Afghan troops ramp up attacks on Western trainers

Rodrigo Abd/AP file photo

French leaders said they'd reevaluate whether to keep troops in Afghanistan after four French military trainers were gunned down by an Afghan soldier on Friday, underscoring that the biggest threat to Western political support for the long war may come from fratricidal attacks by partnered Afghan troops, not strikes by shadowy Taliban fighters.

The killings in northwest Afghanistan had immediate political repercussions thousands of miles away in France, where a visibly angry President Nicolas Sarkozy said his country would suspend all of its training operations in Afghanistan and assess whether to speed its withdrawal from the country.

"The French army is standing next to its allies, but we cannot accept that even one of our soldiers be killed or wounded by our allies," Sarkozy said. "It is unacceptable. I will not accept it."

Sarkozy's fury was spurred, in part, by the fact that a pair of other French troops had been gunned down by an Afghan colleague just weeks earlier. But it also reflected a broader dynamic within the U.S.-led military coalition. Afghan troops are killing record numbers of Western trainers, sapping public support for the war throughout NATO.

So far this year, a quarter of the 28 foreign troops killed in Afghanistan died at the hands of Afghan security personnel. A classified NATO report obtained by The New York Times found that 58 Western troops had been killed in 26 separate attacks by Afghan soldiers and police personnel between May 2007 and May 2011. The attacks that have occurred since last summer have pushed the tally closer to 70.

Many Western analysts believe the nationalities of the dead Western troops may matter as much as their sheer numbers. Military personnel from the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany have been killed by Afghan colleagues, prompting politicians in each of the countries to call for reevaluating whether to continue fighting in Afghanistan. That means the Taliban's best hope of splintering the U.S.-led coalition may come from finding more Afghan troops willing to turn their guns on their Western trainers.

"These attacks are certainly more about sapping political will than simply trying to inflict direct casualties," said Jeffrey Dressler, an Afghan expert with the Institute for the Study of War. "If the French decide to pull their troops out as a result of this incident, it's only going to encourage the insurgency to increase these attacks and try to force other countries out as well."

Senior U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan have regularly tried to play down the significance of the fratricidal attacks, arguing that they stemmed from personal grievances rather than systemic Taliban infiltration of the Afghan armed forces or anti-Western feelings within the Afghan army and police force. That was the explanation given after an Afghan soldier killed five British troops in November 2009, after a police recruit killed two Spanish trainers in August 2010, and in the aftermath of a wave of similar incidents.

Earlier this week, for instance, the Air Force said a months-long investigation into an Afghan colonel's killings of eight American troops and a U.S. contractor last April concluded that the officer had methodically planned the attack but carried it out without any clear ideological motivation.

The military's continued public insistence that the killings of Western troops by their Afghan colleagues were motivated by factors other than insurgent sympathies came in for harsh criticism in the classified report obtained by The New York Times. Such statements, the report concluded, were "disingenuous, if not profoundly intellectually dishonest."

"Lethal altercations are clearly not rare or isolated; they reflect a rapidly growing systemic homicide threat (a magnitude of which may be unprecedented between 'allies' in modern military history)," the report said, according to the newspaper.

Beyond their political impact, the attacks are threatening a core component of the U.S. strategy for winding down its involvement in Afghanistan. The Obama administration has ramped up its training efforts for the Afghan army and police, hoping that the Afghan personnel assume will be able to assume security responsibility for their own country and clear the way for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

But the fratricidal attacks by Afghan security personnel are complicating that training mission by forcing Western forces to question the loyalties of their Afghan colleagues, limit their participation in joint missions, and consider the imposition of new protective measures - like barring Afghans from carrying weapons on shared bases or building separate sets of living quarters - which would inevitably strain the relationships between members of the two forces.

"It's sort of a catch-22," said Bill Roggio, the editor of Long War Journal, a Web site that closely tracks the Afghan war. "Our plan is to turn the country over to the Afghans, which means training them to take over. But they're killing the guys we have doing the training."

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.