Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2010, 18:56   #1
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Afghanistan War: Top Three Challenges Facing General Petraeus

And so it goes...

Topping General Petraeus' to-do list in the Afghanistan war: Making his own counterinsurgency strategy work in Afghanistan where General McChrystal could not.

Richard

Afghanistan War: Top Three Challenges Facing General Petraeus
CSM, 24 June 2010

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander viewed by some in Washington as the man who single-handedly turned around the Iraq war, will be taking on a bigger challenge than the one he confronted at the dawn of the Iraq surge in 2007.

He’ll be in charge of a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan that’s just getting under way, much as he was in Iraq. But he’s starting almost nine years into this current war, rather than three years in as he did in Iraq. That means he faces more entrenched power players. Historically, the longer an army takes to shift to counterinsurgency strategy, the lower the odds are of success, as a study found last year. And sustaining the Afghanistan war – now costing over $70 billion a year – is taking its toll on American and Afghan public support. [Editor's note: The original version of this story misstated the cost of the war.]

The remarks that Gen. Stanley McChrystal made to Rolling Stone magazine are the reason that Petraeus is replacing him, but it’s also the case that the war effort and the COIN strategy has not been going well.

General McChrystal boasted of success ahead of an operation in the town of Marjah, but afterward struggled to deliver the kind of governance needed to prevent the Taliban from coming back. Before McChrystal's ouster, war-planners indefinitely postponed a major offensive due to start this month in the southern province of Kandahar in order to rethink their approach.

Meanwhile, the country remains as violent as ever. With six days left in the month, June 2010 is already officially the deadliest for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the war began, with 79 casualties.

With Petraeus expected to sail through congressional confirmation hearings early next week, what are some of the key challenges he will face when he takes charge in Kabul?

Making COIN work

In US military circles, Petraeus is the godfather of COIN. The counterinsurgency approach hinges on protecting local populations from insurgents as much, or more than, chasing the enemy. Also crucial is quickly demonstrating the fruits of peace after groups like the Taliban are cleared from an area by bringing in capable government and development projects.

The approach has been widely credited with turning Iraq around, though there’s a growing community of scholars and strategists in the US who argue that Iraq grew more peaceful for other reasons. The US showed a new willingness to buy off Sunni Arab insurgents in that country and widespread religious cleansing in Baghdad and a number of other hotly contested cities before the campaign began meant there was less dry tinder on the ground to burn.

“What actually happened in Iraq wasn’t what people in Washington think happened,” says Col. (ret.) Pat Lang, a former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East desk.

Petraeus’s job is to prove people like Lang wrong. The strategy is often described as a three-pronged approach of clear (meaning fighting to get the Taliban area out of an area), hold (keep them out), and build (both government and infrastructure). The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan (ISAF) that Petraeus will take charge of has only been good at the first so far.

Afghan Corruption and the Karzai government

Petraeus will be saddled with a strategic partner – the administration of President Hamid Karzai – that is increasingly unpopular and at times seems out of touch. The election that brought Karzai to power was badly marred by fraud.

After the “clear” phase in Marjah, where the Taliban were partly able to take power because of the predations of corrupt central government officials and local warlords, the government McChrystal sought to install has yet to take root.

In Kandahar, the next major push for the international effort, Mr. Karzai's half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, is one of the local warlords and has grown wealthy since the war began. Locals have accused him of seizing land by force and being involved in smuggling. Many Afghans say he’s involved in the opium trade, a charge he has denied.

“In eight years [President Karzai] hasn’t been able to bring democratic, accountable government so I don’t know why anyone would think he will now,” says Rahman Oghli, a member of parliament from the northern Faryub Province and an opponent of the government. “The people in government and around Karzai have been lining their pockets and the people know this.”

In a leaked diplomatic cable last year, US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, said Karzai was an ineffective partner that called into question the ability to carry out COIN successfully.

Petraeus's task will be to get Karzai in tune with the US, even as the US pushes to stop the corruption that many Afghans say infuriates them and has simultaneously enriched many of the powerful in Kabul.

Getting civilians and the military to work together

A crucial component of the COIN strategy is getting USAID, civilian diplomats, and contractors to work closely with the military to bring the development and aid in the wake of military operations that the strategic theorists expect will win hearts and minds.

But so far, coordination has been poor. McChrystal had a frosty relationship with the Mr. Eikenberry, and the civilian and military sides had little experience in working in concert as they’re being asked to.

Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) called for more leadership changes at the US Embassy in Kabul in an interview with "Good Morning America" on Wednesday. “The relationship between civil and military is not what it should be,” he said. He said he understood why McChrystal was fired and supported the decision. “I also point out to the president, with my strong support of Petraeus, we also need a new team over there as well – perhaps at the embassy and other areas."

The good news for Petraeus is that major efforts have been made to address the problem since the year began. Civilian “commands” to coordinate with local NATO military commanders have been set up throughout the country, and diplomats in Kabul say they’re bearing some fruit – never mind that McChrystal went after both Richard Holbrooke, Barack Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Eikenberry in his Rolling Stone interviews.

If Petraeus can find a way to get aid spent more effectively and quickly in the midst of military operations, that will be a major step forward.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-...neral-Petraeus
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2010, 09:59   #2
mark46th
Quiet Professional
 
mark46th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orange, Ca.
Posts: 4,941
Once again, we are trying to apply our cultural mores to another society. The good general will have to deal with problems that are considered serious in the U.S. but a way of life in Afghanistan.

1. Corruption. What we call corruption is the way the Afghan society does business. Bribes are a cost of doing business like we buy insurance in the U.S.

2. National Identity. Actually, a lack thereof is the problem. There is no sense of National Identity in the country. Loyalties are gauged on family, clan and tribal considerations.

3. Rules of Engagement/Collateral Damage/ Civilian Casualties. It is tough to fight a war when the enemy hides in religious buildings that are off limits to attack and in civilian homes. Fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing women and children is problematic.

This is my wish list of what needs to be done...

- For the U.S. to suceed, U.S./International forces should replace the warlords.

-Secular schools should replace medrassah's with boys and girls having mandatory attendance.

- Imam's should be "encouraged" to not be involved in government at any level. I'm not being naive about Islam's view of its role in government, but that's what needs to be done.

These changes are not going to happen on a 2, 5 or 10 year plan. This will take several generations. The question is, can the U.S. fight off accusations of meddling and Imperialism, and have the determination to make it happen...

Last edited by mark46th; 07-01-2010 at 10:02.
mark46th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 17:12   #3
blacksmoke
Like My Mankini?
 
blacksmoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OH for now
Posts: 437
Is it stupid to say that no matter what the local government in Afghanistan looks like, as long as there are no camps of jihadis training to attack the west than we have won?
blacksmoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 10:33   #4
Jack S.
Asset
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksmoke View Post
Is it stupid to say that no matter what the local government in Afghanistan looks like, as long as there are no camps of jihadis training to attack the west than we have won?
My military history professor had a saying: 'managers of violence.' He used to say that so long as a military plan does not have a goal which is a certain political endgame that all that plan would be doing is 'managing violence.' He defined any military plan that did have a political endgame as strategy. Going from this, so long as all we're doing is killing jihadis (a sound motive itself) without any thought in mind to what we're going to do when there are no jihadis left we're really doing nothing but 'managing violence.' This is why it is very important to always have a political/civil endgame in mind. Killing until there's nothing left to kill is not victory.

My $.02

Jack

PS: When I use the moniker 'we,' I am referring to the United States as a whole and not to the the QPs. I in no way think of myself as SF.
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Jack S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 11:30   #5
jbour13
Area Commander
 
jbour13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: JBLM
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack S. View Post
My military history professor had a saying: 'managers of violence.' He used to say that so long as a military plan does not have a goal which is a certain political endgame that all that plan would be doing is 'managing violence.' He defined any military plan that did have a political endgame as strategy. Going from this, so long as all we're doing is killing jihadis (a sound motive itself) without any thought in mind to what we're going to do when there are no jihadis left we're really doing nothing but 'managing violence.' This is why it is very important to always have a political/civil endgame in mind. Killing until there's nothing left to kill is not victory.

My $.02

Jack

PS: When I use the moniker 'we,' I am referring to the United States as a whole and not to the the QPs. I in no way think of myself as SF.
What do you say of a country that is predominately defined by violence as a means to gain access to power and is not full of Jihadis? What about just those choosing to utilize the aforementioned violence to gain something that resembles law and order? Pashtun Wali is a bitch, especially when you are not Pashtun.

You'll soon find out that everything in this country (Afghanistan) has a political motive, and violence is the cohesive bond that brought it to fruition.

A better quote that would summarize and make sense of this article (given the highlight of the 9 year long war itself) is the following:

"It can be argued that changing strategy every six to twelve months is tantamount to having no strategy whatsoever, particularly if that is not justified by changes in the insurgents own strategy"
Antonio Guistozzi - Koran, Kalashnikov, and Laptop: The Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan 2002-2007

Something to think about.
__________________
http://teamrwb.com/

"Let the blood of the infantry flow through your veins,or the blood of the infantry will be on your hands."
- GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. speaking on the responsibilities of MI soldiers.
jbour13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 13:03   #6
greenberetTFS
Quiet Professional (RIP)
 
greenberetTFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Carriere,Ms.
Posts: 6,922
COIN...........

I probably shouldn't be commenting on this since it's been almost 50 years since my training in COIN,however I don't understand why the soldiers(SF) who are trained in this particular mission aren't the ones given the responsibility to do it!...
I heard on the news that Special Forces soldiers have been given missions to hunt down taliban leaders,but I can't believe we(SF) don't have enough of teams to conduct COIN........... Just an old trooper wondering why SF isn't being deployed for that mission.........

Big Teddy
__________________
I believe that SF is a 'calling' - not too different from the calling missionaries I know received. I knew instantly that it was for me, and that I would do all I could to achieve it. Most others I know in SF experienced something similar. If, as you say, you HAVE searched and read, and you do not KNOW if this is the path for you --- it is not....
Zonie Diver

SF is a calling and it requires commitment and dedication that the uninitiated will never understand......
Jack Moroney

SFA M-2527, Chapter XXXVII
greenberetTFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 13:40   #7
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack S. View Post
My military history professor had a saying: 'managers of violence.' He used to say that so long as a military plan does not have a goal which is a certain political endgame that all that plan would be doing is 'managing violence.' He defined any military plan that did have a political endgame as strategy.
Jack--

Out of intellectual curiosity, I have three questions.

First, if you feel comfortable doing so, could you provide the professor's name and the title of the class he taught? (Was the course offered by your school's history department or another department?)

Second, when he offered his definition of strategy, did he ever discuss the relationships among strategy, operations, and tactics?

Third, did he differentiate among different types of wars?

To be clear--these questions are offered out of curiosity, not criticism of your professor nor your POV. I simply have a long standing interest in how "strategy" gets discussed in contemporary America.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 14:32   #8
Surgicalcric
Quiet Professional
 
Surgicalcric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenberetTFS View Post
...I don't understand why the soldiers(SF) who are trained in this particular mission aren't the ones given the responsibility to do it!...
Having military (SF included) leadership, who are Method Oriented instead of Result Oriented is one of the main issues.
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman

"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
Surgicalcric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2010, 08:37   #9
Jack S.
Asset
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbour13 View Post
What do you say of a country that is predominately defined by violence as a means to gain access to power and is not full of Jihadis? What about just those choosing to utilize the aforementioned violence to gain something that resembles law and order? Pashtun Wali is a bitch, especially when you are not Pashtun.

You'll soon find out that everything in this country (Afghanistan) has a political motive, and violence is the cohesive bond that brought it to fruition.

A better quote that would summarize and make sense of this article (given the highlight of the 9 year long war itself) is the following:

"It can be argued that changing strategy every six to twelve months is tantamount to having no strategy whatsoever, particularly if that is not justified by changes in the insurgents own strategy"
Antonio Guistozzi - Koran, Kalashnikov, and Laptop: The Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan 2002-2007

Something to think about.
Thank you for your input. I will admit, I am ignorant in the ways of the Afghan people. I would say that that country is ruled by short-sighted fools, if you wanted my frank opinion. The violence has to end at some point, maybe not in the next few years (or decades), but at some time law and order must prevail. I understand that this has been the way of these people for quite some time and some idealistic lout such as myself isn't going to change anything, however, if we continue to deal with problems there as they do, what does that say of us? Of the West?

My opinions, however, are born of ignorance. This in itself invalidates them. Thank you again for your input, you've given me much to think about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Jack--

Out of intellectual curiosity, I have three questions.

First, if you feel comfortable doing so, could you provide the professor's name and the title of the class he taught? (Was the course offered by your school's history department or another department?)

Second, when he offered his definition of strategy, did he ever discuss the relationships among strategy, operations, and tactics?

Third, did he differentiate among different types of wars?

To be clear--these questions are offered out of curiosity, not criticism of your professor nor your POV. I simply have a long standing interest in how "strategy" gets discussed in contemporary America.
He explicitly told us to not give his name or his information without his written permission. The course was titled "Modern Military History."

From what I gleaned of his lectures: he defined strategy as the 'why,' operations as the 'what,' and tactics as the 'how.' He also put emphasis on the fact that a true plan would need a balance of all of these things. My interpretation of his saying: 'managing violence,' is having the 'what' and the 'how' without the 'why.' Tactics cannot be implemented without operational context, and operational context cannot be obtained without a reason, or strategy.

We mainly covered conventional wars. He didn't discuss unconventional warfare too much. He argued that there wasn't enough historical data to give a proper conceptual presentation on UW without missing something important. We covered Vietnam, Korea and Desert Storm only very briefly. We spent most of class time on both world wars and the political, economic, and social circumstances that led to them.
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Last edited by Jack S.; 09-23-2010 at 21:07. Reason: Ignorance is a choice.
Jack S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2010, 22:30   #10
cszakolczai
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack S. View Post
Thank you for your input. I will admit, I am ignorant in the ways of the Afghan people. I would say that that country is ruled by short-sighted fools, if you wanted my frank opinion. The violence has to end at some point, maybe not in the next few years (or decades), but at some time law and order must prevail. I understand that this has been the way of these people for quite some time and some idealistic lout such as myself isn't going to change anything, however, if we continue to deal with problems there as they do, what does that say of us? Of the West?

My opinions, however, are born of ignorance. This in itself invalidates them. Thank you again for your input, you've given me much to think about.



He explicitly told us to not give his name or his information without his written permission. The course was titled "Modern Military History."

From what I gleaned of his lectures: he defined strategy as the 'why,' operations as the 'what,' and tactics as the 'how.' He also put emphasis on the fact that a true plan would need a balance of all of these things. My interpretation of his saying: 'managing violence,' is having the 'what' and the 'how' without the 'why.' Tactics cannot be implemented without operational context, and operational context cannot be obtained without a reason, or strategy.

We mainly covered conventional wars. He didn't discuss unconventional warfare too much. He argued that there wasn't enough historical data to give a proper conceptual presentation on UW without missing something important. We covered Vietnam, Korea and Desert Storm only very briefly. We spent most of class time on both world wars and the political, economic, and social circumstances that led to them.
I'm not sure if they are short-sighted fools, but instead tribal leaders who dont know of any other way to rule. The lack of technology and wide open space of course throws another challenge into the mix along with the lack of national identity. From what I've heard tribal leaders dont even know about a neighbor who may be located 10 miles away. It's difficult to bring about a country under a unified government when there is such a culture shock in the style of government we are intending to implement. You are also taking away power from the individual tribal elders and redistributing that power to a central government, which of course will not go over well.

Just my .02 cents, actually I'd call it more .01 cent. Like you I'm a college kid as well. I just speak with as many veterans from Afghanistan that I can. This is what I've learned while speaking with them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 11:26   #11
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack S. View Post
Thank you for your input. I will admit, I am ignorant in the ways of the Afghan people. I would say that that country is ruled by short-sighted fools, if you wanted my frank opinion. The violence has to end at some point, maybe not in the next few years (or decades), but at some time law and order must prevail. I understand that this has been the way of these people for quite some time and some idealistic lout such as myself isn't going to change anything, however, if we continue to deal with problems there as they do, what does that say of us? Of the West?

My opinions, however, are born of ignorance. This in itself invalidates them. Thank you again for your input, you've given me much to think about.



He explicitly told us to not give his name or his information without his written permission. The course was titled "Modern Military History."

From what I gleaned of his lectures: he defined strategy as the 'why,' operations as the 'what,' and tactics as the 'how.' He also put emphasis on the fact that a true plan would need a balance of all of these things. My interpretation of his saying: 'managing violence,' is having the 'what' and the 'how' without the 'why.' Tactics cannot be implemented without operational context, and operational context cannot be obtained without a reason, or strategy.

We mainly covered conventional wars. He didn't discuss unconventional warfare too much. He argued that there wasn't enough historical data to give a proper conceptual presentation on UW without missing something important. We covered Vietnam, Korea and Desert Storm only very briefly. We spent most of class time on both world wars and the political, economic, and social circumstances that led to them.
Ever think about changing your major? Klio needs more folks like you.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 01:51   #12
head
Quiet Professional
 
head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 568
Well, that second point is moot as far as Ahmad Wali Karzai is concerned. What a tangled web we weave....

ht tp://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/07/20117127299662659.html
Quote:
Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother to the Afghan president and a powerful figure in southern Afghanistan, has been killed, an official and a family member said on Tuesday.

"I confirm that Ahmad Wali was killed inside his house," Zalmay Ayoubi, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar province, told the Reuters news agency.

Wali Karzai was shot dead by his bodyguard, Sardar Mohammad, Ayoubi said, according to the Afghan TOLO news agency. Al Jazeera could not independently confirm that report.

Wali Karzai was the head of the Kandahar provincial council and one of the most powerful men in the country. He has been described in various media reports as a "warlord" in involved in drug smuggling and as a paid asset of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In response to Karzai's killing, police mobilised a massive response in Kandahar city, according to Kabul-based journalist Matthieu Aikins, who spoke to a resident. Checkpoints were "locked down," helicopters hovered overhead, and the road to the hospital, where Wali Karzai's body was taken, was blocked off, Aikins wrote on Twitter.
__________________
Every man has three characters: that which he shows, that which he has, and that which he thinks he has.
head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 06:02   #13
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by head View Post
What a tangled web we weave....

ht tp://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/07/20117127299662659.html
OK,,

Did Karzai whack his brother??
Did BHO & the CIA whack him??
Did the Taliban whack him??

Does anyone care???

?????????

__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
JJ_BPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:02   #14
jbour13
Area Commander
 
jbour13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: JBLM
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK View Post
OK,,

Did Karzai whack his brother??
Did BHO & the CIA whack him??
Did the Taliban whack him??

Does anyone care???

?????????

I care because there is one less checks and balances system in place. Though we may not have liked AWK, he did provide a system in which there was a penalty. He did benefit greatly from this monetarily and would have post presidency and if there was a departure of coalition members from the South particularly.

IMHO, the killing has just begun. You won't see it in the MSM because in their minds the Karzai family is the most important one. Just think the same thing about any politician in the US, remove one, another will assume the mantle and it's business as usual. Difference here is, your political opposition won't be smeared in the media, but instead in the streets.

Who did it is unimportant, the fact that he's not around is. Progress could be made now if the remainder of the Kandahar Provincial Council play nice and act as a unified front instead of competing interests.

My biggest concern is still the unchecked security contracts that he held. Do their allegiances go to the highest bidder? Or do they shop for work where they are good at it and add to the ranks of the not so clearly defined insurgency?

These are interesting times ladies and gents.
__________________
http://teamrwb.com/

"Let the blood of the infantry flow through your veins,or the blood of the infantry will be on your hands."
- GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. speaking on the responsibilities of MI soldiers.
jbour13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 04:02   #15
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK View Post
OK,,

Did Karzai whack his brother??
Did BHO & the CIA whack him??
Did the Taliban whack him??

Does anyone care???

?????????


This has the makings of a THRILLER..

Quote:
Bodyguard who killed Karzai's brother was trusted CIA contact, By Julius Cavendish in Kabul

The bodyguard who assassinated President Hamid Karzai's brother had been working closely with US Special Forces and the CIA before he was recruited by the Taliban, raising fears over the Islamist movement's increasingly sophisticated intelligence apparatus which has managed to threaten the inner circles of power in Afghanistan.

Sardar Mohammad, who shot Ahmed Wali Karzai at his home in Kandahar City on Tuesday, also held regular meetings with British officials, and had two brothers-in-law serving in a CIA-run paramilitary unit, the Kandahar Strike Force, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

Yet evidence is emerging that the Taliban recruited Mohammad – who was believed to be a friend, confidant and trusted lieutenant of Ahmed Wali Karzai – in an infiltration of the Afghan government's security apparatus.

continued....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-2314580.html

I think there is a backside story that we will not hear??

__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
JJ_BPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies