U.S. Brigadier General Harold J. Greene, murdered by an Afghan
soldier in training, is the
highest-ranking U.S. service member to
be killed in action since the
Vietnam War. Have U.S. media been
too hasty to condemn the Afghan security
forces for the breach?
Don't Smear Afghan Forces for U.S. General's Murder (Afghanistan Times, Afghanistan)
"Being ensconced
in a hasty withdrawal, President Obama asked the Afghan government to speed up
local recruitment and to stand up the Army and police to weather the NATO-ISAF withdrawal. Under pressure, the Defense Ministry had
to process some 7,000 new recruits per month, so corners were cut on background
checks. This may have allowed insurgents to pack the ranks of the Afghan military's
350,000 recruits. … Nevertheless, labeling the entire process and the force as Taliban
infiltrated is cruel and crooked. It is like denying the great sacrifices of troops
who were killed in the line of duty, and who gave everything to stand against
militancy and defended this country."
With the killing of an American general in Kabul [Harold
J. Greene], the entire Western media is abuzz with criticism of the recruitment
policies of Afghan National Army and police.
Just because there have been incidents of green-on-blue
attacks as well as insider attacks within the Afghan army and police, it doesn't
mean the entire force has been infiltrated, or that all Afghan troops are Taliban,
as is suggested by this headline from a leading American newspaper: We're
Training the Taliban to Kill Us - and Take Back Afghanistan[The New York Post].
The headline also is provocative. To label the entire Afghan
National Army as Taliban is a serious insult and offense to the country, even
if, at the same time, one must accept that the recruitment mechanism is flawed.
Being ensconced in a hasty withdrawal, President Obama asked the Afghan
government to speed up local recruitment and to stand up the Army and police to
weather the NATO-ISAF withdrawal. Under pressure, the
Defense Ministry had to process some 7,000 new recruits per month, so corners
were cut on background checks. This may have allowed insurgents to pack the
ranks of the Afghan military's 350,000 recruits.
Nevertheless, labeling the entire process and the force as Taliban
infiltrated is cruel and crooked. It is like denying the great sacrifices of troops
who were killed in the line of duty, and who gave everything to stand against
militancy and defended this country.
If now and then troopers turn their weapons on colleagues or
foreign trainers, they might be cases of psychosis, or perhaps after recruitment
they slipped mentally and made contact with insurgents and were brainwashed by
them. In no way, however, does this call into question the entire security
system.
Reporting and commenting on this issue, foreign media should
demonstrate some sense of responsibility. Healthy criticism, yes, should be
welcomed by the government and citizens of this country, but there is no room
for unhealthy and provocative criticism.
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
Earlier, there was misleading propaganda and Afghan security
troops were dubbed ignorant and illiterate. Foreign media were focused on cases
of desertion. Meanwhile, foreign journalists rarely reported on the capacities
and sacrifices of Afghan troops who are ever ready to defend this land against
militants, and ever prepared to render sacrifice. Such stories are almost completely
absent. Foreign media even report on the dogs of soldiers killed or wounded.
What is even more annoying is that now, American military intelligence officials fear that as much as 25 percent of the Afghan
security force are Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives or sympathizers. This is the mindset
that has surfaced since the killing of the U.S. general. This would mean that
they are arming and training some 87,500 infiltrators with easy access to U.S.
personnel and intelligence.
That is what The New
York Post says in its highly
offensive analysis. Now it looks necessary for the Afghan government,
particularly the Defense Ministry, to respond and tell the world of the huge
sacrifices rendered by Afghanistan's security forces.
The column from The
New York Post, rather than suggesting improvement to the recruitment
mechanism, carries annoying words. Moreover, if the article suggests that up to
now, everything was smooth in terms of security, how is it that all of a sudden
the security forces have become insurgents? Is the engineering of such a
misleading belief among foreign readers, policymakers and military generals a deliberate
design, or is this piece of analysis just from the author? The citizens of
Afghanistan are eager to have the answer.
