U.S. Underreporting Afghan Attacks on Coalition Forces


the kush

With tentative plans to semi-withdraw in 2014, attacks on coalition troops by the Afghan security forces to whom the U.S. and NATO are transferring responsibility is not a good look. According to a NATO spokesman, there were 11 attacks by Afghan soldiers resulting in 18 deaths this year, 20% of NATO fatalities so far. A classified military study showed a 6% rate between May 2007 and May 2011. But now the Associated Press reports:

The U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan is under-reporting the number of times that Afghan soldiers and police open fire on American and other foreign troops. The coalition routinely reports attacks in which a coalition soldier is killed by an Afghan in uniform. But it does not report the instances in which an Afghan wounds U.S. or NATO troops or misses his target.

The Washington Post rounded up major incidents of attacks on coalition troops by Afghan security forces over the last few years. Read Reason's Sheldon Richman on the brainwashing involved in the Afghanistan War by our Peace Prize winning President here. Screenshot from a 2010 Al-Jazeera report on the ability of the Afghan security forces.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Author David Brin on Dogmatic Libertarians, Transparency, and Uplifting Dolphins

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know maybe, JUST MAYBE, they don’t want us there.

    Crazy thought, I know, but let’s try it.

    Get out. NOW.

    1. There’s only one candidate suggesting that. And we all know what his chances of being elected are.


    2. You must hate America

    3. But, but, but if we don’t fight the terrorists there we’ll have to fight them here.

      Those dirt poor peasants will be hopping onto the first 757 to Mexico, where they’ll sneak across the border to start planting IEDs in American streets!

      Carnage! Blood! Guts! Everywhere!

      We must fight them there to save American civilian lives and preserve our freedom!
      Like our freedom to travel without humiliation, Habeus corpus, or the right to question the government without being looked upon like an enemy of the state!

    4. I’m pretty sure there is no reference to “what locals want” in planning US foreign policy.

      Exhibit A: This NYT story with the headline U.S. Drone Strike Underlines Clash of Interests in Pakistan.

      The interests in question are not the US interest in blowing Pakistanis up versus Pakistanis desire not to die. The interests are US desire to blow up Pakistanis versus US desire to use Pakistan to supply its bases in Afghanistan.

      Apparently Pakis get all whiny when we blow up their people, and they close their borders like big babies.

  2. “Get out. NOW.”

    They’ll just go to Yemen or Syria or someplace else.

    1. Who “[wi]ll just go to Yemen or Syria or someplace else”?

      The US?

    2. But remember, they don’t hate us cause we bomb them–they hate us for Our Freedomz(tm).

      1. It was funny that the political establishment totally denied blow back was even a possibility for terrorism. Yet right after the Koran BBQ & killings of the Afghani townspeople, there were alerts that there was an increased risk of terrorism.

        If blow back isn’t real, why would that be so?

        1. Why do you hate FREEDOM?

        2. We have the freedom to burn books, angry freedom-hating mooselimbs see it on their TVs, hate us even more for our precious freedoms, and try even harder to do terrorism on us.

          It’s like you’re not even paying attention.

  3. Ahem:

    What’s the definition of “Pro-Defense” to an Anti-War Libertarian?

    Is it stationing the Army in Brownsville to protect against Al Qaeda in league with Mexican Drug Lords, lobbing scud missiles across the Rio Grande from Matamoros?

    Sorry, but I’d rather fight them over there, than on the banks of the Rio Grande.

    Wise words from our favorite former Ron Paul staffer.

    1. Is it stationing the Army in Brownsville to protect against Al Qaeda in league with Mexican Drug Lords, lobbing scud missiles across the Rio Grande from Matamoros?

      That has to be satire.

      1. No, it’s Donderooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!


    3. I wonder if Dondero checks under his bed for terrorists every night, or if he has his mom do it.

      1. Doooooooondeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeroooooooooooooooooo


  4. I figure that the neocons want some attacks reported but not all: they want the perception that there is still a danger so that the planned withdrawals of U.S. troops are cancelled, but want to avoid the perception that the overall policy is failing.

  5. But it does not report the instances in which an Afghan wounds U.S. or NATO troops or misses his target

    Well, to be fair, they ARE really, really bad shots, so they totally could just be a lot of COMPLETE accidents…

    I really enjoy those stories of the “premier”, well-trained ANA soldiers going out on a ‘mission’, and end up shooting each other, losing their guns, getting high and falling asleep in the middle of the day, getting lost… War without a little Catch-22-humor on the side is just too boring.

    1. Hey! Insha’Allah motherfucker.

      If Allah wills it, the target will be hit. Only the unfaithful actually aim.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.