Taliban promises revenge for NATO Kunduz bombing, abducts NYTs journalist

ISAF/NATO Commander, General Stanley McChrystal, has his hands full these days. Within hours of forwarding a strategic analysis of the situation in Afghanistan – describing it as “…serious, but success is achievable…” – to U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus, and the Commander, Joint Force Command Brunssum, General Egon Ramms, the German NATO troops called for NATO back up air support after the theft of two fuel tankers by the Taliban, and the beheading of the drivers.

NATO fighter-bombers attacked two fuel trucks after the Taliban hijacked the vehicles in Kunduz province and beheaded the drivers. The trucks stalled while crossing a riverbed in the Taliban-controlled Ali Abad district and were reportedly hit just as local villagers swarmed the tankers to siphon fuel. The Taliban reportedly encouraged the villagers to take the fuel just before the airstrike.

Casualty reports on the number of Taliban and civilians killed have varied, but 93 people have been reported killed. Kunduz Governor Engineer Mohammad Omar claimed 45 Taliban fighters as well as their commander, Mullah Abdul Rahman, were killed during the attack. Razaq Yaqoobi, the provincial chief of police, said 65 Taliban fighters were among those killed.

~~~

“After ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] observed the insurgent activity and assessed civilians were not in the area, a local ISAF commander authorized an air strike,” the initial ISAF press release on the incident stated. “A large number of insurgents were reported killed or injured and the fuel trucks were destroyed in the attack.”

When US Secy of Defense, Robert Gates, hand picked McChrystal to command both the ISAF and American/NATO troops in Afghanistan in June, had stressed the reduction of civilian collateral damage as one of the highest priorities. In July, Within weeks, McChrystal issued new ROE tactical directives to all foreign forces under ISAF/NATO command, which essentially said if any civilians were present, let the enemy go and do not shoot.

This is the first, and largest number of casualties being blamed on Western forces since his assumption of ISAF/NATO command, and his release of the kinder/gentler ROEs.

This event, following the much heralded “new strategy” of Afghan safety over killing the enemy meant to win hearts and minds, resulted in General McChrystal making an unprecedented televised speech to the Afghan people.

In an unprecedented televised address to the Afghan people, the general said his forces had launched the air strike against what they thought was a Taliban target. He promised to make the outcome of an investigation public.

“As Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, nothing is more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people,” he said in the taped address, released in versions dubbed into the two official languages, Dari and Pashtu.

“I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously.”

Gen. McChrystal also did a brief personal tour of the site, and sent a delegation of NATO fact finders to interview surviving victims and relatives.

The area, formerly a relatively quiet part of the country, is patrolled by the 4000 German NATO troops who are banned (by Berlin) from operating in any combat zones of that country. But of late, the region is becoming increasingly under the control of the Taliban. It was only days ago that a suicide bomber wounded four German troops.

As the Afghan citizens mourned and buried their dead, the armed Taliban stood careful watch.

“We will take revenge. A lot of innocent people were killed here,” one of the Taliban fighters, only his eyes left uncovered by a thick scarf, said at the funeral.

“Every family around here has victims,” said Sahar Gul, a 54-year-old village elder from Yaqoubi. “There are entire families that have been destroyed.”

Village elders said 50 people were buried in Yaqoubi and 70 more in nearby villages, although Afghan officials and the Red Cross say the precise death toll may never be known.

That pledge of “revenge” may have already claimed it’s first victims… an as of yet unidentified New York Times journalist and his intepreter who were visiting the site when kidnapped.

The journalist, who went to talk to villagers in Omarkhel village in the Chardarah district was kidnapped by Taliban militants, Mohammad Omar, the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency dpa.

“The journalist, who works for the New York Times, and his translator were blindfolded by the militants and taken to an unknown location” the governor said, adding that Afghan security forces have begun a search operation in the area to track down the kidnappers.

He said the Afghan army soldiers found the journalist’s abandoned vehicle in the area.

A Taliban commander in Chardarah district confirmed to dpa that their fighters caught the journalist along with his translator in Easakhel village of the district on Saturday morning.

He said the Taliban leadership would decide on their fate.

Despite the promise of a new strategy built around minimizing collateral damage, and even a revamping of the inefficient and cumbersome ISAF command structure in the past few weeks, ISAF/NATO’s woes will reflect upon a POTUS Obama, who remains subdued about the “war of necessity” and increasing casualties of US Operation Enduring Freedom and US NATO troops.

Even the western media – who took disturbing delight in daily body bag counts in Iraq while Bush was in the Oval Office – is increasingly nonchalant about the increasingly difficult task the ISAF/NATO and the US Central Command under General David Petraeus face.

Nor does it appear the Democrats are going to be patient much longer with Obama’s Afghanistan efforts.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. must focus more on building Afghan security forces. That view was endorsed by Sen. Jack Reed, who is also on the committee and spent two days in Afghanistan this past week with Levin, D-Mich.

Their unease follows a NATO airstrike early Friday on hijacked fuel tankers that killed as many as 70 people.

~~~

Congress returns to work in the week ahead, just as President Barack Obama receives a new military review of Afghanistan strategy. Officials expect it will be followed up by a request for at least a modest increase in U.S. troops battling insurgents in the 8-year-old war.

Obama came into office pledging to shift U.S. focus from the war in Iraq to the Afghan fight, which had long been a secondary priority. But as war-weary Americans have watched 21,000 more troops go to Afghanistan this year, and U.S. casualties rise, support for the war has waned.

As a result, lawmakers say they want the U.S. to more quickly train and equip the Afghan Army and police so the embattled country can take over its own security needs.

“There are a lot of ways to speed up the numbers and capabilities of the Afghan army and police. They are strongly motivated,” Levin said from Kuwait. “I think that we should pursue that course … before we consider a further increase in combat forces beyond what’s already been planned to be sent in the months ahead.”

Levin said there is a growing consensus on the need to expedite training and equipping the Afghan army to improve security in Afghanistan, where 51 U.S. troops died in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.

As usual, it appears the Congress is behind the eight ball on just who has control of what in Afghanistan since the UN demanded that ISAF take control, and NATO over the ISAF back in 2003. Because part of that ISAF Command restructure around the time of McChrystal’s appointment as ISAF/NATO commander, part of that was to move the Afghan training from the American umbrella to the ISAF/NATO.

“We have agreed in principle to create a new military headquarters within ISAF at the level of a three-star general to oversee day-to-day operations,” NATO Secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters at the end of a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.

The new command structure is necessary as the current Command ISAF cannot cope with the many tasks, explained de Hoop Scheffer.

ISAF is now 60,000-strong and growing. There is increasing requirement for coordination between ISAF and the Afghan government and international actors in the country. The alliance has also decided to establish a NATO training mission for Afghan National Army and police. “Command ISAF cannot do this all,” said de Hoop Scheffer.

The ministers decided to set up a uniform NATO training mission that will move training from American umbrella to NATO training command.

De Hoop Scheffer said the training mission will help train and mentor both the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, including gendarmerie training.

NATO’s existing equipment donation scheme for the Afghan National Army will now be expanded to police as well.

This “new and improved” cluster f*#k creates the classic problem of too many commanders spoiling the theatre, as you can see suggested command structure… all of whom still answer to NATO’s senior military authority, the Military Committee.

What becomes a most interesting question is: what kind of repercussions could the US face on the int’l stage if the anti-Afghanistan US crowd lose their will and pull all US involvement… the portion of troops still operating under OEF, and the other half functioning as NATO forces? Certainly, as a force cutting and running from the fight, remaining NATO forces could not stand alone. And, in fact, can the US abandon a UN directive with ISAF/NATO control without some charges arising… as well as the international ridicule and distaste that would ensue?

Brought down to a simplistic level, the goals in Afghanistan should be a clear vision. Ramping the citizens up to speed on agriculture in order to feed their population, helping develop intra-village commerce, communication and infrastructure, and securing the nation enough that outside investors may wish to come in to further explore what may be a modest (if not unconfirmed) potential for gypsum or copper. Their oil deposits, while not of any substance to catapult them to an export state, could be developed enough to contribute to their own energy needs. In short, they need a leg up to economic development by the outside world of private enterprise… none of which can happen without the country being secured.

One thing is for sure… Afghanistan strategy by ISAF and NATO appears to be ill-conceived, and even worse implemented. And while every level of politician maneuvers for their optimum power position on what to do about Afghanistan, the Afghan villagers, the NATO troops (of all nations, including the US) – operating under their nanny ROE regulations – and the US OEF forces are the ones literally taking the bullets and bombs. Cut and run is no option… but neither is the current path, determined by all to large of a military “committee”.