http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2010/07/21/afghanistan-buts/?print=1
Afghanistan "Buts" By <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/dianawest/> Diana West ( <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/dianawest/bio/> bio) http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48365000/jpg/_48365237_009805954-1.jpg This is a picture of Northern Ireland Lieutenant Neal Turkington, 26, who was one of three British soldiers killed by a "renegade" Afghan Army soldier at a British base last week. Afghan authorities <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23856067-afghan-soldier-atta ck-reveals-tensions-in-army-drawn-from-rival-tribes.do> say the attacker, who remains at large, "was Sergeant Talib Hussein, who was sent to the unit, part of 215 Maiwand Corps, eight months ago. They say he was probably already involved with the Taliban." Fast thinking, Poindexter. But guess what? Questions remain. The LA Times <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-british-att ack-20100714,0,4738108.story> reports "the motive for Tuesday's attack in the Nahr-e-Sarraj district remained unclear." Maybe the Times should consult with Afghan authorities and see what they can come up with. The BBC calls this the third such murder of British soldiers by our Afghan allies. I well remember the bloodletting last November when an Afghan policeman <http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1104/-But-It-Was-Unclear-Wha t-the-Motive-Was.aspx> killed five British soldiers who had just come into their base from patrol. Who could forget that? Or is that who couldn't forget that? I get them confused. Point is, today's stiff upper lip is all about standing firm against this enemy within. Prime Minister David Cameron <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10623008> condemned the [most recent] killings as "appalling" but insisted that the attack should not change the strategy of working alongside the Afghan army. British Defense Minister Liam Fox <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-british-att ack-20100714,0,4738108.story> called the attack "a despicable and cowardly act." But he said the training of Afghan security forces would continue because it is "vital to the international security mission in Afghanistan, and today's events will not undermine the real progress we continue to make." But the British and American forces have to build up trust with the new army. Colonel Richard Kemp, one of the first British commanders in Afghanistan, <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23856067-afghan-soldier-atta ck-reveals-tensions-in-army-drawn-from-rival-tribes.do> told the BBC: "It will be very difficult if you now have to say the Afghan soldiers you are trying to train shouldn't have weapons on the base." Words well worth pondering. In fact, the more we ponder the implications - namely, that a war/exit "strategy" which depends on training a native force whom we can't trust to carry weapons on a base - the more evidence we have that the entire command, from top to bottom, from civilian to military, has lost its grip on logic, reality and, not least, morality. This week, a similar incident befell the Americans when an Afghan soldier the AP described as a "group leader - an Afghan soldier selected to train other soldiers on the base" <http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnmkvUCh84DnBZ33-rsgQ2v69 4mgD9H39U400> opened fire on a firing range amid an argument with American instructors, killing two Americans and one Afghan. "It's a great tragedy," <http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnmkvUCh84DnBZ33-rsgQ2v69 4mgD9H39U400> said British Col. Stuart Cowen, a spokesman for the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, the command responsible for building up the Afghan security forces. I think the "but" is implied here. That is, the use of the word "tragedy" conjures a fateful inevitablity that somehow relieves command of responsibility, as though these men were lost to sunstroke, and not gunned down by an ever-suspect "ally." Meanwhile, back in Oz, foreign ministers from around the world gathered for a photo op around the Tin Woodman .. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
