KABUL, Afghanistan — The troubled 11-year history of the post-Taliban Afghan security forces, including the Afghan army, offers an ample range of possible explanations for the deeply disturbing incident on Tuesday that took the life of Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene — the highest-ranking U.S. military officer killed in a war zone in four decades.
The Afghan soldier who killed Greene and wounded 15 at Afghanistan's West Point hid in a bathroom with a NATO assault rifle then opened fire when a group of Western officers passed by, an Afghan military official said on Wednesday.
The soldier who attacked and was himself gunned down in a subsequent shootout was named Rafiqullah, according to the official.
Rafiqullah was in his early 20s and joined the Afghan army more than two years ago. He hailed from a district in Paktia province known to harbor fighters from the Haqqani network, which has strong links to the Taliban and conducts attacks against U.S. forces.
The army, the most professional and popular of the new defense forces, has drawn recruits from across the country who have been expected to replace local and ethnic loyalties with adherence to a national government and its defense. The aim has been to forge an army of about 80,000 men and officers who could be weaned from foreign tutelage by now and prepared to take on the Taliban alone, then gradually grow to as many as 120,000 troops.
From the beginning, however, the project has been plagued with problems. Soldiers have gone AWOL and deserted in high numbers. Ethnic imbalances between officers and troops have been sources of envy and friction.
Perhaps most problematic, the American mentors who have “embedded” with Afghan units were slow to arrive, and Afghan fighting traditions — honed over decades of anti-Soviet guerrilla combat and civil war — have been both more brutal and egalitarian than the orderly American ethos of haircuts, salutes and pre-dawn drills.
In a 2009 report on the state of the Afghan army, the Rand Corp. and the Royal Danish Defense College found that although steady improvements were being made in professional skills and combat readiness, the army was still very much a “work in progress” and would need continued international support for the foreseeable future. Despite significant gains in some areas, the report said, “operational effectiveness remains very much in the balance.”
Five years later, some problems have eased, but others have arisen. American military officials report that Afghan troops participate in all combat operations against the Taliban and lead at least half of them. The domestic popularity of the force has grown, pay has increased, and desertions have shrunk. But reports of high-level corruption have soured morale, and enthusiasm for the fight has faltered as Taliban insurgents have become better armed.
One of the most vexing developments has been the spread of insider attacks.
The motives behind these attacks have ranged widely. In some cases, insurgents infiltrated the services and waited for the chance to attack foreign troops. In others, Afghan soldiers and police attacked their American trainers after taking offense at certain orders or perceived insults.
Several analysts in Kabul said the attack on Tuesday exposed deep flaws in the control and competence of Afghan military leaders, who had apparently not prepared adequate security for the foreign visit. They also said it revealed ongoing problems with the army's lax recruitment policies and faltering efforts to build a loyal, unified fighting force after more than a decade of foreign investment and training.
“This sad event is a major blow to our international alliances, and it shows that we cannot build trustworthy and credible military institutions,” said Javed Kohistani, a military analyst, former Afghan army officer and former national intelligence officer. “Whoever was behind this attack has achieved their highest goal. It is no coincidence that a two-star American general was killed.”
But Martine van Bijlert of the Afghan Analysts Network said she believed the shooting was an “act of opportunity” by a soldier who happened to be in the base and was not an indication of any broader conspiracy.A spokesman for the Taliban issued a statement praising the soldier for his “honorable” action in attacking foreign “occupiers” but did not claim any connection.
“Symbolically this is very telling, but whether it is telling about the broader ability of the army and its international relations, I don't think so,” van Bijlert said. Despite intensified screening efforts and other precautions, she pointed out, “you still can't know the thoughts and moods of every soldier and recruit. It would be different if this had been a planned and targeted attack, but it looks like this was more a target of opportunity.”
