How the U.S. Quietly Lost the IED War in Afghanistan

How the U.S. Quietly Lost the IED War in Afghanistan

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Oct 9 2012 (IPS) - Although the surge of "insider attacks" on U.S.-NATO forces has dominated coverage of the war in Afghanistan in 2012, an even more important story has been quietly unfolding: the U.S. loss of the pivotal war of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to the Taliban. Some news outlets have published stories this year suggesting that the U.S. military was making "progress" against the Taliban IED war, but those stories failed to provide the broader context for seasonal trends or had a narrow focus on U.S. fatalities. The bigger reality is that the U.S. troop surge could not reverse the very steep increase in IED attacks and attendant casualties that the Taliban began in 2009 and which continued through 2011. Over the 2009-11 period, the U.S. military suffered a total of 14,627 casualties, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System and iCasualties, a non-governmental organisation tracking Iraq and Afghanistan war casualties from published sources. Of that total, 8,680, or 59 percent, were from IED explosions, based on data provided by the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organisation (JIEDDO). And the proportion of all U.S. casualties caused by IEDs continued to increase from 56 percent in 2009 to 63 percent in 2011. The Taliban IED war was the central element of its counter-strategy against the U.S. escalation of the war. It absorbed an enormous amount of the time and energy of U.S. troops, and demonstrated that the counterinsurgency campaign was not effective in reducing the size or power of the insurgency. It also provided constant evidence to the Afghan population that Taliban had a continued presence even where U.S. troops had occupied former Taliban districts. U.S. Pentagon and military leaders sought to gain control over the Taliban’s IED campaign with two contradictory approaches, both of which failed because they did not reflect the social and political realities in Afghanistan. JIEDDO spent more than 18 billion dollars on high-tech solutions aimed at detecting IEDs before they went off, including robots, and blimps with spy cameras. But as the technology helped the U.S.-NATO command discover more IEDs, the Taliban simply produced and planted even larger numbers of bombs to continue to increase the pressure of the IED war. The counter insurgency strategy devised by Gen. David Petraeus and implemented by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, on the other hand, held that the IED networks could be destroyed once the people turned away from the Taliban. They pushed thousands of U.S. troops out of their armoured vehicles into patrols on foot in order to establish relationships with the local population. The main effect of the strategy, however, was a major jump in the number of "catastrophic" injuries to U.S. troops from IEDs. In his Aug. 30, 2009 "initial assessment", McChrystal said the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) "cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk at least equally with the people." In an interview with USA Today in July 2009, he argued that "the best way to defeat IEDs will be to defeat the Taliban’s hold on the people." Once the people’s trust had been gained, he suggested, they would inform ISAF of the location of IEDs. McChrystal argued that the Taliban were using "the psychological effects of IEDs and the coalition force’s preoccupation with force protection" to get the U.S.-NATO command to reinforce a "garrison posture and mentality". McChrystal ordered much more emphasis on more dismounted patrols by U.S. forces in fall 2009. The Taliban responded by increasing the number of IEDs targeting dismounted patrols from 71 in September 2009 to 228 by January 2010, according data compiled by JIEDDO. That meant that the population had more knowledge of the location of IEDs, which should have resulted in a major increase in IEDs turned in by the population, according to the Petraeus counterinsurgency theory. But the data on IEDs shows that the opposite happened. In the first eight months of 2009, the average rate of turn-ins had been three percent, but from September 2009 to June 2010, the rate averaged 2.7 percent. After Petraeus replaced McChrystal as ISAF commander in June 2010, he issued a directive calling for more dismounted patrols, especially in Helmand and Kandahar, where U.S. troops were trying to hold territory that the Taliban had controlled in previous years. In the next five months, the turn-in rate fell to less than one percent. Meanwhile, the number of IED attacks on foot patrols causing casualties increased from 21 in October 2009 to an average of 40 in the March-December 2010 period, according to JIEDDO records. U.S. troops wounded by IEDs spiked to an average of 316 per month during that period, 2.5 times more than the average for the previous 10-month period. The Taliban success in targeting troops on foot was the main reason U.S. casualties from IEDs increased from 1,211 wounded and 159 dead in 2009 to 3,366 wounded and 259 dead in 2010. The damage from IEDs was far more serious, however, than even those figures suggest, because the injuries to dismounted patrols included far more "traumatic amputation" of limbs – arms and legs blown off by bombs – and other more severe wounds than had been seen in attacks on armoured vehicles. A June 2011 Army task force report described a new type of battle injury – "Dismount Complex Blast Injury"– defined as a combination of "traumatic amputation of at least one leg, a minimum of severe injury to another extremity, and pelvic, abdominal, or urogenital wounding." The report confirmed that the number of triple limb amputations in 2010 alone had been twice the total in the previous eight years of war. A study of 194 amputations in 2010 and the first three months of 2011 showed that most were suffered by Marine Corps troops, who were concentrated in Helmand province, and that 88 percent were the result of IED attacks on dismounted patrols, according to the report. In January 2011, the director of JIEDDO, Gen. John L. Oates, acknowledged that U.S. troops in Helmand and Kandahar had seen "an alarming increase in the number of troops losing one or two legs to IEDs." Much larger numbers of U.S. troops have suffered moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries from IED blasts – mostly against armoured vehicles. Statistics on the total number of limb amputations and traumatic brain injuries in Afghanistan were excised from the task force report. In 2011, U.S. fatalities from IEDs fell to 204 from 259 in 2010, and overall fatalities fell from 499 to 418. But the number of IED injuries actually increased by 10 percent from 3,339 to 3,530, and the overall total of wounded in action was almost the same as in 2010, according to data from iCasualties. The total for wounded in the first eight months of 2012 are 10 percent less than the same period in 2011, whereas the number of dead is 29 percent below the previous year’s pace. The reduction in wounded appears to reflect in part the transfer of thousands of U.S. troops from Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where a large proportion of the casualties have occurred, to eastern Afghanistan. The number of IED attacks on dismounted patrols in the mid-July 2011 to mid-July 2012 period was 25 percent less than the number in the same period a year earlier, according to JIEDDO. The Pentagon was well aware by early 2011 that it wasn’t going to be able to accomplish what it had planned before and during the troop surge. In a telling comment to the Washington Post in January 2011, JIEDDO head Gen. Oates insisted that the idea that "we’re losing the IED fight in Afghanistan" was "not accurate", because, "The whole idea isn’t to destroy the network. That’s maybe impossible." The aim, he explained, was now to "disrupt them" – a move of the goalposts that avoided having to admit defeat in the IED war. And in an implicit admission that Petraeus’s push for even more dismounted patrols is no longer treated with reverence in the ISAF command, the August 2010 directive has been taken down from its website. *Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Taliban statement marking 11th year of the invasion of Afghanistan

Taliban statement 
Statement of Islamic Emirate marking eleventh year of the invasion of Afghanistan

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Sunday, 21 Dzulka'edah 1433 Sunday, 07 October 2012 07:53 Eleven years ago today (6th October) our sanctified Islamic country was barbarically invaded by America. This cruel invasion which was carried out under various excuses was in reality America trying to extent its infidel power over Afghanistan and the region. They carried out this tyrannical invasion under the so-called pretexts of bringing peace, prosperity and development to Afghanistan but to instill fear in the hearts of the Afghans, they carried out such savagery and crimes in Guantanamo, Bagram and other secret prisons which humanity is unable to comprehend. They used all potential and means of barbarism at their disposal against the defenseless and victimized Afghans however with the grace and help of Allah, despite all of her savagery, crimes and evident violations they were unable to subdue the Islamic determination and will of the Muslim Afghans. The ill-equipped but strong-faith Afghans began Jihad in defense of their religion, creed and land against the criminals of this era and with the divine help of Allah, handed the American invaders such an exemplary historical lessons which made them forget all excuses for launching the invasion. With the help of Allah, the valiant Afghans under the Jihadi leadership of Islamic Emirate defeated the military might and numerous strategies of America and NATO alliance with Jihadi resistance and collective unity and now after eleven years of unceasing terror, tyranny, crimes and savagery, they are fleeing Afghanistan with such humiliation and disgrace that they are struggling to provide an explanation. The Muslim and Mujahid nation of Afghanistan is marking the eleventh year of the barbaric infidel invasion in their triumphant Jihadi trenches such that the wary morale-lacking invaders are competing ignominiously with each other in turning tail from Afghanistan even as their bases are being conquered by high-spirited Mujahideen one after the other. Those slogans and goals for which the Islamic land of Afghanistan was invaded are being completely disregarded due to the Jihadi hammering by the Mujahid Afghans; now it’s a only a race to relieve oneself as each announces withdrawal ahead of their schedules and this is the core solution to the problem which was repeatedly highlighted to the invaders by the Islamic Emirate throughout this eleven year period. Even now the invaders should understand if this battle was to prolong a hundred years, the determination and zeal of the Afghans in defense of their religion and land will not waver and even then the solution will be your defeat and complete withdrawal. Those who can easily grasp this concept are those who have studied the history of Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate while congratulating its Muslim nation on nearing victory and coming out triumphant from this historical battle, asks Allah Almighty to accept all their sacrifices and hardships. On the occasion of marking the eleventh year of the American invasion of Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate desires from its Muslim and Mujahid nation to continue their Islamic Jihad with unity and solidarity against the foreign invaders until all the transgressing infidels are forced to leave our country, overtly overwhelmed and defeated. And victory shall certainly be awarded to the valiant Mujahideen, the defenders of the religion of Allah Almighty, Allah willing. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 20/11/1433 06/10/2012 15/07/1391

Photos of US troops defiling corpses expose Afghan war’s savagery

Photos of US troops defiling corpses expose Afghan war’s savagery

By David Walsh

April 19, 2012 On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times published horrific photographs of American troops in Afghanistan posing with dead and dismembered insurgents. The grisly images expose Washington’s claim that the occupation of the country is aimed at liberating the Afghan people. They reflect the savage reality of the US-led operation, intended to crush popular opposition to foreign rule and establish Afghanistan as a base from which the US ruling elite can pursue its efforts to dominate the geo-strategically critical region. The Los Angeles Times photos, recently supplied to the newspaper by an unnamed US soldier, were apparently taken on two separate occasions in 2010. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were first dispatched to a police station in Zabul Province in southern Afghanistan in February 2010 to examine the remains of a suicide bomber for identification purposes. As the newspaper describes it: "The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held—and others squatted beside—the corpse’s severed legs." A few months later, in April 2010, the same platoon was sent to a morgue in Qalat, Zabul’s capital, to investigate the remains of three insurgents who had blown themselves up. The soldiers again posed with the body parts, "grinning and mugging for photographs." Describing this set of photos, the Times wrote: "Two soldiers posed holding a dead man’s hand with the middle finger raised. A soldier leaned over the bearded corpse while clutching the man’s hand. Someone placed an unofficial platoon patch reading 'Zombie Hunter’ next to other remains and took a picture." The images are an indictment of the American political and military establishment, which has unleashed untold humiliation, death and destruction on the Afghan people for more than a decade. The soldiers involved deserve to be prosecuted, but the principal criminals are to be found in the White House, the Pentagon and the US Congress. After the exposure of each US atrocity—including the slaughter of civilians, the abuse and torture of prisoners, the mutilation of corpses for trophies, Marines urinating on the Afghan dead, the desecration of the Koran—American officials express dismay and describe the incidents as the actions of "individuals" who have perverted a righteous cause. This is a lie. First, considering the unprecedented level of censorship of the war in Afghanistan, the episodes that come to light are undoubtedly only the tip of the iceberg. It can be asserted without hesitation that these sorts of crimes occur on virtually a daily basis. The exposure of the Qalat desecrations depended entirely on one soldier’s courageous act. Second, the incidents that have been publicized make clear a pattern of barbaric behavior on the part of US and allied troops. This flows inevitably from the predatory character of the war and the situation in which American and other occupying forces find themselves: resented and hated by the Afghan population (the brigade lost 35 members during the year-long deployment, 23 of them to homemade bombs or suicide bombers), the soldiers’ increasing demoralization finds expression in acts of brutality. How many individual atrocities have to take place before it becomes clear that an entire operation is criminal to its core? The military and the White House claim an investigation will be launched. Why should anyone place the slightest confidence in this transparent effort to placate Afghan and American public opinion? There have been inquiries before into various murderous incidents. No one responsible has been punished and the atrocities continue and grow worse. An Afghan human rights activist in Kabul, Nadir Nadiry, told the New York Times, "Each time they [American and NATO officials] say they will conduct a thorough investigation, but these investigations are not being made public so the results are not known to the Afghan people. So it’s hard for them to believe the investigations were real and that measures were taken to change things." The various mainstream media outlets cautioned nervously Wednesday that the new scandal comes at a "particularly sensitive moment" for already "strained" and "tense" US-Afghan relations, as talks continue on how to ensure the long-term US and foreign presence beyond the official deadline for withdrawal in 2014. The US television network evening news programs relegated the atrocity to third spot, following the death of television and music business personality Dick Clark and the ongoing Secret Service prostitution scandal. The Los Angeles Times has published only a few of the images, withholding the more graphic ones. According to the newspaper, the soldier who provided the 18 photos served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne’s 4th Brigade Combat Team from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He told the Times that the photos "point to a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops." The newspaper added, "The Qalat photos were circulated among several members of the platoon, the soldier said, and soldiers often joked about them. Most of the soldiers in the photos were low-ranking—including six specialists or privates." This type of sadism and backwardness is consciously cultivated by the US military, whose global operations require a mercenary force devoid of conscience and humanity. The Times has come under attack from the Obama administration, the Pentagon and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the official occupying force in Afghanistan, for its decision to release a small portion of the photos. The US military, which was first consulted and shown the pictures, asked the Times not to publish them. In a defensive statement, Times editor Davan Maharaj explained, "After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan." The various comments by government and military officials in response to the publication of the Afghan images express imperialist arrogance and hypocrisy. While feigning shock over the soldiers’ actions, the White House and Pentagon spokesmen made clear that they were angered, above all, by the exposure of further crimes. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on board Air Force One that President Barack Obama considered the behavior demonstrated in Qalat by the US soldiers to be "reprehensible" and insisted, "Those responsible will be held accountable." On behalf of Obama, however, Carney added that he was "very disappointed" that the Los Angeles Times had published the photos. In Brussels, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that the conduct revealed in the photos "absolutely violates" American regulations and values. "This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there," Panetta asserted. The degraded behavior captured in the photos certainly is who the American ruling elite and its hacks like Panetta are. The defense secretary explained that he had personally called on the Times to suppress the photos, noted CNN, "because the enemy uses these kinds of images to incite violence. Lives have been lost due to publication of similar images in the past, he said." Panetta told the media that he was not excusing the soldiers involved, "but neither do I want these images to bring further injury to our people or to our relationship with the Afghan people." Other spokesmen for the Pentagon, as well as for NATO, ISAF and the US embassy in Kabul, echoed these sentiments. The reasoning is fantastic. If we let the Afghan people know the truth about what we are doing in their country, Panetta and the others are saying, they will be more outraged and have even more reason to want to drive us out. True, and they will be completely justified in fighting to oust their foreign oppressors. Even more to the point, this is an argument for concealing the reality of the war from the American people, in whose name it is being waged. This underscores the link between imperialist aggression abroad and the destruction of democratic rights at home. The source of American officials’ anxiety is not simply or even primarily the state of public opinion in Afghanistan, but the growing disgust with the war within the American population. Polls indicate mass opposition in the US to the war, with a majority of Republican voters for the first time indicating they feel the conflict has not been worth fighting. This will not stop whichever big business politician is elected in November from continuing the bloody neocolonial occupation.

Three Nato-led Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

Three Nato-led Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

TOLOnews

March 25, 2012 At least three Nato forces were killed in Afghanistan on Saturday, Isaf said. An Isaf statement said that one of the soldiers died in a bomb blast in southern Afghanistan, another one in an insurgent attack in the west, and the third one as a result of a non-battle related injury in the east. Isaf did not provide more details about the exact location of the incident and nationality of the soldiers, saying it was up to individual countries the soldiers were representing to confirm details. The death brings the number of foreign troops who have died this year in Afghanistan to 87, according to icasualties.org, a website that keeps a tally of foreign soldiers' deaths in the country. There are around 130,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, most of them US soldiers. Since the start of Nato mission in Afghanistan in 2001 at least 2,934 soldier have lost their lives. The Isaf troops are slated to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, after the Afghan security forces take full security responsibility.

Blast Kills Six British Soldiers in Afghanistan

Blast Kills Six British Soldiers in Afghanistan

VOA

March 7, 2012 Six British soldiers were killed when a massive explosion hit their armored vehicle in southern Afghanistan. The soldiers were on patrol near the capital of Helmand province Tuesday evening when the blast happened. It was the single deadliest incident for British troops in Afghanistan since a helicopter crash in 2006 killed 14. NATO said the troops were believed killed following an improvised explosive device attack. Afghan officials said the vehicle hit a landmine. The deaths bring the number of British troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 404. Britain has had the second highest number of casualties in the 10-year war after the United States. British Prime Minister David Cameron mourned the loss Wednesday, but said the mission in Afghanistan remained important for British national security. "This is a desperately sad day for our country, and desperately sad of course for the families concerned. It is a reminder of the huge price that we're paying for the work we're doing in Afghanistan, the sacrifice that our troops have made and continued to make. I do believe that it's important work for our national security right here at home, but of course this work will increasingly be carried out by Afghan soldiers and we all want to see that transition take place.'' Defense Secretary Philip Hammond also condemned the attack, but said it would "ultimately fail to derail" the mission. Britain's Ambassador to Afghanistan William Patey praised the role of British troops in helping build up Afghan security forces and strengthen governance and development in the country. He said the six British soldiers believed killed Tuesday were working closely with a British-led provincial reconstruction team in Helmand. Britain has around 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in Helmand province, and plans to withdraw several hundred by the end of this year. All international combat troops are set to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Elsewhere in Afghanistan Wednesday, officials say four civilians were killed when a bomb planted on a motorcycle exploded in the southern province of Kandahar. At least nine other civilians were wounded in the attack, which took place in the border town of Spin Boldak.

Dirty and Deadly Secret: : NATO Troops Disguise Themselves as Civilians in Afghanistan

Dirty and Deadly Secret: : NATO Troops Disguise Themselves as Civilians in Afghanistan

Canadian Veterans Advocacy

This practice invites Taliban attacks on Afghans and NGOs February 1, 2012 A dirty and deadly secret of the war in Afghanistan is that some of the so-called Taliban attacks on civilians have really been attacks aimed at NATO forces who drive unmarked civilian vehicles and wear "nonstandard uniforms," which is Pentagon-speak for civilian clothes. This NATO practice violates the rules of war, which mandate that military forces clearly distinguish their personnel from the civilian population. The consequences of this and other NATO policies are evident every day as NGOs and civilians are increasingly being considered legitimate targets. The blurring of the distinction between belligerents and civilians has tainted the statistics of the United Nations, which has been attempting to distinguish between military and civilian casualties. On January 19, 2012, this issue was once again highlighted after a Taliban suicide car bomber attacked and killed seven "civilians" at the outskirts to Kandahar Air Field (KAF). Two witnesses told Mirwais Khan of the Associated Press that the Taliban driver was attempting to kill U.S. special forces personnel who had exited the base in two civilian pickup trucks, which the witnesses said was a common practice for troops at the base. NATO has employed several disturbing tactics in Afghanistan. The first tactic is that special operations, civil affairs and military members operating in Provincial Reconstruction Teams have been observed in civilian vehicles and dressed as civilians. When questioned about this, the NATO response has been (1) that it is a necessary "force protection" measure and (2) that it aids in intelligence gathering. These arguments (while probably true) were rejected over one hundred years ago when the rules of war were first drafted. The logic behind the rule is that military forces cannot hide among the civilian population because it then invites attacks on that civilian population. Under international law it is called the Principle or Custom of Distinction. Military forces must be clearly distinct from the civilian population. In December 1944, the Allied Command in Europe arrested 18 members of Otto Skorzeny’s Panzer Brigade 150 commando unit that had operated behind U.S. lines gathering intelligence during the Ardennes Offensive. Because they were arrested wearing American uniforms (even though they did not engage in combat in those uniforms), all 18 were summarily tried and executed. The official Allied position was that there are no exceptions to the rule that military combatants must wear their own distinctive uniforms, and the punishment must be death for anyone who violates this rule. The second NATO tactic being employed in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a steady shift towards targeting Taliban civilians. With limited success against Taliban troops, the focus seems to have shifted to capturing or killing Taliban supporters and sympathizers, even if those persons have never carried a weapon. The problem is that the term "sympathizer" is vague and ambiguous, therefore it opens up the target list to include anyone who opposes the NATO presence in Afghanistan. On March 16, 2011, two CIA Predator drones fired an unknown number of missiles at a jurga or meeting of elders in the village of Datta Khel in North Waziristan, Pakistan. The strike killed at least 40 elders and wounded dozens more, including children. One of the targets was reportedly an elder affiliated with local warlord Hafiz Gul Bahadur. A senior U.S. military official, speaking off the record to the Associated Press, dismissed the casualties with the comment that those killed and wounded (apparently including the children) were either enemy officials or "sympathizers." The official apparently declined to define what a sympathizer is. Another official speaking to Greg Miller of the Washington Post on March 18, 2011, brushed off the casualties by summarily stating, "This was a gang of terrorists." Pakistan General Ashfaq Parvez Keyani responded to the killing by stating: "A jirga of elders, including seniors were carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard for human life." In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief with the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals in the case of Huzaifa Parhart v. Gates. Mr. Parhart is a Uighur who fled repressive conditions in China. He apparently had some contact with people who may belong to ETIM (the East Turkistan Islamic Movement). Parhart was arrested in Afghanistan and illegally flown to the extra-judicial prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. The "evidence" against Parhart, according to the government’s brief, was: "Parhart is properly designated as an enemy combatant because he is affiliated with forces associated with al-Qaeda." What does it mean to be "affiliated" with "forces" and when are those forces considered to be "associated" with al-Qaeda? The above terminology gives NATO and others the authority to kill or detain virtually anyone that disagrees with them, based merely on the belief that they are sympathetic to or indirectly affiliated with persons who are associated with a growing list of NATO enemies. This could also permit the targeting of peace activists. The situation is even more confused because the Pentagon has authorized the killing of "suspected" sympathizers. What that means is that a foreigner or even an American may be killed based on suspicion that they may be sympathetic to either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. A still additional problem is the apparent inability or unwillingness of NATO officials to distinguish between pro-Taliban sympathizers and Afghans who are simply anti-West. On April 5, 2011, The New York Times published an article by Rod Norland entitled: "Taliban Exploit Tensions Seething in Afghan Society." The report detailed how there is an "undercurrent of unease and discontent caused by the foreign presence" and described how the Taliban are able to manipulate that discontent. Afghans who are opposed to the NATO presence are not necessary pro-Taliban, but they are all broadly treated as such. An issue not raised by Mr. Norland, and one which Western officials have consistently refused to discuss is: How many of the armed militants fighting NATO and U.S. forces today in Afghanistan are both anti-West and anti-Taliban? Pentagon officials prefer to portray this conflict in simplistic terms of the (good) West against the (bad) al-Qaeda and Taliban. They have refused to acknowledge the presence of true rebel forces in Afghanistan, who may be motivated by nationalism and patriotism to oppose the foreign forces. The existence of such rebel units would be inconsistent with NATO talking points that this is a just war between two sides. Despite the concerns raised in this story, it may very well be that NATO forces employ a high standard before they target Taliban logistics personnel, supporters and sympathizers with air strikes and night raids, but we do not know that. There are no credible checks and balances to ensure that unlawful arrests and killings are not occurring. NATO has only itself to blame for its lack of credibility. Regarding the NATO policy of allowing military forces to dress and operate as civilians; that policy may well have saved some Western military lives, but potentially at the cost of more Afghan civilians and foreign aid workers being killed, which is not acceptable. While some may not consider it fair to hold NATO to the rules of war while the Taliban ignore them, the West has to hold the moral high ground. If there is no moral high ground, then what is this war all about?