How would you handle this Green Blue issue?

USAgirl

Active member
Just curious to know how other people might handle this issue...

So now the troops in Afganistan are having to worry about a person in an Afgan uniform turning on them.

How do you handle this?

You could do a lie detector test but that would take a long time.

Some might say pull out of Afganistan today.

Some would bring in more troops and make a stronger impression.

Your thoughts?
 
This question would be just as valid and informative if it were asked to average Afghani Solider in the ANA.

However unfortunately this is just not an option. The insight that they could provide on their vulnerably of becoming a "ten dollar Taliban", as an alternative to government service contributes to this increasing trend no doubt.
 
This question would be just as valid and informative if it were asked to average Afghani Solider in the ANA.

However unfortunately this is just not an option. The insight that they could provide on their vulnerably of becoming a "ten dollar Taliban", as an alternative to government service contributes to this increasing trend no doubt.

Thanks Yo.

I guess there are many reasons why they would do that, cash, revenge, blackmail, they know we are leaving and are afriad not to join the Taliban..who knows

That is why my question was more about how do we handle it on our end? I just thought lie detector test but that only works if they have already turned and they would have to be on going and what if they can pass a lie test?

I know, I know, I have seen one too many bond movies.
 
You lift the restrictions on certain bases of locked and loaded weapons . you require all NATO Personnel to be hot. Afghanis in the ANA aren't always opening up over religion or nationalism, alot of it is a perceived insult thing, like Achmed getting a newer rifle or boots than Ahmed. They are seriously F'd in the head.
 
You lift the restrictions on certain bases of locked and loaded weapons . you require all NATO Personnel to be hot. Afghanis in the ANA aren't always opening up over religion or nationalism, alot of it is a perceived insult thing, like Achmed getting a newer rifle or boots than Ahmed. They are seriously F'd in the head.

USMC, I am a civi so I don't know exactly what those things are you mentioned but I guess it means guns with bullets but the Afgans have those too and are turning on our guys.

That is so messed up that something like a new boots or rifle would trigger such an act, I mean what can you do for that? Just have some group talk when they first arrive explaining if that is an issue to communicate it to someone and not resort to violence?
 
I don't believe there is a correct answer.

No matter what procedures you put in place, there will always be people who will find a way around it.

These attacks will continue for however long NATO/ISAF forces are there. Sad but true.
 
I don't believe there is a correct answer.

No matter what procedures you put in place, there will always be people who will find a way around it.

These attacks will continue for however long NATO/ISAF forces are there. Sad but true.

So should we not be there Capt?
 
So should we not be there Capt?

I was part of one of the first teams on the ground when it kicked off in 2001. Things got off to a good start but 11 years on the same issues remain.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda still operate throughout the country, and hold significant power and have endless followers. Then you have Pakistan which pretty much supports the activities of the insurgency.

But to leave now would be wrong and would send out the wrong message. We have committed ourselves until 2014 so I'd like to see us "complete" our mission. We owe that to the guys we've lost.
 
Every way you look at this topic someone would end up offended.
Taking the rifles and ammo off the ANA would most likley result in a fued about them being treated unfairly. That could only cause more problems, especially if NATO forces were allowed to carry around weapons. If you the ANA keep the weapons, then other people are going to be angry and upset that NATO hasn't taken the weapons off them. It's really a no-win situation.
I don't personally think that we should leave Afghanistan until we have served our time over there- like Capt said, we owe that to our men and women who have sacrificed themself over there.
Australia just lost three good men over in Afghanistan to such an inccident. The only thing we can do is hope for the best, and ask that all our men and women return home safetly in 2014.
 
It seems odd that Afghan troops seem to be allowed to carry loaded weapons into rest areas of Collation bases.
These days if an Afghan soldier wanted help I would make sure my mate covered him with a loaded gun with one up the breech and the safety catch off. While i was helping him i would also make sure his weapons were more than an arm length away from him
 
It seems odd that Afghan troops seem to be allowed to carry loaded weapons into rest areas of Collation bases.
These days if an Afghan soldier wanted help I would make sure my mate covered him with a loaded gun with one up the breech and the safety catch off. While i was helping him i would also make sure his weapons were more than an arm length away from him
as we would say in Vietnam...... *there it is*

spot on mate, spot on.
 
My point of view is that Nato should thoroughly train Afghan instructors outside Afghanistan. After their class they are responisble for training their own men. Nato and Afghan troops should work seperatedly until the Afghans are capable for securing their own country. Tell them once they can do that, Nato will leave.

Putting a fixed date on an exit is asking for trouble. I call that professional misconduct.
 
Tribal loyalty in places like Afghanistan take priority over every thing, unless you have worked in these places you have no idea what you are talking about
 
Tribal loyalty in places like Afghanistan take priority over every thing, unless you have worked in these places you have no idea what you are talking about

Does that mean that we have to let those tribes fall under the rule of the Taliban?

Or that there is no Afhanistan, only tribal terrioiries?

How would you solve it?
 
How do you change thousands of years of human history, you can't and all you can do is hope that their thinking might evolve over the years. Still when there ideology is reinforced by their religion then then you are p1ssing against the wind.
 
Does that mean that we have to let those tribes fall under the rule of the Taliban?

Or that there is no Afhanistan, only tribal terrioiries?

How would you solve it?

As someone who's been in Afghanistan a couple of times, the simple fact is that there will always be tribes. That's the way it's been from the beginning and will continue to be.

40% of Afghans are Pushtun, 30% Tajiks and the rest are Turkmen, Hazaras, Uzbeks plus a few other ethnics. There are about 60 Pushtun tribes and 400 sub-tribes, many of which are at odds with each other.

When we went in during 2001 and kicked the Taliban into touch, this allowed the three main Durrani tribes (Durrani's are the main Pushtun tribe) to reclaim their dominance, which angered the non-Durranis and some smaller Durrani tribes.

The Taliban have always held themselves above tribal politics, as they regard tribes as a deviation from sharia law. Where individual tribes feel badly treated, the Taliban are willing allies and therein lies the problem.
 
Does that mean that we have to let those tribes fall under the rule of the Taliban?
You have made a number of classical "Western" mistakes.
Firstly you speak of the Taliban as a singular tight entity, whereas in fact they are no more than a collection of loosely knit 'tribals' with a common goal,... and that is to gain independence on a national and individual level, the way they are going to do this, is to rid Afghanistan of foreign influence and steer it down the fundamentalist Muslim path, and the only reason they use Islam is because it is the one singular thing that all the tribes and sub groups have in common. Fundamentalist Islam is not the actual goal, the goal is power, but to acheive power they know they must unite their supporters.
Secondly, you talk of the Taliban as "ruling" the tribes, whereas in fact they are not rulers but appeasers, who play to the tribal mindset promising them (and giving them where necessary) what they want, thereby winning their support.
In Afghanistan you don't "rule" the people, you gather their support, and the group with the most support gets the most say,... which I suppose makes it a true democracy

The Taliban will only be supported any tribe, group or individual, so long as it is advantageous for that tribe, group or individual. The instant that Taliban (or anyone else) is seen to interfere that group's interests, they will turn on them too,... but of course, the Taliban being comprised of "tribals" themselves fully understand the mentality of their fellow countrymen and will go to almost any length to see that this does not happen.
 
Last edited:
You have made a number of classical "Western" mistakes.
Firstly you speak of the Taliban as a singular tight entity, whereas in fact they are no more than a collection of loosely knit 'tribals' with a common goal,... and that is to gain independence on a national and individual level, the way they are going to do this, is to rid Afghanistan of foreign influence and steer it down the fundamentalist Muslim path, and the only reason they use Islam is because it is the one singular thing that all the tribes and sub groups have in common. Fundamentalist Islam is not the actual goal, the goal is power, but to acheive power they know they must unite their supporters.
Secondly, you talk of the Taliban as "ruling" the tribes, whereas in fact they are not rulers but appeasers, who play to the tribal mindset promising them (and giving them where necessary) what they want, thereby winning their support.
In Afghanistan you don't "rule" the people, you gather their support, and the group with the most support gets the most say,... which I suppose makes it a true democracy

The Taliban will only be supported any tribe, group or individual, so long as it is advantageous for that tribe, group or individual. The instant that Taliban (or anyone else) is seen to interfere that group's interests, they will turn on them too,... but of course, the Taliban being comprised of "tribals" themselves fully understand the mentality of their fellow countrymen and will go to almost any length to see that this does not happen.

This is the case for the majority of the countries in the Middle East and Africa, sometimes people in the Western world recognize this, sometimes we seems to prefer to ignore it. Lebanon is an anthropological nightmare and even so Somalia, but they are both quite normal. These clans, tribes, and extended families have been in conflict with each other for centuries and then they suddenly belong to the same country and will be in peace with each other. Actually, the Palestinians are not an exception from this. They are all loyal to their clan, tribe, or extended family and not to the label the West has for the specific part of the world they are in. Therefore, the use of the Western mind frame when we interact with them is very wrong
 
@ senojekips and I3BrigPvSk

I think you miss the point. What you are saying happens in the west too. Although not on a tribal basis but on a village level or neighborhood level and surely not as violent. All over the world people flock together in groups and defend their group against others.

The Bin Laden files clearly shows that the Taliban are not a collection of loosely knit 'tribals' with a common goal. They were created in Pakistan and ruled most of Afghanistan until they were ousted. They want their power back and when Nato leaves and the Afghans are not up to their task they will reign again, as will islamic fundumentalism.

The problem of the conflict lies in Pakistan. You cannot dry out a flooded room without turning off the taps. Problem is, Pakistan is a nuclear power. And that alone is enough to keep everyone out.

a question put forward by a student from Balochistan studying at Quad-e-Azam University, Islamabad, to a senior member of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad was : "If [the] United States claims to be a humanitarian power set out to free the people from tyranny, then why does it refrain [from intervening] in Baluchistan?"
(The quiet rise of the Quetta Shura)
 
@ senojekips and I3BrigPvSk

I think you miss the point. What you are saying happens in the west too. Although not on a tribal basis but on a village level or neighborhood level and surely not as violent. All over the world people flock together in groups and defend their group against others.
You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the Afghan mentality, (particularly among those in tribal areas) their behaviour is a cultural thing, a matter of pride and it goes right down to an individual level. Put simply they have no allegiance to anyone and will only come together to resist a common enemy, they have an underlying basic distrust of everyone, and will gladly even murder their own family members should they feel that they, or their family has been dishonoured.

The Bin Laden files clearly shows that the Taliban are not a collection of loosely knit 'tribals' with a common goal. They were created in Pakistan and ruled most of Afghanistan until they were ousted. They want their power back and when Nato leaves and the Afghans are not up to their task they will reign again, as will islamic fundumentalism.
For a start, Bin Laden was the figurehead of AlQuaeda not the Taliban, and as I said in my last post he was only an appeaser, not a ruler, he was no more than a figurehead created mainly by the western Press. Had he have tried to "rule" the Taliban, the instant he tried to over rule any group or individual they would have at worst turned on him, or at best ignored him.

The Taliban will only be allied with Pakistan so long as it is in their interest.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top