Mind that Muzzle Maliq!

The spate of 'green on blue' or, as they've recently been renamed, ' insider' killings of US (particularly) and other ISAF personnel, are causing no small perturbations in the wind-down of the latest Afghan War. In fact they've upset the total 'training' applecart on which the future war is propounded. For, not being able to 'trust' the trainees' to not shoot them, makes westerners leery about training them, or arming them at all. In fact, until a 'solution' - in the form of 're-vetting' every member of the Afghan armed forces and police is under way the training is stuck on 'marching' and 'saluting' the nice soldier effendi..

And what does 're-vetting' entail? Well when the standard western soldier-citizen presents himself at the recruitment office, he's asked to sign a declaration that he has no criminal record he's not divulging and later that he's not affiliated with any groups 'disloyal' to the nation - viz the military. Sometimes he has to produce references to his good/character/patriotism/ martial ardor etc  - ofttimes from a friend or relative who has served in the military,a friendly school teacher, administrator, boss or boy scout leader. In ultimo he swears a public oath of allegiance and commits him/herself in writing to the 'military code of justis' which governs his/her life in uniform.

Most Afghans can't read, or write - the material presenting themselves for paid work as soldiers, or police, aren't the sort who would go to high school, even if they could. The vetting is often done by a village chief - if it's done at all - or by a relative with some local clout. Local soldiers or police are usually from somewhere else and have no affiliation, unless the subject has been a 'tea wallah' or after hours 'entertainer' - neither occupation scoring high on NATO's 'warrior ethos' chart.

Apparently, it has been decided that 'improper vetting of Afghan 'good guys' has resulted in some of them either  'going rogue'  or 'being rogues in pals clothing' and blasting their 'from away' buddies - generally when they're off guard, not looking, returning to base or just generally without pants. And this is 'dastardly' because, first, it tends to be quite mortal up-close and, second, it's not 'manly' like standing out in the street to be gunned down by an Apache crew, or a Marine sniper. And, thirdly, most of the time the 'shooter', somehow, manages to escape to join the Taliban, so it's un-traditionally un-suicidal  - which was bad enough - virgin-wise. So now the 'vettor' is gong to be 'held personally responsible' for the 'vettee'.  Whether the Americans are prepared to take this to Germanic extreme, eg holding a number of hostages to be shot if a soldier is harmed, or whether an incident will result in a 'fine', or removal of  poppy-growing licenses, Ding-Dong ration, etc, remains to be seem. If the Germanic experience is anything to compare, however, it may have been locally successful at times, but it resulted in a lot of, perhaps unnecessary, follow-on German deaths and a good number of war crimes trials for the survivors.

In taking this tack, the US, in particular, is ignoring a sociological study done for the Army last year which came to the conclusion that neither the Afghan forces, or the US forces liked or respected each other. Each thought of the other in consistently negative and derogatory terms. Trust, or lack thereof, was a fundamental issue a year ago before the shootings 'ballooned'. The other ISAF participants, suffering similar attacks are simply expediting the 'removal' of their targets by shortening-up their future commitments in Afghanistan.

This is the essential 'nub' of the problem. The US is planning to 'Afghanize' the war - which will continue to be fought under the direction of a number of US troops left behind for that purpose. The US will provide the money, targets, the training and equipment and the Afghans are to go out and kill their cousins. Something they've been very reluctant, in most cases,  in helping the Americans to do so far. Some ISAF allies have foolishly agreed to continue to 'rent out' forces for that purpose, but those who have been paying their own way are seeing the mission as 'impossible' as it is. Even warfighters like the ANZACs who revere the fallen and honour the warrior are making tracks for the antipodes. The lesser lights of NATO:  the French, Spanish, Dutch and Canadians are gone and the Germans, Italians and Brits are on their way. Which leaves only the 'greatest force for good on erth' to 'bear the white man's burden' and  continue 'civilize he brown man' with a JDam strike and an M14 on full auto.

Or, to cut the losses and declare another phony 'victory', (stabbed in the back by lily-livered pols who refused to 'undo the laces on the sparring gloves' and broaden the terms of engagement beyond the star wars category it has already reached). Given the performance so far, what should NEVER happen us that the US start fighting the Taliban, like Taliban - for green-on-blue would then take on the aspect of  the 'schoolyard disagreement' with  a 'few malcontent's it's being cracked up to be.

Another Afghanistanian Embarrassment

On Tuesday this week, the Haquani 'terror network' of Pakistan orchestrated the efforts of a handful of fanatics to disturb the peace in Kabul. To-day we're being told that that 19 hour rootin'-shootin' sideshow was only a small part of a massive 'sonderaktion' the enemas of freedom had planned to upset the 9/11 retrospective weekend.

The fact is that 10 'heavily-armed criminals' could bring downtown Kabul to a standstill for most of a day before the forces of decency got some targetting data and blew the last 4 bitter-enders out of a concrete skeleton, which they had been using to 'fire at' the US embassy - among other things. We're told that they 'only' succeeded in killing 8 Afghanis - including three children - and wounding another 17. The reponsory barrage,  of all arms gunfire, we're supposed to believe, only succeeded in killing the 10 evildoers and didn't hit anybody else.

We are told the attackers used "heavy weapons" after breeching a skyscraper under construction. This gave them access to firing positions overlooking the US embassy and ISAF HQ some half- kilometer away. 6 PRG rounds are reported to have been discharged in the general direction of the embassy, but at that range they were ineffective. Maybe those heavy weapons would have worked better. The attackers are also said to have "targetted" and destroyed an 'empty' bus, full of schoolchildren. It is reported that they were able to make their way through stringent security zones because they looked like 10 burkah-clad women on their way to work at daybreak. Eventually their vehicle was fired-upon, at whch time they all ran away to hide. Two others mounted fruitless suicide attacks on Afghan police stations and that, in large part, is  what defines the attack as 'complex'.

Video shows a robust response from Afghan police and military including strafing runs from an Air Force Mil gunship helicopter. As if all the ammunition the Afghans were firing wasn't enough,  ISAF rent-a-troops manning the ramparts at HQ were also busily engaged firing at the criminals from inside the danger zone, i.e. a crossfire.

The results of all the 'bang bang' can be described from two perspectives. The Afghans are concerned that Kabul is no longer 'safe'. ISAF's 'take' is that it could have been worse, the Taliban did it because they've been 'weakened' and that that gunfire is a harbinger of freedom.

So if the Pakistani's would take some responsibility for what goes on in their tribal zones, or at least allow the forces of light to tackle the Haquani criminals, that promised dawn of freedom might only be another decade away.

So yeah, and only because the media went nuts, the terrorists scored a PR point or two. But hey, look who's still top-side and how little damage was done! What we think were their plans were thwarted. Or maybe that's what inspired to-day's news that what was really supposed to happen was very 'skeery'.

It's a good thing nobody warned Kabul,  like they warned New York, and anywhere else, about the potential for  9/11 payback'. At least there was no potential threat to be warded-off, at least in the public's mind, until to-day. But if BS works in America, why shouldn't it work in Kabul? Saying something's always better than dummying up.