NATO airstrike that kills Afghan soldiers deals fresh blow to ties

Drone strikes are a key sticking point in shaping a security deal with Afghanistan that would allow a US presence after the planned troop withdrawal at the end of 2014.

A daily roundup of terrorism and security issues

A NATO airstrike on Thursday morning killed at least five Afghan soldiers and injured at least eight others in a tragic incident of friendly fire that is likely to further inflame the battered Washington-Kabul relations. 

The strike, which hit an Afghan National Army outpost in the country’s volatile Logar Province, located about 50 miles from Kabul, came from a drone, according to The New York Times. It was most likely “the result of poor coordination between the people on the ground and the operators of the drone,” the Logar provincial spokesman told the newspaper. A Logar provincial spokesman described the outpost as the “the front line against Taliban,” the Washington Post reported.

The development is a fresh blow to the fragile and increasingly fractious relationship between Washington and Kabul. The US has struggled to reach a security deal with outgoing Afghan president Hamid Karzai for continued US presence in the country after the international troops are pulled out in late 2014. NATO airstrikes – and Afghan ability to prosecute them for civilian deaths – are the key sticking point, and today’s events stand certain to widen the rift further.   

The US-led Afghanistan International Security Assistance Force said in a statement that it has launched an investigation “to determine the circumstances that led to this unfortunate incident…. We value the strong relationship with our Afghan partners, and we will determine what actions will be taken to ensure incidents like this do not happen again.” 

Based on preliminary reports, the airstrike appears to have been conducted without request from the Afghan troops, the Washington Post reported, citing a Logar Afghan military spokesman. The US frequently undertakes airstrikes at the request of Afghan forces during intense clashes with the Taliban, but also maintains the ability to strike high-level targets unilaterally.

"The post is totally destroyed," Khalilullah Kamal, the Charkh district governor, told Agence France-Presse after visiting the site. "The Americans used to be in that post but since they left, the ANA [Afghan National Army] took over. The post is on a hilltop. The attack was conducted by drones." 

Mr. Karzai, who cannot run for reelection, has often used botched airstrikes to slam the US, leveling increasingly vehement criticism at the American-led war effort as the April 5 presidential election approaches. Most of the leading candidates have indicated that they’d be willing to consider reviving negotiations of the battered bilateral security agreement in Washington.    

The agreement would allow for 8,000 to 12,000 US troops to stay in Afghanistan and continue training the Afghan National Army, as well for billions of dollars in aid to be delivered, after the NATO combat mission ends in the end of 2014, according to the AFP.

A continued US presence would help strengthen government troops, but would generate continued controversy at home following the outcry against US actions in large part fueled by Karzai’s criticism.

The US currently has around 33,600 troops in Afghanistan, according to Deutsche Welle, which is down from the 2010 high of 100,000. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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.

QR Code to NATO airstrike that kills Afghan soldiers deals fresh blow to ties
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2014/0306/NATO-airstrike-that-kills-Afghan-soldiers-deals-fresh-blow-to-ties
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe