days about perceived American violations of Afghan sovereignty. But Kerry has long experience in dealing with the mercurial Afghan leader, and has been unfazed by his harsh bursts of criticism of U.S. tactics.

Karzai and his weak government are dependent on American military might and cash. But he also needs to deflect the anger of Afghans about the damage and humiliation they believe are often caused by U.S. troop activities.

Also on Saturday, a suicide car bomber in a Toyota Corolla detonated his explosives at the entrance to the main police headquarters in the eastern city of Jalalabad, killing two police officers and two civilians, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, the governor's spokesman for Nangarhar province. The blast also wounded five police officers and two civilians, he said.


• L.A. Times staff writer Richter reported from Washington and special correspondent Baktash from Kabul. L.A. Times staff writer Mark Magnier in New Delhi contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-kerry-afghanistan-20131013,0,6537505.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #233 on: December 30, 2013, 03:29:21 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Insurgents could quickly bounce back in Afghanistan, analysis warns

If U.S. troops fully withdraw next year, a resurgent Taliban could launch serious
strikes within months, say officials familiar with a classified assessment.


By DAVID S. CLOUD | 6:38PM PST - Sunday, December 29, 2013

Sergeant Trevor Meysembourg of Weimar, Texas, is part of a route-clearance team working in Kunduz province in April. Security conditions in Afghanistan probably will worsen regardless of whether the U.S. keeps troops in the country, according to a new, classified assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies. — Photo: Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/April 23rd, 2013.
Sergeant Trevor Meysembourg of Weimar, Texas, is part of a route-clearance team working in Kunduz province in April. Security conditions
in Afghanistan probably will worsen regardless of whether the U.S. keeps troops in the country, according to a new, classified assessment
by U.S. intelligence agencies. — Photo: Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/April 23rd, 2013.


WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies warn in a new, classified assessment that insurgents could quickly regain control of key areas of Afghanistan and threaten the capital as soon as 2015 if American troops are fully withdrawn next year, according to two officials familiar with the findings.

The National Intelligence Estimate, which was given recently to the White House, has deeply concerned some U.S. officials. It represents the first time the intelligence community has formally warned that the Afghan government could face significantly more serious attacks in Kabul from a resurgent Taliban within months of a U.S. pullout, the officials said, speaking anonymously to discuss classified material.

The assessment also concludes that security conditions probably will worsen regardless of whether the U.S. keeps troops in the country.

"It's very pessimistic about the future, more pessimistic than ever before," said one of the officials.

The new analysis comes as the chief allied commander in Afghanistan, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., has recommended keeping 12,000 troops in the country after next year. In private discussions this month with President Obama and his top advisors, Dunford has proposed that the U.S. keep 8,000 troops in the country and that other countries contribute 4,000, according to one of the officials.

Under Dunford's plan, about one-sixth of the force — around 1,800 to 2,000 special operations troops — would be reserved for counter-terrorism operations, the official said. The rest would support, train and advise Afghan commanders, but would be barred in most cases from participating in combat except for self-defense.

Dunford warned that fewer than 12,000 troops would not be enough to carry out meaningful training of Afghan forces and counter-terrorism operations and still protect the handful of U.S. and international bases that would remain. If forced to go below 12,000, Dunford told White House advisors, he would favor withdrawing virtually all U.S. troops and keeping only a token force of several hundred, the official said.

The general's recommendation and the intelligence assessment frame a sharp debate within the Obama administration over whether the U.S. should keep some troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

The administration has sought to do so, but that course has become more uncertain in recent months as Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign an agreement that the two sides negotiated authorizing a continued troop presence.

Some White House officials have argued that the administration should be willing to accept the so-called zero option of withdrawing all troops at the end of 2014. Those favoring full withdrawal appear to have been bolstered by the intelligence assessment's conclusion that security gains achieved since 2010 in the south and east of the country are likely to significantly erode in the next three years even if the U.S. and its allies maintain a modest troop presence.

But Susan Rice, Obama's national security advisor, is said to be leaning toward Dunford's plan.

The intelligence estimate, the findings of which were first disclosed by the Washington Post, reflects a consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

Along with its other findings, the assessment warns that the U.S. ability to carry out drone strikes and other counter-terrorism operations against the remnants of Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan will probably become more constrained as political opposition to such operations grows in both countries, the officials said.

In response to questions, an administration spokesperson, who insisted on anonymity, said Obama "has not yet made any decisions about troop numbers, nor will he" without a signed agreement with Afghanistan permitting troops to remain after 2014.

"We will be weighing inputs from our military commanders, as well as the intelligence community, our diplomats and development experts as we make decisions on our post-2014 presence," the official said.

Dunford did not submit a formal dissent to the intelligence assessment, a step several of his predecessors have taken in response to past intelligence reports they regarded as overly pessimistic about Afghanistan's future, another official said.

Pentagon officials said the CIA and other intelligence agencies have long underestimated the Afghan army and police. Despite still-severe shortcomings, the Afghans have fought aggressively in some parts of the country over the last year as the U.S. has pulled back from an active combat role, they said.

Dunford's plan calls for locating most of the 8,000 U.S. troops who would remain in Afghanistan at Bagram air base, which is north of Kabul, and at Kandahar air base in the south. A small contingent would be based around Kabul, to help train Afghan forces.

Troops from other countries would be located near Mazar-i-Sharif in the north and Herat in the west, one of the officials said.

Col. David Lapan, Dunford's spokesman in Kabul, said the general had no comment on the troop plan. Spokespeople for the director of national intelligence, who coordinates intelligence estimates, and the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment.

Despite severe losses and morale problems in local units, the Taliban remains a potent force. In part, that stems from the fact that large numbers of Taliban fighters and leaders, many of them based in Pakistan, do not feel they have been decisively defeated, the intelligence assessment concluded, according to the two officials.

The Afghan government could still withstand the insurgency, said one of the officials, noting that with elections to replace Karzai scheduled for spring there probably will be a "recalibration" of the country's politics.

Keeping U.S. troops for several more years would give Afghan officials more confidence that they were not being abandoned, in addition to enabling more training and advising of Afghan commanders, supporters of that option say.

But opponents of keeping troops argue that Afghanistan's stability has become less of a concern to the U.S., because it is no longer as important a sanctuary for terrorist groups who seek to attack U.S. targets.

If Karzai refuses to sign the troop agreement, those officials insist that it is unlikely his successor will agree to do so, since signing would be seen by many Afghans as an embarrassing compromise of sovereignty.


Related news stories:

 • U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan attacked; no casualties reported

 • From MRAP to scrap: U.S. military chops up $1-million vehicles

 • Afghanistan: Three NATO troops dead in Kabul suicide attack


http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-afghanistan-20131230,0,2259163.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #234 on: December 30, 2013, 04:52:05 pm »

Quote
If U.S. troops fully withdraw next year, a resurgent Taliban could launch serious
strikes within months, say officials familiar with a classified assessment.

I don't know of anyone who has any knowledge of what has gone down in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, that doesn't expect the Taliban to resume business as usual within days - if not hours - of the last American invader leaving the country.
Within a decade, America has turned the middle east into a seething hotbed of anti western hatred and a haven for terrorism and terrorists.

Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #235 on: February 14, 2014, 04:54:13 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

U.S. says freed Afghan prisoners are a threat to civilians, troops

Afghanistan releases 65 prisoners whom the U.S. linked
to attacks on coalition forces and Afghan civilians.


By HASHMAT BAKTASH and SHASHANK BENGALI | 4:42PM PST - Thursday, February 13, 2014

Afghan soldiers stand guard near the main gate of the Parwan prison on the outskirts of Bagram. The government released 65 inmates from the prison, saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them. — Photo: Massoud Hossaini/Associated Press.
Afghan soldiers stand guard near the main gate of the Parwan prison on the outskirts of Bagram. The government released 65 inmates from the prison,
saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them. — Photo: Massoud Hossaini/Associated Press.


KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — Over strong U.S. objections, Afghanistan on Thursday released 65 prisoners it has said it cannot prosecute despite American warnings that they could return to attacking coalition forces and civilians.

The U.S. military had expected the move and denounced it in a series of news releases in recent weeks. But the Afghan government maintained that there was insufficient evidence to try the prisoners or continue to hold them at the formerly U.S.-run detention facility at Bagram, north of Kabul.

The dispute has further inflamed tension between the United States and Afghanistan in the final year of the U.S.-led military intervention. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has angered U.S. officials by refusing to sign a security agreement that would allow a few thousand American troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014, has sharply criticized the prison at Bagram, likening it to a "factory" for creating Taliban insurgents.

The 65 prisoners, released to their homes, are directly linked to attacks that have killed or maimed dozens of coalition soldiers and Afghan civilians, the U.S. military alleges. They are among 88 prisoners at Bagram who the U.S. military had contended shouldn't be released.

The government-owned RTA television channel showed the detainees after their release, wearing traditional clothes and white hats. One unnamed former prisoner said they were treated well by their Afghan army jailers. "We didn't have problems with the ANA [Afghan National Army]. We don't have problems with them now and we will not have any in the future," he said.

The dispute over their release has simmered since early last year, when the United States turned over the prison to Afghan control as part of its plan to withdraw forces from Afghanistan. The U.S. argument, experts say, is that by letting the prisoners go free, Afghanistan is violating agreements it made to hold inmates deemed to be security threats in "continued detention under Afghan law."

"The release of these dangerous individuals poses a threat to U.S., coalition and Afghan National Security Forces, as well as the Afghan population," the U.S. military said in a statement Thursday. "Insurgents in the group released today have killed coalition and Afghan forces."

The U.S. military even took the rare step of publicly releasing information about some of the prisoners, citing biometric data and explosives residue tests as indications that they were linked to the insurgency.

One former detainee, Mohammad Wali, captured by coalition forces in Helmand province in May, was described by U.S. military officials as "a suspected Taliban explosives expert" who placed roadside bombs targeting Afghan and coalition forces. Another, Nek Mohammad, allegedly participated in rocket attacks against pro-government forces and was found to be possessing artillery shells, mortar rounds and at least 25 pounds of homemade explosives.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen backed the U.S. position, saying the decision "appears to have been made based on political calculations and without regard for due process before the Afghan courts."

Afghan officials said they carefully reviewed the evidence and leads supplied by the United States but judged them to be insufficient to prosecute the men.

"The U.S. may be right — in part — in claiming the Afghan government has violated the agreement" governing the transfer of control of Bagram, Kate Clark, an expert with the Kabul-based Afghanistan Analysts Network, wrote in a commentary. "Yet this bitter dispute also shows just how weak the Americans have become in the face of the Afghan state's assertion of sovereignty."


• Special correspondent Hashmat Baktash reported from Kabul and Los Angeles Times staff writer Shashank Bengali from Mumbai, India.

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-afghanistan-prisoners-20140214,0,6051268.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #236 on: February 21, 2014, 11:55:44 pm »



Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #237 on: October 23, 2014, 06:22:41 pm »


from the Los Angeles Times....

Execution of 5 Afghans in gang rape stirs questions

By ALI M. LATIFI - reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan | 2:54PM PDT - Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Nooses hang at Afghanistan's Pul-e-Charkhi prison, where five men were executed on October 8th for the gang rape of four women. — Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images.
Nooses hang at Afghanistan's Pul-e-Charkhi prison, where five men were executed on October 8th for the gang rape of four women.
 — Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images.


THE Afghan government on Wednesday executed five men accused of the gang rape of four women traveling home from a wedding in August, a case that generated national outrage.

The execution by hanging came after weeks of public outcry, with Afghans calling for the death penalty for the 10 men originally accused of robbing the group of travelers and raping the women, who were returning from a wedding in Paghman, a lake district 20 minutes from Kabul, the capital.

Seven of the men, arrested less than a week after the August 23rd attack, were convicted and sentenced to death. But a September 7th appeal reduced the sentences for two of them to up to 20 years in prison. Three suspects remain at large.

Then-President Hamid Karzai approved and signed the execution order last month on his last day in office, a rare such authorization in his more than decade-long tenure, the Associated Press reported.

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times after the initial convictions, Saeeq Shajjan, a Kabul-based lawyer, called the case “one of those rare instances that has brought people from all walks of life together.”

“Ordinary Afghans, civil society, politicians, senior leadership of the government, including the presidential palace, and jihadi leaders have all condemned this evil act,” he said.

Others, however, questioned the judicial procedure that led to the executions.

Shortly after Kabul Police Chief General Zahir Zahir confirmed the deaths at Pul-e-Charkhi prison outside Kabul, Amnesty International issued a statement saying the “execution of five men in Afghanistan who had been convicted of a gang rape following a series of flawed trials is an affront to justice.”

Shajjan said that though he commended the police for quick action in arresting the seven accused, the judiciary’s willingness to disclose information to journalists, including the identities of the accused, was in contravention of Afghan law.

Along with rape, the accused were tried on charges of impersonating police officers and armed robbery, Shajjan said. This may have added to the pressure on Karzai’s government to act swiftly, the lawyer said.

Still, he said, “this does not mean rights guaranteed for the accused under the constitution and other laws of Afghanistan should be violated.... Protecting all rights of the accused does not mean that there should be any leniency toward the accused.”

Wazhma Frogh, a women’s rights activist based in Kabul, said in a recent interview that although a swift response is warranted, it has little effect on the implementation of a law designed to eliminate violence against women, approved by presidential decree in 2009.

“We still have so many cases of rape pending in the court, and they won't see the same level of reaction nor judicial response,” Frogh said.

Khalil Sherzad, originally from the eastern province of Nangarhar, said the hangings put the minds of many Afghans at ease.

“I am happy. They actually should have been stoned to death, but this is still sufficient,” Sherzad said.

But Omaid Sharifi, a civil society activist based in Kabul who opposes capital punishment, said the accused “should have been imprisoned for life.... Keeping them in prison will force them to sit with their thoughts and truly realize that they have done something wrong.”


• Ali M. Latifi is a special Los Angeles Times correspondent.

http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-afghanistan-rape-execution-20141008-story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #238 on: October 23, 2014, 08:21:21 pm »

well said..good idea Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #239 on: October 04, 2015, 12:21:06 pm »


I see the Americans are at it again....indulging in war-crimes in Afghanistan.

Adding to their long history of bombing wedding parties, they have now used an AC-130 gunship Hercules to shoot-up a Doctors Without Borders trauma hospital, killing heaps of kids in the process (have the Americans learnt the Israeli practice of killing kids when they go to war?). Definitely a WAR CRIME!

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #240 on: October 04, 2015, 12:21:22 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Doctors Without Borders says U.S. airstrike
hit hospital in Afghanistan; at least 19 dead


By TIM CRAIG | 2:47PM - Saturday, October 03, 2015

An airstrike damaged much of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz. — Photograph: Msf/AFP/Getty Images.
An airstrike damaged much of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz. — Photograph: Msf/AFP/Getty Images.

CLICK HERE to view a video showing images of the aftermath of the airstrike on the Doctors Without Borders trauma hospital.

KABUL — U.S. forces may have mistakenly bombed a hospital in northern Afghanistan on Saturday, killing at least 19 people, including three children, in an incident that will likely raise new questions about the scope of American involvement in the country's 14-year war.

In a statement, Doctors Without Borders said an airstrike “partially destroyed” its trauma hospital in Kunduz, where the Afghan military has been trying to drive Taliban fighters from the city.

The airstrike killed at least 12 Doctors Without Borders staff members, the group said. Three children were also reportedly killed. At least 37 other people were seriously injured, including 19 staff members and 18 patients and caretakers. Officials warned the death toll could rise as dozens of people remain unaccounted for.

“This attack is abhorrent and a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law,” Meinie Nicolai, the group's president, said in a statement.

Nicolai called for an independent investigation into the incident: “We demand total transparency from Coalition forces. We cannot accept that this horrific loss of life will simply be dismissed as ‘collateral damage’.”

The United Nations' top human rights official also called for an independent investigation, while equating the airstrike on the hospital to a war crime.

“This event is utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal,” Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement.

“This deeply shocking event should be promptly, thoroughly and independently investigated and the results should be made public,” he said. “The seriousness of the incident is underlined by the fact that, if established as deliberate in a court of law, an airstrike on a hospital may amount to a war crime.”

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter issued a statement saying: “While we are still trying to determine exactly what happened, I want to extend my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected. A full investigation into the tragic incident is underway in coordination with the Afghan government.”




Doctors Without Borders said its facility came under attack beginning at 2:08 a.m. It was hit by a series of aerial bombardments, lasting until 3:15 a.m. The main central hospital building, housing the intensive care unit, emergency rooms, and physiotherapy ward, was repeatedly hit very precisely during each aerial raid, the group says, while surrounding buildings were left mostly untouched.

The bombing forced the surviving staff to set up a makeshift operating room in the undamaged section of the facility, but seriously wounded patients had to be sent to the nearest hospital, two hours drive away.

“Besides resulting in the deaths of our colleagues and patients, this attack has cut off access to urgent trauma care for the population in Kunduz at a time when its services are most needed,” Nicolai said in the statement.

Military officials in Afghanistan confirmed that there was an airstrike, saying it was targeted at insurgents firing on U.S. service members assisting Afghan Security Forces.

“I am aware of an incident that occurred at a Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz city today,” said General John F. Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. “I have spoken with [Afghanistan] President Ghani regarding today's events. While we work to thoroughly examine the incident and determine what happened, my thoughts and prayers are with those affected.”

Over the past week, U.S. military jets have conducted numerous airstrikes in Kunduz after the Taliban overwhelmed Afghan security forces on Monday. American Special Operations troops and on-the-ground military advisers from the NATO coalition also have been assisting Afghan forces.

Kunduz resident Mirza Langhmani has counted 30 to 35 airstrikes in the area over the past five days. U.S. forces conducted 12 of them, including the one suspected of striking the hospital on Saturday, a coalition spokesman said. Afghan forces are also carrying out strikes.

A U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak freely, said U.S. special forces soldiers were on the ground advising Afghan special forces. The official said that the U.S. troops detected incoming fire from the Taliban, so an AC-130 gunship was authorized to return fire, at an area that was apparently close to the hospital.

The official said a high-ranking officer is on the way to lead the investigation.

The AC-130 gunship, commonly known as the Spectre, is a favorite of special operation forces. It has an ability to stay above a target for long amounts of time and carries a number of weapons, including a 105mm cannon that is specially mounted to be fired from the air.

As well as a large number of weapons, the gunship has infrared sensors that allows it to see targets at night. Because of its size, low-altitude flight pattern and vulnerability to ground fire, AC-130s rarely fly air support during daylight hours.

The Doctors Without Borders facility was the only functional hospital in that part of Afghanistan. The organization posted photographs on Twitter showing part of the hospital was engulfed in flames shortly after the attack.

As the Afghan army battled Taliban fighters in the streets of Kunduz this week, the hospital has been struggling to treat hundreds of patients. At the time of Saturday's airstrike, 105 patients and more than 80 doctors and nurses were inside the hospital, according to Doctors Without Borders.

In recent days, Doctors Without Borders issued frequent updates to the media detailing the strain of trying to cope with the influx of patients. The hospital was also reportedly running low on supplies.

Officials with the relief group repeatedly informed the U.S.-led coalition of the hospital's precise GPS coordinates over the past few months, hospital officials said. The location of the hospital was last conveyed to the international coalition three days ago, officials added.

Once the airstrike began Saturday, hospital officials immediately reached out to U.S. military officials in Kabul and Washington, according to Jason Cone, executive director of Doctors Without Borders in the United States.

“The bombing continued for more than 30 minutes after American and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington were first informed,” the organization said in a statement.

On Saturday morning, the Taliban accused the U.S.-led coalition of “savagery” and a “barbaric act”.

The International Red Cross also condemned the bombing.

“This is an appalling tragedy,” said Jean-Nicolas Marti, director of Red Cross operations in Afghanistan. “Such attacks against health workers and facilities undermine the capacity of humanitarians to assist the Afghan people.”

In a separate statement, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said it “mourns for the individuals and families affected by the tragic incident.”

“Doctors Without Borders performs terrific work throughout the world, including Afghanistan, and our thoughts and prayers are with their team at this difficult moment,” the embassy said. “We remain deeply concerned about the ongoing violence in Kunduz and the difficult humanitarian situation faced by its residents.”

On Saturday morning, Doctors Without Borders circulated photographs showing the aftermath of the bombing. In one photo, a health-care worker in blood-stained scrubs huddled in a corner with another man. Another photograph showed doctors and nurses operating on a patient in an undamaged section of the hospital.

Hospital officials are trying to evacuate critically wounded patients to another facility two hours away, a risky undertaking  as fierce fighting continues across swaths  of northeastern Afghanistan.

Doctors Without Borders was one the last remaining international relief organizations in Kunduz. The United Nations and several other relief groups evacuated their staffers on Monday as the Taliban advanced into the city.

Concerns about civilian casualties in Kunduz, Afghanistan's sixth largest city, have been mounting all week.

Abdul Qahar Aram, spokesman for the Afghan Army's 209th Corps in northern Afghanistan, on Saturday said Taliban fighters are now hiding in “people's houses, mosques and hospitals using civilians as human shields.”

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Thursday said those concerns were one reason Afghan security forces were being cautious in their efforts to retake the city.

Afghan soldiers were battling militants near the Doctors Without Borders hospital when Saturday's airstrike took place, said Laghmani.

“The Taliban are taking and evacuating their wounded fighters to the hospital for treatment,” said Laghmani, who said the militant group still controls most of the city. “It was the only advanced hospital, and it was operating under good, foreign leadership.”

Sultan Arab, a local police commander in Kunduz, said the hospital came under an airstrike, “because the Taliban had shifted their command center inside the hospital.”

In a statement, the Taliban denied any of its fighters were at the hospital at the time of the airstrike.

A Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman declined to comment on the allegations, but noted the organization “treats every patient irrespective of whether they are military or civilian.” In 1999, the organization was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for its work.

Langhmani said Kunduz faces a deepening humanitarian crisis.

“The dead bodies are lying on the streets, both the Taliban and also civilians, and no one is allowed to pick up the bodies,” Langhmani said. “There is also an electricity shortage, a water shortage plus a bread shortage.”

Over the past decade, U.S. airstrikes have been controversial in Afghanistan because of the risk of civilian causalities and so-called friendly fire incidents.

During his final years in office, former Afghan president Hamid Karzai repeatedly accused the United States military of being reckless in how it carried out airstrikes. After Ghani replaced Karzai last year, relations between the Afghan government and coalition officials improved dramatically.

But in July, a coalition airstrike killed 10 Afghan soldiers, local officials said. Last month, Afghan officials accused the international coalition of killing 11 counter-narcotic officers during an airstrike in Helmand Province.

Coalition officials initially denied involvement. But they issued another statement a day later retracting that denial, saying the matter was now under investigation.

A Kunduz official wants the air campaign to continue despite local residents' anger about the strike that damaged the hospital.

“I believe it is impossible to push back the Taliban from the city without airstrikes,” local police commander Sultan Arab said. “Airstrikes have been so efficient in Kunduz.”

Langhmani said he and many other Kunduz residents also still want the U.S. military’s help against the Taliban.

“But we want precise airstrikes,” Langhmani said. “If there is another like the one that at (the hospital), the people might rise up against both the government and the Taliban.”


Mohammad Sharif in Kabul, and Missy Ryan and Thomas Gibbons-Neff in Washington contributed to this report.

• Tim Craig is The Washington Post's bureau chief in Pakistan. He has also covered conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and within the District of Columbia government.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related stories:

 • Afghans who once watched war from afar forced to flee as front lines shift

 • U.S. troops dispatched to Kunduz to help Afghan forces

 • In Taliban-held Kunduz, echoes of a 1988 guerrilla assault after the Soviets withdrew

 • Doctors, aid workers fight Ebola in West Africa, then fear of disease in U.S.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/doctors-without-borders-airstrike-hits-afghan-hospital-killing-3-staffers/2015/10/03/2ed13104-b50a-48ec-9eb9-92db8ee3a876_story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #241 on: October 04, 2015, 02:32:51 pm »

collateral damage is always most unfortunate...but in the fight against terrorists will happen from time to time..its inevitable  Embarrassed
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #242 on: October 04, 2015, 02:47:39 pm »


Ah, yes....I just knew the despicable maggot would post in this thread making excuses for killing kids.

How did I know? 'Cause the maggot has a history of making up excuses for the Israelis killing kids in Gaza.

So making excuses for the 'merkins killing kids in Afghanistan is simply “business as usual” for the maggot.

Has CYPFs ever evaluated your suitability to be allowed to have contact with kids, maggot?

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #243 on: October 04, 2015, 03:56:21 pm »

Oh really...you concerned about kids being killed now....I think 5 or 6 babies have been murdered in NZ this year...ain't seen a lot of helpful ideas from you about it😦..
...funny how you get concerned only when it's Americans involved.....don't see any concern from you when it's Assad murdering his own people or ISIS MURDERING WHOLE COMMUNITIES..


..THEY HAVE A WORD FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU...

.. HYPOCRITE
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #244 on: October 06, 2015, 02:53:32 pm »


from The Washington Post....

U.S. military struggles to explain how it wound up
bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital


By THOMAS GIBBONS-NEFF | 6:38PM - Monday, October 05, 2015

The Doctors Without Borders hospital is seen in flames, after explosions in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, on Saturday, October 3rd, 2015. Doctors Without Borders announced that the death toll from the bombing of the group's Kunduz hospital compound has risen to at least 22, including 3 children and that tens are missing after the explosions that may have been caused by a U.S. airstrike. In a statement, the international charity said the “sustained aerial attack” took place at 2:10 a.m. (21:40 GMT). Afghan forces backed by U.S. airstrikes have been fighting to dislodge Taliban insurgents who overran Kunduz on Monday. — Photograph: Médecins Sans Frontières via Associated Press.
The Doctors Without Borders hospital is seen in flames, after explosions in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, on Saturday, October 3rd, 2015.
Doctors Without Borders announced that the death toll from the bombing of the group's Kunduz hospital compound has risen to at least 22,
including 3 children and that tens are missing after the explosions that may have been caused by a U.S. airstrike. In a statement,
the international charity said the “sustained aerial attack” took place at 2:10 a.m. (21:40 GMT). Afghan forces backed by U.S.
airstrikes have been fighting to dislodge Taliban insurgents who overran Kunduz on Monday.
 — Photograph: Médecins Sans Frontières via Associated Press.


A HEAVILY-ARMED U.S. GUNSHIP designed to provide added firepower to special operations forces was responsible for shooting and killing 22 people at a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan over the weekend, Pentagon officials said on Monday.

The attack occurred in the middle of the night on Saturday, when Afghan troops—together with a U.S. special forces team training and advising them—were on the ground near the hospital in Kunduz, the first major Afghan city to fall to the Taliban since the war began in 2001. The top U.S. general in Afghanistan said on Monday the airstrike was requested by Afghan troops who had come under fire, contradicting earlier statements from Pentagon officials that the strike was ordered to protect U.S. forces on the ground.

The new details of the attack, and the continuing dispute over what exactly happened, heightened the controversy over the strike. In the two days since the incident, U.S. officials have struggled to explain how a U.S. aircraft wound up attacking a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders. On Monday, the medical humanitarian group said the United States was squarely responsible.

“The reality is the U.S. dropped those bombs,” Doctors Without Borders' general director Christopher Stokes said in a statement. “With such constant discrepancies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.”

The weekend's disastrous airstrike reinforces doubts about how effectively a limited U.S. force in Afghanistan can work with Afghan troops to repel the Taliban, which has been newly emboldened as the United States draws down its presence.

The strike also comes as the Obama administration is currently weighing whether to keep as many as 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2015, according to senior officials. Obama has not made a final decision on the proposal, but the recent advances by the Taliban have certainly complicated the president's calculus.

Campbell told reporters on Monday at a press conference that Afghan forces “advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces.” Campbell made it clear that this differed from initial reports that said U.S. forces were under attack and called in the airstrikes for their defense.

Campbell's remarks differed from two previous comments, including one made by Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter on Sunday that said U.S. forces were under attack.

“At some point in the course of the events there [they] did report that they, themselves, were coming under attack. That much I think we can safely say,” Carter told reporters on Sunday.

Abdul Qahar Aram, spokesman for Afghan army's 209th Corps in northern Afghanistan, said he could not comment on the specifics of Saturday's hospital bombing. But Aram said there was a “strong possibility” that Afghan forces had requested it.

A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had no immediate comment to Campbell's comment.

One aspect of the strike that remained unclear Monday was the exact role played by U.S. forces accompanying the Afghans that night.

After Kunduz became overrun with Taliban fighters late last month, American special operations forces were ferried in to shore up Afghan forces that were making little ground in the fight to retake the populated city-center. Together, the U.S. and Afghan forces have been able to retake nearly all of the city.

These “train, advise and assist” missions are a staple of U.S. special forces capabilities and have been conducted extensively in recent years. In combat situations, rather than return fire, U.S. troops on these missions are more likely to help direct communication, casualty evacuation and direct air support from an AC-130, for instance, if it's available.

As a result, there has been little direct contact between U.S. troops and the Taliban since most U.S. forces have been relegated to the sidelines with official combat operations over last year.


An AC-130 gunship is shown in this undated photo provided by the U.S. Air Force. — Photograph: via Associated Press.
An AC-130 gunship is shown in this undated photo provided by the U.S. Air Force. — Photograph: via Associated Press.

The aircraft that carried out the weekend attack was an AC-130 gunship, according to Army General John Campbell, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan. Unlike jets, the AC-130 is a unique aircraft dedicated almost entirely to supporting special operations forces.

In order to make sure targeting and communication from the ground to the aircraft is as seamless as possible, every AC-130 flies with a liaison officer that has spent time as a special forces soldier on the ground.

While most jets streak across a target, moving quickly while dropping either bombs or firing fixed weapons like cannons or machine guns, the AC-130 essentially loiters over a target at around 7,000 feet. It then flies overhead in a circle and fires from weapon ports mounted on the aircraft's left side.

Unlike other military fixed-wing aircraft, an AC-130 is requested differently. While a jet requires a map coordinate to engage its target, the AC-130 relies on direction (a compass heading) and a distance to the enemy target from the friendly forces engaged on the ground. In short, it relies on visual targeting.

This difference might explain why the hospital was targeted even though Doctors Without Borders said it had given U.S. and Afghan forces its map coordinates before.

“It's a visual acuity aircraft,” said a U.S. close-air support pilot who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his active duty status. “An AC-130 finds the friendly force then fires over their left or right shoulder.”

The pilot went on to add that an AC-130 does not enter enemy airspace and look for targets. It specifically has to be guided on to the target by a force on the ground and will fire only after identifying friendly and enemy forces, he said.

The aircraft, because of its large profile and the fact that it operates at low altitude, only flies close air support missions at night. Since it only works in the dark, the crew of roughly a dozen uses a number of infrared sensors and night vision devices to see and engage targets on the ground.

According to Pentagon Spokeswoman Navy Commander Elissa Smith, there have been 12 U.S. airstrikes around the city of Kunduz since September 29th. The airstrike on the Doctors without Borders hospital was the second strike within the city.

It now ranks among one of the most high-profile U.S. strikes to result in civilian casualties in Afghanistan. In July 2002, a U.S. AC-130 fired on a wedding party, killing more than 40 and injuring more than 100 people in northern Helmand Province.

Since the attack, Doctors Without Borders has left Kunduz.


Tim Craig contributed to this report from Kabul.

• Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a staff writer at The Washington Post and a former Marine infantryman.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • Doctors Without Borders leaves Afghan city after airstrike

 • Afghan response to hospital bombing is muted, even sympathetic

 • Afghans who once watched war from afar forced to flee as front lines shift

 • U.S. troops dispatched to Kunduz to help Afghan forces

 • Afghan forces undertake bid to regain key city seized by Taliban

 • The bloody history of Kunduz, from Afghanistan's ‘Convoy of Death’ to now


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/05/afghan-forces-requested-airstrike-that-hit-hospital-in-kunduz
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #245 on: October 06, 2015, 04:13:06 pm »

The results of the investigation will be interesting...cant really form an opinion until the FACTS come in Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #246 on: October 06, 2015, 04:59:00 pm »


MAGGOT....the facts are simple.

The Americans spent a whole hour shooting up a hospital with multi-barrel 50mm fully-automatic cannons, killing heaps of doctors and kids in the process.

The Americans have even admitted it was them who shot-up the hospital.

Is there anything more intelligent than the equivalent of dog shit inside your head?
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #247 on: October 06, 2015, 05:07:55 pm »

The results of the investigation will be interesting...cant really form an opinion until the FACTS come in Wink
I don't think they'll see the light of day.

I recall Spooky - a Dakota with 3 mini guns and I think, later an added 20mm cannon - these were manually operated and they eventually led to the Spectre, or AC130 which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
The gunfire from the Spectre is computer controlled.  It is said that a Spectre can place one round in every square inch of a football field without going outside the goal and sidelines.  Every target is designated and entered into the computer via cursor on an active map or plan of the area.  The hospital would have to have been deliberately targeted,  This isn't to say that faulty Intel wasn't provided, but it could not have been accidently engaged
Report Spam   Logged
reality
Guest
« Reply #248 on: October 06, 2015, 05:58:25 pm »

..mm..interesting..I have heard a report that said it was the Afghan military who called in the bombing
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #249 on: October 06, 2015, 06:30:32 pm »

..mm..interesting..I have heard a report that said it was the Afghan military who called in the bombing


That's not what the Pentagon originally said.

Then they changed their story.

Then they changed their story again.

Notice how the 'merkins always resort to bullshit whenever they get caught out killing innocent people?
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 14 queries.