U.S. general dead, German general wounded in Afghan attack

Comments (7)
Bluhorizons wrote:

I still await any evidence that the money, time and blood spent by the US has had any beneficial effect in Afghanistan aside from making a few corrupt Afghanis and of course the arms manufacturers rich. This “war” or whatever it is started as a search and destroy m,mission to capure Osama. That failed. Normally a search and destroy mission is measured in weeks but this one is now more than a decade old. What did the American people get out of this? What did the Afghani people get out of this? Why have all the foreign states, including both Russia and the US failed to bring Afghanistan into modern times?

The answer is simple. The Afghani culture and government system is kleptocratic, nepotistic and of course mired in the morality and culture of the 8th century. Like so many other failed states, Afghanistan has been miserable and impoverished for hundreds of years and looks like that will continue for hundreds more. Americans like to think they can fix anything but the 20th century should have taught them otherwise.

What to do? Let the Afghanis be Afghani. Spend the money on US internal security and the rest of making America better. America has its problems but it is not a failed state.

Aug 05, 2014 10:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:

All due condolences to the families. No true soldier deserves to die by cowardly treachery.

This attack was probably more “spontaneous” than planned. However, there should be no doubt that these spontaneous/opportunistic attacks will increase, as the US/NATO troop withdrawal from Afghanistan continues. In all likelihood, such attacks are destined to evolve into “planned attacks;” to the particular benefit of the Taliban – in part, due to the unanticipated and untimely delay in the election & installation of the new Afghan government.

With the loss of such a high-ranking American officer and the wounding of the NATO officers, it’s certain that this particular event will instill a very understandable – but counter-productive – ‘heightened’ case of “assassination jitters” among the US/NATO troops.

But the “politics” ….

This attack leaves the US/NATO forces in a maddening dilemma. If the ‘allies’ don’t “absorb” this attack – versus strongly reacting to it – the outcome will be expressed in not only the ‘possibility’ of the desired American residual force NOT being allowed to stay behind; but the added possibility, nigh unto probability, that the last of the US/NATO troops will be taking heavy fire, as they leave. From the lead-up to the present day, “Afghanistan” (and “Iraq”) has been radically more a function of “politics;” versus civil or military “leadership” – radically worse than the Viet Nam War.

Consider ….

Whatever the history of the ‘traditional’ Afghan inter-tribal warfare; history strongly ‘suggests’ the lesson that the Afghans will NEVER tolerate an “outside” influence over the Afghan population, as a whole – not particularly dissimilar to the Viet Nam War.

Unlike the Viet Nam War ….

As with the case of the Soviet invasion/occupation of Afghanistan, the left-behind weaponry and ‘military tactics’ will probably find their way to “… terrorists everywhere;” to include the ‘homeland’ turf of “Western” countries.

Lurking in the background …..

While little discussed in the global news media, the abrupt formation and successes of “ISIL/ISIS/IS” in Iraq and Syria should incite the notion that the “West” might easily and quickly face a mandate for a brutal no-holds-barred assault on terrorist groups “… wherever found; round the Earth.”

Speculative though it may be, if Baghdad and Kabul “fall,” the repercussions could stagger the ‘mind’ of history, itself.

No matter how unpopular and/or “politically incorrect” it may be to say, within the cultures of so many “Islamic” countries, only brutal tyranny has ever kept any semblance of peace – “Iraq” being a current meaningful example for the USA, in particular. How many can doubt the relative “peace” in Iraq; had Saddam been simply ‘contained?’ Libya? Egypt? Syria? Ukraine? Clearly, the US thumb-print has reliably turned more deadly, as time goes on.

However nearly “insane,” the “Western” countries just can’t grasp the idea that the ‘logic’ and ‘benefits’ of “civilization” and “democracy” can’t be somehow permanently imposed upon ANY culture. For all the undeniable examples in history, the West “… just doesn’t get it.”

Comparably, the “Western” countries can’t seem to grasp the nearly guaranteed “blow-back,” of the ‘subject’ countries consequently employing “Western” weaponry to defeat the pseudo-colonial attempts – AND the exportation of various formats of Jihad to the West; including raw “terrorism.”

While it’s commonly enough and accurately noted that everything from global charity efforts to undeclared wars are predominantly a function of “corrupt corporate profits;” the Western/global “public” remains enraptured by insanely unrealistic “charitable attitudes;” which are, by all reasonable estimates/perceptions, gift-wrapped in the science of “Coercive Persuasion;” facilitated by the global news media – augmented by raw “ignorance” and “apathy.”

In the 21st Century, there appears to be a far more common, prominent and brutal version of Lord Acton’s famous statement, expressed in the form of: “Whether factual, attempted, imagined or hoped-for; the greater the ‘power;’ the greater the corruption, perversion and insanity.” However, in history, per se, such is nothing particularly “new.”

In concert, the participating/supporting neo-colonial populations ‘mysteriously’ refuse to learn the intensely valuable lessons, which are practically super-glued to their “eyes.” The “necessary” and “powerful” lessons are ever so commonly found in concise philosophies of the “great thinkers” of history – and very commonly expressed in ordinary conversation, to little or no effect.

Consider the wisdom of Winston Churchill: “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”

It is easily observed that history doesn’t repeat; history evolves. Accordingly, it can be comparably concluded that those who know and understand history – and the pertinent and dynamic role of innovation – can also gain a powerful insight and understanding of both the present; and the future. In concert, those who additionally possess or gain the necessary power, will at least possess the “ability” to specifically shape the present and the future. Save for the well-known and predictable weaknesses of “human nature;” there is no mandate for the corruption and perversion.

By all reliable accounts, it can be easily concluded that the difference between barbarity and civilization is that barbarity isn’t composed of well-intended illusions.

As a caveat, it must be acknowledged that “truth” and “facts” can be enshrouded by totally inadvertent short-term or long-term “raw ignorance.” However, as “politics” historically operate, the pertinent “truth” and “facts” have always been subject to the dynamic impact of clever/grievous manipulation; as well as passive/convenient “human” denial.

With respect to the future, additionally enter the truthful or factually based elements of both “motivation” and “wisdom” – or lack thereof – versus consequent and comparable truth and fact based “probability” estimates.

Thus, it may be intelligently and reasonably forecast that “Afghanistan” will fall to the Taliban and “Iraq” will fall to yet non-specific Islamic extremists; just as Viet Nam fell to the NVA and Viet Cong.

In concert, it may be intelligently and reasonably forecast that “Americans,” at least, will once again face the harsh reality that “Afghanistan” and “Iraq” were/are almost exclusively exercises in the “usual” corporate profiteering, ala the Viet Nam War – with the additional issues of ‘oil’ and ‘heroin’ profiteering being hidden in the shadows.

For the moment, the death of this general and the wounding of another ‘coalition’ general – as well as roughly 14 other US soldiers – more brightly illuminates the ‘drama’ of the pre-existing nightmare of “trusted” Afghan Army troops killing “coalition” soldiers; in this case, very high-ranking soldiers. What will be the reaction, if any?

The obvious current question addresses the possibility of this particular Green-on-Blue attack NOT being a relatively isolated occurrence; versus serving as an inspiration and/or accelerant of a terrible trend, in the ‘final’ days of the “coalition” troops in Afghanistan.

By way of “speculation” ….

Few should doubt that the Taliban has been taking careful notes; and will return to power in Afghanistan. However, again, by way of “speculation,” the Taliban essentially has two key options:

1. Orchestrating a punitive/revenge attack on the ‘coalition’ forces, as they leave Afghanistan. Or;

2. Allowing the ‘coalition’ forces to peacefully and expediently leave; thus “preserving” any actual or ‘potential’ assets for an enhanced magnitude of power/resources, to be applied toward both the defeat of the left-behind Afghan government and to serve the Taliban’s longer term future.

However “third-world” the Afghan/Taliban mindset may be, the Taliban has demonstrated some surprisingly intelligent and pragmatic leadership. Any magnitude of American retaliation for Green-on-Blue attacks wouldn’t (logically) serve the Taliban; particularly if such would extend the American presence in Afghanistan, in particular. Add that any winter fighting against American forces would be far more difficult and costly to any Taliban forces. Logically, the sooner the ‘coalition’ troops exit Afghanistan; the better for the Taliban. But, admittedly, there is no assurance that such is the actual mindset of the Taliban.

With the last ‘coalition’ soldier exiting Afghanistan, the Taliban will be perceived to have “won” over the USA, in particular; with the presumptive subsequent Taliban defeat of the left-behind government being the proverbial “… icing on the cake.” Toward that end …

Just by threatening the associated soldiers’ families, “flipping” the left-behind Afghan Army is an easy ‘trick’ for the Taliban to pull off. Beyond destroying the “American-sponsored” Kabul leadership, the greater challenge for the Taliban is their assured fight with the Afghan tribal leaders/clans. Thus, any “flipped” soldiers would serve the Taliban goals quite well; with the Taliban not being particularly concerned for the survival of those particular ‘tainted’ soldiers.

It’s also very likely that the “Afghan” Taliban intends to facilitate the “Pakistani” Taliban, in an attempt to overthrow the Pakistani government. If so, any human and/or physical resources which the Taliban can acquire will be appropriately “treasured.” It’s radically better for the Taliban, if they can “scare” the newly elected Afghan leaders into skipping town – leaving any cash behind.

In the interim, it’s academic that uniquely ‘spontaneous’ Green-on-Blue attacks will continue. Again, there are two key questions; whether or not these killings become any form of “movement” – whether inspired/ordered by the Taliban, or not – and whether or not this particular attack on General Greene’s group triggers a major ‘coalition’ retaliation. In the immediate shadow of this attack, there are also two peripheral questions: what does the military intelligence indicate; and, expected claims aside, is the Taliban crazy enough to celebrate this attack?

And, of course, it’s necessary to ask whether or not Obama will either order or allow any retaliation. In Obama’s case, it’s not necessarily “reasonable” to assume that if Obama can speak to the outrage of the death of the Gazan civilians; that he will speak with indignation to the deaths of this attack. After all, most of the truly brave American soldiers now in Afghanistan have been notified that they will be discharged upon their return to the States – no doubt with the robotic “… thank you for your service.” Really – “service??”

In time of actual combat/danger, it’s not about an individual soldier’s “service;” it’s about the “sacrifice” of the individual soldier – add that of his family and friends! Whether physically and/or mentally-emotionally, no one leaves a combat zone “unwounded” – including civilians.

Rationally and traditionally, the treacherous death of an American major general (specific rank) should be met with particular fury; from the President, the Pentagon and the Congress. But in the current American politically-charged (read: “conditioned”) environment; it would almost be “totally surprising” if such were to occur; even from the American public.

With former POW Bowe Berghdal being currently re-investigated – for “desertion” – what investigation will Major General Greene’s demise warrant? Will there be one; or will his death be simply brushed-off as “… another Green-on-Blue fatality” – noted as being more tragic than others?

In DC, prosecuting soldiers – including generals – is almost a “political sport.” Thus, it’s pertinent to ask such otherwise unthinkable questions, as above. But, what answers will “time” actually return? For that matter, is there anyone sufficiently motivated or capable of asking the pertinent, but unpopular questions?

Aug 05, 2014 10:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mister_Mister wrote:

He wasn’t much of a general if he let himself get killed like that…

Aug 06, 2014 2:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lifepreserver wrote:

Obviously intelligence has been lacking. To allow someone to infiltrate the US military ranks while two generals are present is a disappointment and an embarrassment to the security of the country. As a citizen its a disappointment of something like this to happen no matter what the risks…

Aug 06, 2014 3:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Mister_Mister, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about so best to stick to subjects you are familiar with. This was a training school where a lapse in Afghan security cost this man his life. It was a non-combat position he was in, so most likely had removed his body armor which is the custom inside a perimeter.

Aug 06, 2014 4:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoutherRican wrote:

One is suppose to Honor those whom serve our country. A possible lapse in security or as I believe a deliberate Lapse in security. Sorry but the statement “The U.S. and German generals were on a routine visit, the Pentagon said.” means they should have had a U.S. security team, even in a training school, Generals are THE Primary Targets for the enemy, they have a habit to decline security, but security must persist to be present. And yes I served with as an Infantrymen with the 82nd Airborne for many moons.

Aug 06, 2014 9:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse

It is telling that this kind of attack is the only way the Taliban has succeded in a long time.

Aug 06, 2014 9:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.