Memorial Day Ceremony in Aghanistan

On Monday, Memorial Day at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan, there was a memorial service for the two Americans who were killed on 20 May by an IED. The AP article can be found here:

Associated Press

There is casual mention of Coalition partners and civilian contractors being in attendance, but even that reference is far from complete. What the AP didn’t mention at all was the fact that there were also Afghans in attendance. In fact nowhere in the US media did this story get the kind of attention it deserves. This story is important not for what the AP reported, but for the most significant parts they did not report.

The two Americans killed last week, Lieutenant Roslyn Schulte and Mr. Shawn Pine, were Jewish. They were mentors for the Afghan National Army General Staff. The Afghans they mentored were in attendance and they presented wreaths to honor the fallen. Additionally, two Ministers and other high-ranking officers of the Afghan National Army General Staff were in present along with numerous Afghan Police and Afghan civilians.

Afghan and American Officers greet each other with the "Kiss of Peace"

Most significant was that a high-ranking Afghan officer gave a eulogy for the two Americans. Understand this: a Muslim gave a eulogy for two Jewish Americans. Why does this not make the news? Doesn’t anyone recognize the significance of this?

Afghan Officer giving eulogy for Roslyn Schulte and Shawn Pine

On the day that Lieutenant Schulte and Mr. Pine were killed, there were Christians, Muslims and Jews in the convoy. The other two people in the vehicle that was hit were Muslim and they were wounded. Some of the first people on the scene to assist were Afghan civilians and Afghan police. As the bodies were taken from the scene, Afghans and Americans wept together. Why is this story not told?

During the ceremony it was mentioned that one of the Afghans who worked with Mr. Pine remarking on his death said, “It is as if I’ve lost my brother.”

Jewish Chaplain

Don’t the media recognize the significance of a Muslim calling a Jew his brother and weeping over his death? Throughout the ceremony, several of the Afghan officers cried. When the Jewish Chaplain sang a Hebrew prayer, many Afghans bowed their heads. Afghan officers embraced the Jewish Chaplain before and after the ceremony.

Afghan and American Officers sharing condolences.
Note the Afghan Officer low in the picture with bowed head.
He was crying.

It seems to me the mainstream media want to keep portraying this war as American against the Afghans, but nothing can be further from the truth. A more honest report would have at least included some acknowledgment of the Afghan’s presence at our ceremony. Their presence at the ceremony is symbolic of the larger picture.

Afghan Officer after signing condolence books that would be sent to the families of the fallen.

This is the story that should be told: that people from many nations, Christians, Jews and Muslims are working together in common cause against the true enemy. There is no reason that Christians, Muslims and Jews cannot live together in peace and respect. During our ceremony we showed that it is indeed possible and it is a beautiful thing to see. The differences that truly divide us are no wider than a line in the sand. Yet somehow, the mainstream media do not seem to think this is worth reporting on.

Afghan Sergeants present the wreaths

The wreaths presented by the Afghans flank comrades-in-arms as they pay last respects.

It should also be noted that soldiers from the following allies were in attendance: The United Kingdom, Poland, Germany, France, Turkey, Norway, Hungary, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Spain and Italy. My apologies to any that I may have missed.

Shared Sacrifice

US, Afghan, French, Turkish and UK flags at half-mast.
Sometimes we have a bad week, but we have a saying here:
"One Team, One Fight!"
Implicit in that is shared sacrifice.
Note to the defeatist media and others of that ilk:
Our soldiers have the guts and patience to do what is necessary.
Do you?

Attack on the Ministry of Justice in Kabul

On 11 February, attacks were staged on the Ministry of Justice and a Prisons Office. A third target seemed to be the Ministry of Education, which is near the Justice Ministry. However, it is possible that that lone attacker was simply lost. The attacker at the Ministry of Education was shot dead before he could cause any trouble.

Five attackers hit the Ministry of Justice, killing two policemen as they entered the building. One of the five was shot dead by a policman who followed them into the building. The remaining four then fanned out shooting at anyone who crossed their path. They managed to kill ten civilians and 57 were injured or wounded (many of the injured were hurt jumping out windows to escape the gunmen). Kabul police responded quickly, entered the building and killed all four assailants.

At the prisons office two attackers attempted to enter the building. One was shot dead immediately by a policeman. The second attacker shot the policeman dead, entered the building and detonated his explosive vest, killing himself and seven policemen.

The end tally was: terrorists 8 dead, police 10 dead, civilians 10 dead and 57 injured/wounded.

What is clear is that the attackers were trying to emulate a "Mumbai-like" attack. A key difference: Afghan police are not afraid to fight it out. The Afghans recognized the developing threat, killing three of the attackers as they entered the buildings. They did not let things turn into a prolonged siege, quickly closing in on the terrorists in the building, hunting them down and killing them.

Let us keep this in perspective. This was a bad day by Kabul standards, but only one of many far better and steadily improving days. There are days the bad guys will have success. While the attack momentarily grabbed headlines, it did not, contrary to some news reports, paralyze the city.

All of the buildings attacked on 11 February had little to no stand-off from the street. They are difficult to protect and there are large numbers of people in front of, entering and leaving these buildings all day.

A factor that angers me somewhat is that since no Westerners were killed or directly involved, it was only a passing headline in the Western media. Apart from some alarmists and Pat Buchanan ranting about how "the war is lost" the story vanished within hours. I would like to think that the excellent reaction of the Afghan police and the total annihilation of the attackers made this story not sexy enough. Perhaps if a Westerner had gotten in the crossfire, this story would have seen more play.

Below are some pictures taken less than an hour after the attacks in a different part of town.

Note the terrified women fleeing in blind panic.

Note the men in equal panic, trampling women and children in their paralyzed terror.

Thankfully there were balloon salesmen on hand to calm the masses.

Afghans are not wimps. They take bad events like Taliban attacks in stride. Afterall, they've got 30 years of experience with really bad times.

A Word About the Afghan "Resistance"

I have a new blogging buddy, Layla Anwar, except that she doesn’t blog to make buddies. She is very good at making enemies. The first time I visited her blog I was reading a post that told everyone to fuck off. Yes, in those words.

Layla is a Sunni Arab Iraqi and a big fan of Saddam Hussein. Most visitors to her site are either sycophants or people who would like to kill her – not many in the middle. Some of her “best” enemies have actually come out and said they plan to kill her.

I'm one of the rare "middle" people. I disagree with much maybe even most of what she says, but I genuinely like her. She is an exceptional person.

Layla's main blog is Arab Woman Blues. If you visit this site you must be prepared for some prose that will likely get your blood boiling either in favor of her, or against her.

She can also be quite funny as her other blog Uncensored Arab Woman Blues shows with all her issues on dating in Iraq.

You have to keep in mind when reading Arab prose that it tends to the extreme in terms of emotion. It's difficult to keep from getting wrapped up in emotion when you read it. I guess that’s the point.

Anyway, in the midst of a particularly emotional post vilifying the Imperialist American, Zionist, Safavid Shiite Iranian cabal that has ruined the Iraqi paradise that once existed under Saint Saddam, she strays into areas about which she perhaps should have remained silent - namely, Afghanistan.

In the post she gives three cheers (sort of) for what we in the West would otherwise call “the bad guys.” Of course she can be forgiven because she gets her news from the news agencies/web sites that are pushing the idea that what we are trying to do is nothing less than destroy Sunnis and usher in the American Zionist Safavid state with forced conversion to that apostate sect. In the Afghanistan detour she says: “…where the Afghan Resistance is making strides.”

At this point I take issue. Which resistance is she talking about? Is it the “resistance” in Kandahar that sprays acid in the faces of schoolgirls? Or is it the “resistance” in Kandahar and Khost and across the border in the “ungovernable provinces” of Pakistan that burns down schools and murders teachers? Perhaps it is the resistance that blew up fourteen elementary schoolchildren in Khost the last week of December?

Perhaps it’s the drug lord “resistance” in Helmand and Herat. But, since a large part of their “crop” is ending up in Iran, which now has the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world, that’s probably OK. Anything that rots the evil Safavid state from within is good.

Or maybe she means the criminal gangs (some of which include the corrupt police) who primarily rob merchants and ordinary Afghans. Maybe she means the kidnapping rings that primarily target Afghan school children (especially the girls, many of whom end up raped) and the occassional Westerner. If she means the occasional Pakistani or ARAB suicide bomber, most of whom target civilians in busy markets, they are not well-received by the local populace.

If by making strides she means terrorizing the civilian populace as opposed to attacking the Imperialist Americans and their allies, well that is primarily what the "bad guys" do here.

In reality, official corruption and ordinary crime are the biggest problems in Afghanistan. If the corruption can be negated, then the crime will dwindle and the situation for ordinary Afghans will drastically improve.

There is no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq. The circumstances are entirely different. The US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) do not have a single tank in Afghanistan. I live in a neighborhood in the middle of Kabul and I travel around unarmed, both in Kabul and outside of Kabul. In Kabul I can walk the streets. I am frequently in situations here that I would never have allowed myself in Iraq.

It was Afghan tanks that entered Kabul in 2001, not American. That simple fact changes many things. I will be the first to say that the West squandered precious time and golden opportunities early on. Our stupidity and arrogance made a difficult job harder, just like we did in Iraq, but the situation is far from impossible.

Cutting the Gordian knot of corruption should be the main priority. And one can’t say that these people are “used to it” or it can’t be changed because they’ve always been corrupt. That is simply not true. The ordinary people know that corruption is wrong and that it hurts business, but they are trapped in it and waiting for us to do what we promised.

In an alliance of convenience, we allowed the corrupt warlords to get their hands back into the system. It will be up to us to show them the door, or failing such direct action, provide the support to those Afghans who are trying to fight the corruption so that they can do it.

Playing into the Enemy's Hands

Below is an article from the Christian Science Monitor in the aftermath of the suicide attack on the Ministry of Information and Culture in Kabul. My analysis of this article appears below the article. The main point is that this is yet another example of the blissfully ignorant media playing right into the hands of the insurgents.


Insurgents increasingly employing complex attacks in Afghanistan
Thursday's strike on an Afghan ministry was carried out by a team using multiple attack methods.
By Anand Gopal Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 31, 2008 edition


Kabul, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a government ministry Thursday, killing at least five and injuring dozens. The attack is the latest in a series this year showing insurgents' ability to penetrate the capital using complicated and daring methods.

"Security in the capital is decreasing day by day," says Ajmal Karimi, analyst with the Center for Peace and Conflict studies, a Kabul-based think tank.

He says that Thursday's attack, which involved multiple insurgents and included small-arms fire, is an example of the sophisticated methods increasingly used.

"With these types of attacks the insurgents are able to make people feel that they cannot trust the government to keep them safe even in the capital," he says.

At least three insurgents entered the Ministry of Information and Culture, located in a busy section of Kabul, Thursday morning. Witnesses say a gunfight broke out between security officials and the guerrillas, followed by a massive blast that destroyed much of the ministry's first floor. According to some reports, two insurgents escaped the scene.

The Taliban claimed responsibility, saying they were targeting foreign advisers. Insurgents may also have hit the ministry because it was one of the least secure.

Kabul is heavily guarded, with thousands of police patrolling, many main arteries closed to traffic, and blast walls surrounding most government buildings. Yet insurgents have staged numerous high-profile attacks.

"In these types of attacks, the insurgents may send one suicide bomber toward the target while another fighter distracts security forces with gunfire," says Mr. Karimi.

While the attack involved a small team, many complex attacks involve greater numbers of fighters and a more diverse combination of attack methods. According to an American intelligence official with the international forces, this year has seen a 6 to 12 percent increase in assaults involving more than 20 insurgents and multiple attack methods.

The blast comes amid talk of negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. "Our enemies are trying to undermine recent efforts by the government for a peaceful solution to end the violence," President Hamid Karzai said in a statement.
•Danna Harman contributed to this report from Kabul.

My comments:

The attack is the latest in a series this year showing insurgents' ability to penetrate the capital using complicated and daring methods.

This statement is never explained or elaborated anywhere in the article. What “complicated” or “daring” methods were used to “penetrate” the capital? Kabul is a big city with over 4 million inhabitants. There is not a solid wall, fence or other barrier that rings the city. The main roads are not the only ways into the city.

"Security in the capital is decreasing day by day," says Ajmal Karimi, analyst with the Center for Peace and Conflict studies, a Kabul-based think tank.

And we have arrived at this conclusion based upon what evidence? By the way it is the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS) and Ajmal Karimi strangely does not appear on the staff page as an analyst. He may very well work there, but if he does he is a low-level researcher.

The CAPS website states: “Armed groups in Afghanistan, just as in the Middle East and Pakistan, use the media to propagate their message, solicit both moral and financial support, and provide distant training and exchange of logistical information required to launch successful operations.”

The Christian Science Monitor, just like the main stream media plays right into the insurgents’ hands with uninformed reports like this one.

Kabul is heavily guarded, with thousands of police patrolling, many main arteries closed to traffic, and blast walls surrounding most government buildings.

Thousands of police in a large sprawling city of four million is hardly surprising. The “main arteries” closed to traffic are those in the immediate vicinity of the Presidential Palace, the Ministry of the Interior (National Police Headquarters), and the Ministry of Defense. Hardly surprising given the threat of VBIED’s (Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device). In fact if these roads were left open, one would then need to be critical of lax security. It only takes one VBIED in the right place at the right time to create havoc. This isn’t much different from in the US where traffic is no longer allowed around certain government buildings. (Have you tried to drive in front of the White House lately?)

Yet insurgents have staged numerous high-profile attacks.

I’m very curious as to how we have arrived at “numerous” high-profile attacks. Let’s see: January 2008, Hotel Serena; April 2008, Assassination attempt on President Karzai; July 2008, Suicide VBIED attack on the Indian Embassy; October 2008, Suicide BBIED (Body Borne Improvised Explosive Device) at the Ministry of Information and Culture. That’s only four even though the media would have us believe that Kabul is about to fall to the Taliban. So far that works out to one every three months, but it still misses a key point.

What do three of the four have in common? In three of the four cases lax security around what should have been recognized as potential high-profile targets invited the attacks.

In the case of Hotel Serena, not only was security lax in the first place, there was advance warning of an impending attack and no action was taken to tighten security even though on the day of the attack the Norwegian embassy was hosting a reception there.

In the Indian Embassy attack the road that should have been blocked to regular traffic was not. The Indian Embassy is right across the street from the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, which may have actually been the intended target. Given that the road is now blocked except for authorized traffic, a repeat is unlikely.

He says that Thursday's attack (Oct 30), which involved multiple insurgents and included small-arms fire, is an example of the sophisticated methods increasingly used.

Three guys charging a lightly-guarded gate firing AK’s is hardly sophisticated, in fact it is pretty basic.

"With these types of attacks the insurgents are able to make people feel that they cannot trust the government to keep them safe even in the capital," he says.

Clearly that is the goal of this type of attack, whether or not such attacks have achieved this goal is a matter of conjecture. Within hours of this particular attack it was business as usual in this busy market part of town.

Insurgents may also have hit the ministry because it was one of the least secure.

This is the primary reason the insurgents hit this particular ministry. The Ministry is located off a busy market street where hundreds of people are milling all day long. Security here was very lax with virtually no “stand-off” to even slow a potential attacker who simply had to sprint the twenty yards from the gate to the front lobby and detonate.

Again, Kabul is a large, sprawling city with more points of entry than can be properly guarded by even a million police officers and yet there have been only four “high-profile” attacks this year (the year of the greatest number of attacks nation-wide). In at least three of the four attacks there were significant security lapses that contributed to creating conditions conducive to attack.

The enemy exploits perceived weakness. That should be expected. As hardening and awareness reduces opportunity, the enemy looks for new opportunities. That is why one cannot become complacent. We are facing a thinking enemy. It is idiotic to imagine that he will not adjust his tactics and methods to counter our actions. The fact that he does so is not indicative of increased capability on his part or deteriorating security on our part.

While the attack involved a small team, many complex attacks involve greater numbers of fighters and a more diverse combination of attack methods. According to an American intelligence official with the international forces, this year has seen a 6 to 12 percent increase in assaults involving more than 20 insurgents and multiple attack methods.

So what if they fail? As they have in all cases. The fact that a group of attackers uses hand grenades and small arms, makes an attack “complex” by military definitions, but this does not equate to “sophisticated” in the civilian sense of complication.

By the way, total casualties for the year are actually down significantly from last year. So despite the alleged increase in “sophistication” and “complexity” the attacks are less efficient. Higher concentrations of insurgents are not a liability to us because we have them out-gunned. When they choose to mass, they are easier to detect, target and kill.

You Don't Support the Troops

I support the troops, but…

But nothing…you don’t support the troops.

How can allegedly educated people be so bloody naïve? Have you no understanding what showing up for anti-war protests and pushing for a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq is doing to the troops that you claim to support? You are giving the enemy a reason to keep fighting. By giving the enemy encouragement, you are contributing to casualties of the very troops you allegedly support.

Do you not understand that in this day and age the enemy browses the Internet, watches CNN and follows every nuance of Western pacifism? What you clearly do not understand is that war is won in the will. If you truly cared about the troops, you‘d take a look at what the enemy is saying on their web sites. Every time you protest, they rejoice and believe that their victory is that much nearer. In your vocal opposition to the war, they recognize that you haven’t the stomach to see the fight through. All they have to do is hang on until you stupidly elect a candidate who claims that he will "end the war" by withdrawing our troops no matter what the conditions are on the ground.

In 2004, just prior to the Spanish elections, they blew up the Madrid train station killing 191 people. Spain did exactly what the terrorists wanted, they voted in a government that immediately withdrew their troops from Iraq. Had the Spaniards had intestinal fortitude, they would have increased their troop strength and sworn to battle on no matter what. The terrorists would have been taken aback at the strength of will a Western country was showing. Things might have been much different.

Just before General Petraeus testified before Congress, there was an up-tick in violence, including the largest single terrorist attack of the war. Over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed and 1,500 wounded. Any bets on whether the attack was planned with our politics in mind? Any bets on what is going to happen come say, September and October?

Here is the road we are headed down thanks to the weak-willed who say they “support the troops”, but not the war. Already two of the top leaders of Hamas (Ahmed Yousef and Khaled Meshal) have “endorsed” Obama. Gleb Pavlovsky, a key advisor to Vladimir Putin and his hand-picked puppet Dmitri Medvedev has “endorsed” Obama. Hugo Chavez, while not directly endorsing Obama, has attacked McCain. The Iranian state television has also been vigorously attacking McCain as has the North Korean state-run newspaper Rodong Sinnmun.

In 2004, a weekend before the Presidential Election, Osama bin Laden made a television appearance in a naked attempt to influence the election. What all these instances have in common is that they believe that the Democrats will be weaker and more willing to avoid conflict at any price. Obama is making that case with his declaration to cut and run no matter what the circumstances on the ground are.

So the next time you attend a peace rally and claim to support the troops but…

But nothing! SHUT UP! You do NOT support the troops because you are giving the enemy hope and reason to keep fighting. YOU are showing the enemy that we do not have the will to win. So when there is an up-tick in violence prior to the 2008 elections, keep in mind that your failure to truly support the troops is responsible. The enemy is certain that you will show your gutless stripes and elect someone who will give them the victory you are denying your own troops.