Afghan shooting spree: soldier's revenge for wounded colleague?

Details about the soldier involved in the Afghan shooting spree are beginning to emerge. The day before his rampage, he witnessed the severe wounding of a fellow GI.

Ted S. Warren/AP
Attorneys John Henry Browne (r.) and Emma Scanlan talk to reporters Thursday in Seattle. Browne and Scanlan will be representing a US soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians.

A clearer picture is beginning to emerge of the soldier who went on a shooting spree this week, murdering 16 Afghan civilians – nine of them children.

Some of these new details may indicate that the soldier was seeking retribution for a fellow GI who had been severely wounded by insurgent forces the day before.

The soldier – whose name the Pentagon says it will not release until it files charges against him – had suffered his own injury in Iraq that caused him to lose part of his foot.

His tour in Afghanistan, which began in December, marked his fourth deployment, and he wasn’t happy about it, his lawyer told reporters. 

“He was told he wasn’t going back, and then he was told he was going,” John Henry Browne, a veteran defense attorney from Seattle who has represented serial killer Ted Bundy, said in a press conference he called Thursday night. “He wasn’t thrilled about going on another deployment.”

The soldier was “highly decorated,” according to his lawyer. He was also battle-hardened. During his tours in Iraq, the soldier was injured twice, including suffering a concussion in a crash caused by a roadside bomb explosion, Mr. Browne said.

On Saturday, the soldier witnessed a buddy’s leg being “blown off,” he added. “And my client was standing next to him.” This, he said, was told to him by the soldier’s family and has not been independently verified. There are also reports that the soldier had been drinking with buddies prior to walking off base. Neither of these actions is permitted under US military code for soldiers in Afghanistan.

Despite some US military assertions that the soldier was having marital problems, Browne insists that he had a strong relationship with his wife. “They were totally shocked” by the charges, Browne said. “He’s in general very mild-mannered.”

The soldier was assigned to the 2nd battalion of the 3rd Striker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Fort Lewis-McChord. He has also received sniper training.

This point may help explain the volume of the casualties, US military officials say, as they seek to emphasize that the soldier was a rogue gunman acting alone.

Afghans, including President Hamid Karzai – perhaps in part for domestic consumption – continue to robustly question the Pentagon's version of events. How could a lone gunman have killed so many people, stacked their bodies, and burned them all by himself, some Afghan villagers have asked.

Even as Afghan protesters were demanding justice for the crime and a trial for the soldier on their own turf, the US military flew him first to Kuwait and then back to the United States.

The soldier is expected to be held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, his lawyer said. 

In the meantime, the Pentagon released to Afghan officials a security surveillance tape – taken by one of the blimps that often flies above US outposts in Afghanistan – in the hopes that this would help bolster their case that the soldier was a lone gunman.

The security footage shows the soldier approaching the base using an Afghan shawl to cover the weapon in his hands before laying it down and raising his hands in surrender.

US military officials fear that the incident could lead to a renewed cycle of revenge killings among Afghan security forces, especially if it turns out to be a calculated retribution. Two American troops were shot point blank in the back of the head by the Afghan soldiers they were training after it came to light that the US military was burning Qurans in a prison trash pit earlier this month.

These attacks – known in Pentagon parlance as “blue on green” – now stand at 45 since 2007. Analysts note that nearly three quarters of them have taken place in the past two years.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.