FileFront Forums

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)
-   The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)
-   -   Training of new Afghan police suspended (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/448550-training-new-afghan-police-suspended.html)

Commissar MercZ September 1st, 2012 10:48 PM

Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Article below. Past few months has seen a spate of attacks on American and other NATO soldiers by uniformed Afghan counterparts. This has gotten to the extent that this past July ended up being the deadliest in the Afghan war so far. This has prompted the usual calls from policy hawks on the current time table for withdrawal, but all around has generated some concern. As such the recruitment of Afghan soldiers has been suspended until they can check the status of those already within the military and overhaul future recruitment.

Training suspended for new Afghan recruits - The Washington Post

Spoiler:

Training suspended for new Afghan recruits
By Greg Jaffe and Kevin Sieff, Published: September 1

KABUL — The senior commander for Special Operations forces in Afghanistan has suspended training for all new Afghan recruits until the more than 27,000 Afghan troops working with his command can be re-vetted for ties to the insurgency.

The move comes as NATO officials struggle to stem the tide of attacks on NATO forces by their Afghan colleagues. The attacks, which have killed 45 troops this year, have forced NATO officials to acknowledge a painful truth: Many of the incidents might have been prevented if existing security measures had been applied correctly.

But numerous military guidelines were not followed — by Afghans or Americans — because of concerns that they might slow the growth of the Afghan army and police, according to NATO officials.

Special Operations officials said that the current process for vetting recruits is effective but that a lack of follow-up has allowed Afghan troops who fell under the sway of the insurgency or grew disillusioned with the Afghan government to remain in the force.

“We have a very good vetting process,” a senior Special Operations official said. “What we learned is that you just can’t take it for granted. We probably should have had a mechanism to follow up with recruits from the beginning.”

In other instances, the vetting process for Afghan soldiers and police was never properly implemented, and NATO officials say they knew it. But they looked the other way, worried that extensive background checks could hinder the recruitment process. Also ignored were requirements that Afghans display proper credentials while on base.

“Everyone admits there was a lot of international pressure to grow these forces, and the vetting of these individuals was cast aside as an inhibitor,” said a U.S. official who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.

The move last week by the Special Operations Command to suspend the training of new recruits followed the Aug. 17 shooting of two American Special Forces members by a new Afghan Local Police recruit at a small outpost in western Afghanistan.

The local police initiative places Special Forces teams in remote villages where they work with Afghan elders and government officials to help villagers defend themselves against insurgent attacks and intimidation. U.S. officials have touted the program, which numbers about 16,000 Afghans, as a critical way to spread security and the influence of the Afghan government to remote areas of the country where the Taliban have found haven.

But the program, which is slated to double in size to about 30,000 Afghans, also carries risks for U.S. troops. “We’re living with the Afghans,” said a second senior Special Operations official. “We can’t afford to take any chances with vetting.”

Since the program began in 2010, there have been three instances of Afghan Local Police recruits turning their guns on their American counterparts.

Afghan officials, working with U.S. Special Operations troops, have re-vetted about 1,100 Afghan Local Police officers and removed five policemen from the program. They are also in the process of vetting 8,000 Afghan commandos and 3,000 Afghan army special forces soldiers who are fighting alongside American Special Operations troops throughout the country. Special Operations officials said that they anticipate it will take about two months to rescreen all of the Afghan forces and that the training of new recruits could stall for as long as a month.

NATO officials have declined to provide many details of their investigations into the insider killing incidents, and they have not said whether any commanders have been reprimanded for failing to follow security measures. Although NATO officials concede that force-protection guidelines were routinely ignored, they have not said whether commanders had the authority to waive them.

Measures specifically designed to curtail attacks were also inconsistently applied, officials say. The “Guardian Angel” program — which requires a service member to shoot any Afghan soldier or police officer who tries to attack coalition troops — was often seen as a distraction from NATO’s mission. Calls to minimize off-duty time spent with Afghan troops were similarly thought to undermine the goal of relationship-building, according to NATO officials.

With insider attacks responsible for nearly 15 percent of this year’s coalition fatalities, top NATO leaders have asked commanders across the country to suggest a series of fresh security measures, part of a newly established Insider Threat Working Group. They have also mandated proper implementation of existing measures, some of them in place for a decade.

“It’s time to retrospectively shore up the system,” said a senior NATO official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Less downtime together

Officials acknowledge that the character of NATO-Afghan relations varies across the country and that it was always far-fetched to think that a single set of precautions could be universally applied. But the laxity that was for years the norm is no longer acceptable, they say.

Troops are now being advised to stay away from Afghan soldiers and police officers during vulnerable moments, such as when they are sleeping, bathing or exercising, according to a directive from NATO leaders.

“We need to reduce risks by reducing certain interactions with the Afghans. We don’t need to sleep or shower next to them, because that’s when we’re most vulnerable,” said a NATO official who has been charged with making security recommendations. “It’s about force protection without endangering the relationship. It’s a true teeter-totter.”

The balance is particularly difficult to strike at this late stage of the war, when training and advising Afghan forces is essential to the U.S. effort. Such work necessitates close collaboration. Particularly on smaller bases, Afghan and American forces live in tight proximity and go on daily joint operations.

The slogan for the U.S.-Afghan military partnership, printed on billboards and in pamphlets, is “Shohna ba Shohna” — shoulder to shoulder.

NATO leaders say they have no plans to distance themselves from their partners. But inevitably, aspects of the relationship are being called into question.

“We remain convinced that the closer our relationship with the Afghans, the more secure we are. But there’s no question we must work together to understand and reduce the insider threat,” said Maj. Lori Hodge, a spokeswoman for NATO forces. “We’re examining every aspect of the relationship to ensure our interaction makes sense, not just culturally but in terms of force protection, as well.”

The most recent insider attack occurred Wednesday night. Three Australian troops were relaxing at their base in southern Uruzgan province when they were shot at close range by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform, the vice chief of Australia’s defense force, Mark Binskin, told reporters in Sydney.

Accepting a flawed system

For a decade, coalition officials watched as Afghan security services overlooked key elements of the vetting process — sometimes for the sake of expediency and sometimes because of corruption.

Many Afghans, even those who were vetted, were never issued official badges, making it impossible to tell who was supposed to have access to any particular facility. In Helmand province, thousands of Afghan police officers lack identification cards, according to U.S. officials.

“For years, there have been thousands of guys without proper identification. Our troops had no way of knowing who they were, or if they picked up their uniform in a bazaar,” said a U.S. official, one of several charged with making recommendations on ways to reduce the number of insider attacks.

An acceptance of that flawed system meant that Western troops rarely questioned Afghans on base who lacked credentials. The 15-year-old civilian who shot three Marines in Helmand last month had lived on a U.S. base for weeks, despite not being a member of the security forces.

“They made a fatal assumption that he was part of the staff,” said a U.S. official familiar with the incident. “They didn’t require the district police chief to prove that he belonged there. They didn’t want to push. They wanted to build a relationship.”

“Now there is a real effort to make sure people are adhering to orders they are supposed to be adhering to,” the U.S. official said. “We don’t need a lot of new laws, we just need to make sure people follow the ones that are already out there.”

One official tasked with making recommendations for new measures has suggested the establishment of Task Force Insider Threat — an amalgam of law enforcement and counterterrorism experts that would be embedded within units across Afghanistan, working full time to detect and analyze potential threats. Senior NATO officials in Kabul confirmed that the plan is under consideration.

The Afghan army has announced plans to launch an expanded counterintelligence campaign against infiltrators. Last month, NATO forces launched an independent counterintelligence effort that Western officials confirmed but would not discuss in detail.


MrFancypants September 2nd, 2012 05:21 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Not a whole lot you can to do prevent such attacks, at least not with the limitations that NATO chose to impose on itself.
If they stop training security forces then they might as well leave.

Nemmerle September 2nd, 2012 07:49 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
May as well leave anyway. What real aim does it support other than lining the pockets of the defence industry? Pissed off a lot of people that were little if any bother to the West.

Red Menace September 2nd, 2012 02:45 PM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
I guess NATO got tired of getting their people shot in the back.

EO Violation September 17th, 2012 03:20 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 5658002)
May as well leave anyway. What real aim does it support other than lining the pockets of the defence industry? Pissed off a lot of people that were little if any bother to the West.

Attempt to provide a stable and sustainable country for over 30 million people. Whose previous government aided and abetted the same fellows that brought you such memorable hits as the bombing of the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Africa, and of course, their chart topping attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Look man, we're there to give these people a chance. Contrary to what you may believe, most Afghans don't hate the NATO forces there. They just want to live in peace. And they certainly don't want to live with the Taliban back in power.

Nemmerle September 17th, 2012 05:10 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EO Violation (Post 5661236)
Attempt to provide a stable and sustainable country for over 30 million people. Whose previous government aided and abetted the same fellows that brought you such memorable hits as the bombing of the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Africa, and of course, their chart topping attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Look man, we're there to give these people a chance. Contrary to what you may believe, most Afghans don't hate the NATO forces there. They just want to live in peace. And they certainly don't want to live with the Taliban back in power.

That may be a result, but I doubt very much it's the reason to be there. If you're interested in helping people live in peace, there are plenty of other causes where your dollars will buy you far more lives. Not that doing so would be politically expedient, for the same reason that staying in Afghanistan isn't: We went there out of fear, and felt obligated for a time - having kicked the last regime over.

Most Afghans are totally irrelevant to what I perceive to be our common interests. What difference does it make, on the other side of the world, whether some farmer likes us or not? If he likes us he'll ignore us, and if he dislikes us he'll do the same. As long as we aren't hated by him, which as long as we don't involve ourselves with his struggles we won't be, his fate is irrelevant to us.

MrFancypants September 17th, 2012 05:40 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 5661241)
That may be a result, but I doubt very much it's the reason to be there. If you're interested in helping people live in peace, there are plenty of other causes where your dollars will buy you far more lives. Not that doing so would be politically expedient, for the same reason that staying in Afghanistan isn't: We went there out of fear, and felt obligated for a time - having kicked the last regime over.

Most Afghans are totally irrelevant to what I perceive to be our common interests. What difference does it make, on the other side of the world, whether some farmer likes us or not? If he likes us he'll ignore us, and if he dislikes us he'll do the same. As long as we aren't hated by him, which as long as we don't involve ourselves with his struggles we won't be, his fate is irrelevant to us.

So because the world is a messed up cruel place we must be messed up and cruel?

If you ignore the suffering of a person close to you chances are that you commit a crime (failure to render assistance). Shouldn't the same principle apply, at least where theoretically feasible, in international politics?

Nemmerle September 17th, 2012 06:52 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 5661244)
So because the world is a messed up cruel place we must be messed up and cruel?

If you ignore the suffering of a person close to you chances are that you commit a crime (failure to render assistance). Shouldn't the same principle apply, at least where theoretically feasible, in international politics?

A government exists, ideally, to serve the interests of the people as best it can. The people, by and large, do not seem to care to render assistance. It might be a duty to render aid on an individual level - though this is clearly not an unqualified duty even then - however, the government's first duty is to do its best for the people it's meant to serve, and that duty overrides all others.

MrFancypants September 17th, 2012 07:33 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 5661261)
A government exists, ideally, to serve the interests of the people as best it can. The people, by and large, do not seem to care to render assistance. It might be a duty to render aid on an individual level - though this is clearly not an unqualified duty even then - however, the government's first duty is to do its best for the people it's meant to serve, and that duty overrides all others.

If that were the case the US would have long since annexed Canada and fatty food would be outlawed everywhere.

A government (ideally) represents the will of the (majority of the) people (not necessarily congruent with the interests of the people), but has to do so within the constraints imposed by its constiution, which is usually based on moral guidelines. If those guidelines tell you to help people in distress unless you cannot do so without endangering yourself why shouldn't the same guideline be applied at an international level (theoretically they already are in the UN)?
In practicality this only happens if a nation's other interests coincide with moral ideas (hence Afghanistan and Libya), but there is always room for improvement.

Nemmerle September 17th, 2012 08:25 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 5661264)
If that were the case the US would have long since annexed Canada and fatty food would be outlawed everywhere.

A government (ideally) represents the will of the (majority of the) people (not necessarily congruent with the interests of the people), but has to do so within the constraints imposed by its constitution, which is usually based on moral guidelines. If those guidelines tell you to help people in distress unless you cannot do so without endangering yourself why shouldn't the same guideline be applied at an international level (theoretically they already are in the UN)?
In practicality this only happens if a nation's other interests coincide with moral ideas (hence Afghanistan and Libya), but there is always room for improvement.

It's not immediately clear to me that a government that honestly served peoples interests - not that I've ever seen such a thing - would annex Canada, (not that they didn't seem to try in 1812,) or outlaw fatty foods. Though doubtless there'd be more regulation and education in the latter regard.

Do you really want a government to represent the will of the people? The will of the people often seems to be little more than cheerleading towards things that, if they were smarter or better educated on the issue, they wouldn't want. It seems to me you'd be far better off going with their interests; what they show themselves to value most; than their will; what they think will get them what they think they value, as the ideal goal of government.

MrFancypants September 17th, 2012 08:37 AM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 5661270)
It's not immediately clear to me that a government that honestly served peoples interests - not that I've ever seen such a thing - would annex Canada, (not that they didn't seem to try in 1812,) or outlaw fatty foods. Though doubtless there'd be more regulation and education in the latter regard.

Do you really want a government to represent the will of the people? The will of the people often seems to be little more than cheerleading towards things that, if they were smarter or better educated on the issue, they wouldn't want. It seems to me you'd be far better off going with their interests; what they show themselves to value most; than their will; what they think will get them what they think they value, as the ideal goal of government.

Would it not be in your interest to live longer and be more wealthy? If yes, then outlawing fatty foods and conquering nations that aren't well defended are obvious choices for government that puts the interest of its own people above everything else.

Also, the 1812 war is a bad example as nations acted a little differently 200 years ago and as that war was not only motivated by greed but also by a number of British provocations.

As for the will vs. the interest - that is how governments supposedly work, whether the idea is good is another question.

Nemmerle September 17th, 2012 03:55 PM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 5661272)
Would it not be in your interest to live longer and be more wealthy? If yes, then outlawing fatty foods and conquering nations that aren't well defended are obvious choices for government that puts the interest of its own people above everything else.

Also, the 1812 war is a bad example as nations acted a little differently 200 years ago and as that war was not only motivated by greed but also by a number of British provocations.

I suspect happiness gained for wealth gained levels off fairly quickly if you properly manage it. In so far as it is in the interests of everyone to be more wealthy however, no-one's really sure how it would go if everyone tried. If America attacked Canada, or some other poor country, and attempted to have things all its own way there by force of arms, then what would other powerful countries do?

If you have a principle of trade instead, then it seems to me your risk of getting into a major shooting match go down. Whereas if you force your way whenever you think you've an edge, and everyone else does the same, that can get mighty expensive mighty quickly.

But back when wars were fought with less dangerous weapons that is what countries did all the time. It's difficult to underestimate the impact that extremely destructive, protracted wars - such as the hundred years war - had on Western morality. We had to come to terms with the fact that if we kept fighting these sorts of large scale wars, increasingly fuelled by industry, we were effectively going to wipe ourselves out for very little gain.

#

And I'm really not sure it is in your interest to live longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 5661272)
As for the will vs. the interest - that is how governments supposedly work, whether the idea is good is another question.

I guess. It strikes me now whichever side you come down on on that, it's going to be a higher duty than following the moral laws that concern individuals.

I suppose the argument here would be that morality is often little more than the flavour of the moment - and when governments start following morality, rather than the interests of the people, that separates the interests of the state from those of the people. That government then becomes incredibly dangerous. It is doing something 'moral' but what it considers and acts upon is not necessarily what the majority consider moral, or would (and to my mind this is the more important one) care about and consider moral if they were smarter. The two sets of interests become completely uncoupled from one another.

And when you force that on people it becomes oppression. It sounds fine to say that governments should do the moral thing, but that's only going to be the case as long as government is doing your moral thing.

MrFancypants September 17th, 2012 05:30 PM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 5661318)
I suspect happiness gained for wealth gained levels off fairly quickly if you properly manage it. In so far as it is in the interests of everyone to be more wealthy however, no-one's really sure how it would go if everyone tried. If America attacked Canada, or some other poor country, and attempted to have things all its own way there by force of arms, then what would other powerful countries do?

If you have a principle of trade instead, then it seems to me your risk of getting into a major shooting match go down. Whereas if you force your way whenever you think you've an edge, and everyone else does the same, that can get mighty expensive mighty quickly.

But back when wars were fought with less dangerous weapons that is what countries did all the time. It's difficult to underestimate the impact that extremely destructive, protracted wars - such as the hundred years war - had on Western morality. We had to come to terms with the fact that if we kept fighting these sorts of large scale wars, increasingly fuelled by industry, we were effectively going to wipe ourselves out for very little gain.

#

And I'm really not sure it is in your interest to live longer.

What could other countries do? Stop the US from spending large amounts of money to import wares and resources? Attack them?
I doubt that there is much they could do that would outweigh the long term benefits of doubling your territory and adding a few million people to your work force. Not to mention natural resources and local industry.

As for living longer - I don't think you will be able to convince a lot of people that it is not in their interest to live longer.


Quote:

I guess. It strikes me now whichever side you come down on on that, it's going to be a higher duty than following the moral laws that concern individuals.

I suppose the argument here would be that morality is often little more than the flavour of the moment - and when governments start following morality, rather than the interests of the people, that separates the interests of the state from those of the people. That government then becomes incredibly dangerous. It is doing something 'moral' but what it considers and acts upon is not necessarily what the majority consider moral, or would (and to my mind this is the more important one) care about and consider moral if they were smarter. The two sets of interests become completely uncoupled from one another.

And when you force that on people it becomes oppression. It sounds fine to say that governments should do the moral thing, but that's only going to be the case as long as government is doing your moral thing.
That morality changes over time doesn't mean that it is worse than the will of the majority, especially if it is not simply changing but evolving. Besides, the will or interests of people is not a constant either. Ideally it should be in the interest of the people to follow moral behavior. So there is no contradiction in a government attempting to enact the will of the people with moral guidelines as restrictions.
Constitutional democracies have so far achieved a greater degree of freedom than any other form of government, so I really doubt that oppression stands at the end of basing your society on moral ideas. Especially if you are talking about the idea of rendering assistance to people being oppressed.

Ipse September 17th, 2012 08:04 PM

Re: Training of new Afghan police suspended
 
Ah Afghanistan, the place where empires go to die.

Eh, either way doesn't look good for NATO. Withdraw, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban regain strength, possibly another Islamic Emirate will arise in Afghanistan, or resume terrorist attacks on the nations of the Free World. Stay there and more NATO troops will take the fall, either by turncoats or extremists, money will be continued to be spent, or mundane political repercussions.


All times are GMT -7.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.