# When Afghan tempers explode



## observor 69 (7 Jun 2008)

TheStar.com - World - When Afghan tempers explode

It was just a traffic jam – but in Afghanistan, that can mean the difference between life and death

June 07, 2008 
Rosie DiManno
Columnist

ON THE BAGRAM-KABUL HIGHWAY SHORTCUT–I am not an America-basher. I have immense respect for U.S. troops, for all soldiers doing their government's military bidding in distant lands.

But one day last week, I wanted to throttle a Yank-in-uniform and I think for a split-second he considered killing me too. He, however, had a machine gun.

We were on the highway, heavily congested with vehicles heading for Kabul in the late afternoon traffic.

I found myself directly behind an ambulance.

The queue of vehicles, ineffectually blasting their horns, had come to a dead stop. Afghans got out of their cars to see what was holding things up.

But Afghans, of course, have been repeatedly warned to stay at least 100 metres distant from military convoys, whether they're moving or stationary. This one had been stationary for an hour, no explanation given, and tempers were fraying.

Afghans are immensely patient people. They can squat, as still as marble statues, for hours, just watching the world go by.

But these were Afghan drivers, many with minivans jammed full with women, children, the elderly.

I went forward to have a peek inside the ambulance. Two men lay there, one with all manner of tubes emerging from chest and arm, clearly in a state of medical emergency. The other sat cross-legged, stunned but conscience.

The ambulance attendant said they'd just been in a motorcycle accident. The more severely injured was in need of immediate hospital attention. "They won't let us pass," the attendant complained. "I'm afraid this man will die."

Another motorist, at the head of the line, had already tried flagging the soldiers ahead, pointing repeatedly to the ambulance.

"Perhaps they will listen to you," he suggested, hopefully.

Aw geez.

I know not to approach a military convoy, especially when it's standing still. I've written stories about innocent civilians killed under these very circumstances.

Soldiers, leery of an environment that can explode violently at any moment, have often fired first and asked questions – if even that – later. And only 24 hours previously, not too distant, in the outskirts of Kabul, a suicide bomber had attacked an American convoy. The troops were unharmed but three civilians had been killed.

So I understand their wariness. But no explanation had been given for why we had all come to a standstill in the middle of nowhere, open desert on both sides of the road, or how long we might be there.

I went back to my car and blasted Eminen on the CD-player. I thought, perhaps stupidly, that would give them a clue that I was, more or less, one of them, not an Afghan to fear.

"You go first,'' the first driver had urged. "I'll walk behind you. We must make them listen."

Then, hands in the air, dangling my media credentials from my fingers, I forced one foot in front of the other. Clearly the troops should be able to see I was Western, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, not hiding a weapon or a suicide vest.

Fifty metres away, the air gunner in the rear vehicle lowered his machine gun at me threateningly.

"Don't shoot!" I croaked. "Just let the ambulance pass!"

The doors opened and two soldiers got out, clearly angry.

"You!" he hollered, pointing at me. "Get back where you were."

Then, stomping up to my Afghan colleague, the senior soldier got right in his face. "We've got a problem here," he spat out. "And you are creating an even bigger problem. Now go back to your car or we will have one REALLY REALLY BIG PROBLEM."

I felt the Afghan's humiliation and saw red.

"Don't you f----g talk to him like that. And don't you f----g talk to me like that. This is his country. Not yours, not mine."

The second soldier, a younger fellow who looked intensely embarrassed, whispered to me: "I'm sorry ma'am. It's just been a long day."

And right there, my own rage melted away. We were just two human beings, in an alien place, trying to communicate, to defuse the situation. 

An open-bed truck, part of the convoy and carrying heavy munitions, had snapped its containing straps. Whole containers of munitions had broken open on the highway. That's what they were loading up and trying to secure again, halting the entire convoy.

Somebody could have said so sooner; could at least have come back to explain the situation to the motorists now idling as far back as the eye could see.

"This is why Afghans have come to hate Americans," said my driver, who works as an interpreter for ISAF and is a strong advocate of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. 

"Afghanistan is not our country any more. They are our bosses. They treat us sometimes as if we are trespassing on our own land."

After more heated discussion, the ambulance at least was allowed to pass the convoy, racing off to the nearest hospital.

Back among the Afghans, someone produced a soccer ball. Men and boys played to while away the time. Then, in the distance and moving quickly towards us, we spotted a sand storm, roiling up a sepia miasma as it approached.

Everyone jumped back in their cars but it was suffocating inside. I wrapped a scarf around my face and took shelter beyond the open door.

The storm, with high buffeting winds, moved on as fast as it had come, but I was still left spitting sand out of my teeth and hacking.

Finally, the convoy was moving.

It was only a minor incident, a modest confrontation between Afghan civilians – and me – and weapons-bristling foreign troops.

But I suspect some more enemies were made on this afternoon, adding incrementally to the hostility that is rapidly replacing the warm welcome that most Afghans had originally given their "liberators."

The Americans did not have to be so aggressive. They did not have to treat Afghan men like boys.

No one among this group of drivers and passengers meant them any harm. But maybe some day, one of them might.

You never know when that line between courtesy and dishonour has been crossed.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/439099


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jun 2008)

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Americans shouldn't talk down to the Afghans. The Afghans shouldn't blow up people there to help them.

I understand the article, but it is so far out of context....  People of all nationalities are tired, nerves frayed,wary. 

Same thing happens now and then during traffic snarls here in Phoenix. Between Americans.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jun 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Americans shouldn't talk down to the Afghans. The Afghans shouldn't blow up people there to help them.
> 
> I understand the article, but it is so far out of context....  People of all nationalities are tired, nerves frayed,wary.
> 
> Same thing happens now and then during traffic snarls here in Phoenix. Between Americans.



I'm going to have to disagree.   I don't believe it's out of context at all.  (THIS IS JUST MY OPINION... preemptive strike, as I'm sure someone will still argue.)

As stated in the article; we are guests there.  It isn't our country or our culture.  Part of our mission is to rebuild and rehabilitate. This part of the mission cannot be completed if we fight with the locals over something as simple as a traffic jam.  I understand the need for close security; I've driven through the tight roads, I've stood toe to toe with angry Afghans trying, just simply, to get by.  I've even been in the same situation as described in the article; broken down vehicle in the middle of a long convoy, blocking traffic... only it was just on the outskirts of IED/Ambush Alley... so tensions were maxed out.  Only in our scenario, we cooperated with the ANA and ANP and had them redirect traffic around our stoppage.

Anyway, my point is; we, as guests, have to ensure that we are making as little negative impact as humanly possible on the day to day operations of the Afghan civilians, otherwise, we are in danger of creating more people we will later meet in battle.  So, this article, in my opinion, is right on the mark; it's depicting a common problem, which could potentially become a huge issue... all over a minor situation.  It may seem like a trivial article, but we don't often get to hear anything from the Afghan civilian side... and they're the people we're doing all this for.


And as for the argument regarding this being just as common in North America;  I hate to throw this one down, but that's beyond comparing apples and oranges... thats like apples and coat hangers...  Don't compare a country which has known peace for hundreds of years and has civil laws to a place that has known nothing but war and is just trying to develop a new system of civil law.  

A traffic snarl here may make you late; a traffic snarl there may make you dead.




Oh... and I know this argument may come down;  YES! we are guests there... Just because we're helping them, doesn't give us free reign to do what we please there.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jun 2008)

> A traffic snarl here may make you late; a traffic snarl there may make you dead



I guess you don't know how many people get killed in road rage incidents annually in a US metropolis of 2 million people.... I was not comparing Afghanistan to Phoenix, merely saying that despite your "throw-down" - idiots in cities get in fist fights, arguments, and other altercations - some even ending in murder - over traffic. And those people, as you point out, are not in Afghanistan - which is an _even more_ stressful, complicated environment.

I don't know what it's like in Afghanistan. As you may surmise, I haven't been there.

I know we're guests, and I agree with the spirit of your post. My opinion though, is that this lady was involved in an isolated incident, and made it sound (in spite of her caveat), like the US Soldiers were being obnoxious tourists. Like they are on a bus tour, and were being unreasonable. I suspect, that even the Americans, are trying to have as little "negative impact as possible", in spite of the incident witnessed by this journalist. My point was that heat, stress, fatigue, training, past exposure to VBIEDs (placed/triggered by the populace), leadership and specific circumstances in any given incident all affect _any_ soldier's ability to act as a guest, in someone else's country.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Jun 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Part of our mission is to rebuild and rehabilitate. This part of the mission cannot be completed if we fight with the locals over something as simple as a traffic jam.



My mission is to get my crew home safe.I can honestly say when I'm there hearts and minds is the FURTHEST thing from my mind.I'm activly hunting the enemy.I do agree that we shouldnt mess them around for the sake of it....but honestly If you seen a car coming up past the other traffic with American music blasting.......

They should kick her out of the country before she get's herself killed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2008)

So much for the rule that a reporter should NOT be the story, or affect the outcome of the story by direct participation....


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> My mission is to get my crew home safe.I can honestly say when I'm there hearts and minds is the FURTHEST thing from my mind.I'm activly hunting the enemy.I do agree that we shouldnt mess them around for the sake of it....



Mission before man... that was preached to us every day both there and on the way.

No doubt, there is a line when you have to look after the welfare of yourself and your crew; eg. a vehicle gets too close and doesn't respond to visual and verbal warnings... then escalation of force dictates that you give a warning shot... which is the first step in actively engaging the enemy.  But, that doesn't mean you warning shot everything that drives by you.  They're people too and they're just as dumb as some people on the roads here...  

Consider your reaction if you or a family member got shot because you were out for a drive.  It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in a lot of cases, it's not always that simple. They perceive it like this; I was driving my cab, 'cause thats how I make money, and I accidentally drove too close to a convoy of soldiers from a different country... they shot at my car and killed my passenger, injuring me in the process... these aren't my friends.
This is how the enemy is created; an excuse to fight.  

But, this doesn't mean we should just let them get as close as they want. All I'm suggesting is that if a convoy is stopped in a position which blocks the locals, maybe it would be a prudent idea to work with the local authority to get things moving again so as to reduce the amount of frustration.  

I think the thing that bothers me the most about the statements in the article is that no one did anything to get an ambulance moving even when told...  That's just not on.  
But then again, that could be a mis-reported incident... either way, not cool. 


As for the columnist;


			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> but honestly If you seen a car coming up past the other traffic with American music blasting.......
> 
> They should kick her out of the country before she get's herself killed.



Yeah... agreed.

Dumb-***.  

We were always told; "If something happens and you don't get a 'warm-fuzzy' or it takes away the 'warm-fuzzy', start escalating the force until it stops."
That move would definitely take away the "warm-fuzzy".



Anyway, the whole point I'm getting at is that there is absolutely no need to go "cowboy" and grease everyone just because they are trying to get to where they need to get to.  They're already freaked out and just want things to get back to some semblance of normal... what ever that is...  But I'm sure that doesn't include some foreign army threatening to kill them for driving to work.  (and I'm not just pointing out the US forces... everyone needs to take a deep breath sometime... I could post stories from my tour, but it probably wouldn't be such a good idea...)


----------



## Navy_Blue (7 Jun 2008)

I have to agree with Piper.

I don't want to bash the Yanks but I don't think they have any business policing a country.  They are amazing at closing with and destroying but they don't quite have the serve and protect thing down.  

I think there is something inherent in *our*  training that makes it very clear what is right and what is wrong in combat and peace keeping.   Everything I can gather from the American service men and women (that I have met personally and seen on TV) makes me think they don't quite get it.  

Some of the guys they charged in Iraq for miss treating prisoners were National Guard.  They had civi jobs in corrections yet they could say on the record (on CNN) that they were never trained the basics of the Geneva Convention and that they didn't know how to deal with prisoners.  They were prison guards on civi street.   

The reporter in this article said the senior solider walked buy her and tore into the local guy.  There was no need to be disrespectful and tare into him to get your point across.  I have very limited training dealing with ROE and allot of it was from the late 90's but I was never taught to be anything but firm and stern with people at check points.  They displayed there intentions with the gunner on the turret.  If they really felt that threatend they would have shot, yet the IC gets out to rip into them.  

It could be one isolated incident with a very stressed out over worked Officer/Senior NCM.  It could also be something plaguing the US armed forces that a few weeks of training could fix prior to deployment.   

This is just the way I see things.  I could be a little biased but I truly believe we the CF are steps above most armed forces when it comes to dealing with people.    

Cheers

NB


----------



## RHFC_piper (8 Jun 2008)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Piper.
> 
> I don't want to bash the Yanks but I don't think they have any business policing a country.  They are amazing at closing with and destroying but they don't quite have the serve and protect thing down.
> 
> ...




Well... Thats not entirely the point I was getting at.   I don't think any country's soldiers are any less capable to complete their mission or commit grievous acts in an operational environment (or anywhere else).  People are people.  Everyone has their bad days and every military has their arse-holes... It's just the way it is.

The point I was getting at was that in COIN and rebuilding/rehabilitation centered operations, it's better to be polite and accommodating to the local population to avoid the backlash of these people becoming insurgents when you cross them the wrong way one time too many.

The soldiers in this scenario could just as easily been Canadians in a busy Kandahar city street during a LAV breakdown (personal experience).  Sometimes all it takes is short tempers, hot weather, the need to keep moving and the fear of an imminent attack and any Canadian soldier could find themselves being just as demeaning...  Troops just have to consider each side of the coin.

As X-mo-1979 stated, a big chunk of everyones concern is their crews, and their own, well being... To enhance the well being of future crews, as well as improve the chances of their own, maybe politeness and co-operation is better than confrontation and aggression.
Who knows, maybe that guy you shot at 'cause he was too close to the convoy decides he doesn't like these "foreigners" in his country anymore and, when next offered the opportunity, fills his cab with unexploded munitions which litter his homeland, rather than people, and drive even closer to another convoy...  May be yours, may be another platoon in your BG, may be a unit from another nation. 
Don't think thats the way it happens?  Well, I remember seeing the farmers we'd pass one day firing RPGs at us the next... usually the day after a major "incident" occurred near or in the area they live in.  With out knowing their motivation first hand, I'm betting Anger stemming from these incidents has something to do with it... and if not, at least we can reduce or eliminate that possibility by acting like professional soldiers there to help the people and not hinder them (any more than we have to.)

Anyway, I've ranted too much about this wee little topic...  There it is, there's my stand point...  agree or disagree all you want; I'll still believe part of being a professional soldier in the modern battlefield is knowing how to treat civilians, win hearts and minds as well as engage the enemy.  Weather you're CIMIC, PRT or battlegroup, you will eventually come across civilians.  And if you leave it to CIMIC and PRT to do the hearts and minds gig, it just won't work... We are all representing not only the CF but NATO when we're there, and people have a habit of remembering the bad more than the good... If we mess up the Hearts and Minds deal in the BG, it'll only make things worst for CIMIC and PRT to do their jobs.  

Jeez... I could just keep writing...   But I won't.   I don't want to make any more of a mountain of this mole hill.


----------



## Xcalibar (8 Jun 2008)

I don't think the reporter truly understood what it is like on the roads in Afghanistan.  You cannot drive there like you do in the West, especially when you are a foreigner there.  Every car is a potential threat.  Every person is a potential threat.  It might sound paranoid, but this is in the same country (though probably not the first) that came up with a bicycle-borne IED.  This is the same country where people strap explosives to children and send them off towards our troops and blow them up.  It is very unfortunate that an ambulance got caught up in that road block, but the US troops were busy dealing with a bad situation (I bet some one got called to the mat for an insecure load) and they didn't want it to get worse.  I don't I would have done any differently than the troops in the same situation except to try to be aware of the over all situation and try to keep the situation calm as possible.

X


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jun 2008)

Rosie probably has more time in Afghanistan than most combat troops. I remember her reporting on the Northern Alliance when they started heading south to Kabul. And  don't tell me that she sat back at a protected base. Her style of reporting is to go beyond the wire.
Her and Blatchford are best friends and have a similar method of reporting, ie. out with the troops.
You don't have to agree with her but she has spent her time in Afghanistan.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (8 Jun 2008)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> The reporter in this article said the senior solider walked buy her and tore into the local guy.  There was no need to be disrespectful and tare into him to get your point across.  I have very limited training dealing with ROE and allot of it was from the late 90's but I was never taught to be anything but firm and stern with people at check points.  They displayed there intentions with the gunner on the turret.  If they really felt that threatend they would have shot, yet the IC gets out to rip into them.



Many things have changed since the "stop or I'll say stop again "era.These two are extremely lucky they didnt get shot.It doesnt ever mention What the troops were dealing with...they could have made a situation a lot worse by breaking into a 100m zone around the convoy.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Mission before man... that was preached to us every day both there and on the way.



yes no doubt mission first.that's a army wide mantra.However their is a weighing of risks involved in the MAN aspect.I wouldnt put MY crew in harms way when it was neccessary.
I agree with more work with Afgan police to re rouite people etc,but if I'm stopped and a vehcile comes screaming up..I really don't care what their playing and what the occupants look like.Being press they should know.The have breifings as well.

I also don't blame the guy for tearing into the Afgan man.Due to culture why would he insult the male and yell at the woman?Men deal with men.And the other point would be what happens when this man now realises he can approach convoys stopped in the road?He tell;'s his friends and people get injured on the civilian side.As now they realise their friend was mad and approached the convoy,got his way and nothing was done to him.Then the taliban realize and BOOOM "4 nato soldiers were killed in Afganistan today when a convoy was hit by an VBIED"

I agree as well we must keep doing what were doing in regards to collateral damage.We seem to be doing a good job thus far.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jun 2008)

A semi-hijack admittedly, but today's news coincidentally substantiated a point I was trying to make.. We had not one, but 2 incidents today.



> Grandmother, 4-year-old shot during traffic altercation
> 
> by Lily Leung - Jun. 8, 2008 04:59 PM
> The Arizona Republic
> ...





> Man with hammer shot twice in Phoenix road-rage incident
> 
> by Ali Pfauser - Jun. 5, 2008 03:14 PM
> The Arizona Republic
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jun 2008)

I did get outside of the wire on a convoy while I was in KAF last year.  We went to PBW and while going there I wondered what the local drivers thought of all the convoys tearing through their country.  I understand the need for the routine of center of the road and making sure all oncoming traffic yields with no overtaking from the rear.  But the thought crossed my mind, what if there were foreign soldiers traveling around Canada in this manner, making me take to the ditch like that.  How long would it be before I was pissed off royaly with it all.  The locals did seem to take it all in stride, but then what choice did they have too.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I wouldnt put MY crew in harms way when it *was * neccessary.



This is a typo, right?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Jun 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is a typo, right?



Yes.
thanks. :-[


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jun 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I did get outside of the wire on a convoy while I was in KAF last year.  We went to PBW and while going there I wondered what the local drivers thought of all the convoys tearing through their country.  I understand the need for the routine of center of the road and making sure all oncoming traffic yields with no overtaking from the rear.  But the thought crossed my mind, what if there were foreign soldiers traveling around Canada in this manner, making me take to the ditch like that.  How long would it be before I was pissed off royaly with it all.  The locals did seem to take it all in stride, but then what choice did they have too.



Sounds a bit like Germany in the Cold war, tank convoys moving down the centre of the road, not to mention bridging equipment in small towns.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jun 2008)

What if we treated our emergency vehicles, with lights flashing, with contempt?  Yes, it's a nuisance when you just HAVE to get that litre of milk, or whatever, but those vehicles, with lights flashing, do have important things to do.

Now, suppose you are in Afghanistan.  You are driving, and then you see a military convoy coming over.  Pull over, get out of the way.  They are fighting a war (don't you know), and they just may be on their way into combat.

Comparing courtesy of the road here in North America with the rules of the road "over there" is just as sensible as comparing weather patterns on Venus with the intricacies of high school social life.  I could only imagine the outcry if those "Ugly Americans" didn't have security up, and some poor Afghan drove by, hitting a piece of that ordnance, causing injuries, or worse, death.  "Why didn't they protect us?"  :


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jun 2008)

Colin, can't compair as I never was in Germany.  But we were moving with a purpose, no messing about.  Nothing like a road move from Calgary to Wainwright which was my only yardstick to measure from.  After months cooped up in camp, seeing what was beyond the wire was a delightful sensory experience I won't soon forget.


----------



## LineDoggie (10 Jun 2008)

Might I point out that just because an Ambulance is present doesn't mean its Legit. I was part of a Patrol on Baghdad that stopped an Ambulance in November 2004 on Route Tampa.

Inside were 25 AK's
3 RPG's and several PK's
The Driver had a Syrian Accent according to "Mr. Happy" our Iraqi Terp.

I just love the broads idea of sending someone back to the Civvie Traffic to explain things to them, Just asking for a VBIED then.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Jun 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> What if we treated our emergency vehicles, with lights flashing, with contempt?  Yes, it's a nuisance when you just HAVE to get that litre of milk, or whatever, but those vehicles, with lights flashing, do have important things to do.
> 
> Now, suppose you are in Afghanistan.  You are driving, and then you see a military convoy coming over.  Pull over, get out of the way.  They are fighting a war (don't you know), and they just may be on their way into combat.
> 
> Comparing courtesy of the road here in North America with the rules of the road "over there" is just as sensible as comparing weather patterns on Venus with the intricacies of high school social life.  I could only imagine the outcry if those "Ugly Americans" didn't have security up, and some poor Afghan drove by, hitting a piece of that ordnance, causing injuries, or worse, death.  "Why didn't they protect us?"  :



Well said.
If everyone is so sick of having to wait for convoy's to get on with their business,maybe they all could start assisting the ANA/ANP and get rid of these taliban.The we all could travel without worry.It aint us blowing civilians up.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Jun 2008)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Piper.
> 
> I don't want to bash the Yanks but I don't think they have any business policing a country.  They are amazing at closing with and destroying but they don't quite have the serve and protect thing down.
> 
> ...



You seem to be painting with a fairly broad brush.  Have you been on operations in country?

As someone who has caused the odd inconvenience to Afghan road traffic I can sympathize with the leader in the story but I also feel bad for the motorists.  Still, at the end of the day that leader is responsible for everybody's safety and mission accomplishment.  While getting verbally abusive does not necessarily help the situation, it isn't like the big, bad leader in the convoy went up to her stopped car outside the cordon and started yelling at her interpreter for the heck of it.  Intentionally entering an established cordon is not the best thing to do in my view anywhere in the world and especially not in Afghanistan.  

We should certainly be as polite as possible and cause the minimum of disruption.  Along with that we should try to see it all from the local's point of view. That being said, sometimes you have to select the "least bad" course of action.


----------



## RHFC_piper (11 Jun 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> We should certainly be as polite as possible and cause the minimum of disruption.  Along with that we should try to see it all from the local's point of view. That being said, sometimes you have to select the "least bad" course of action.



This is, essentially, the point I was getting at.

The way I see it is; The mission is the most important, of course, but that doesn't mean we have to get it done by any means necessary...  As Tango put it; Select the least bad, the least disruptive, the least intrusive method possible.   If this means, based on the scenario, that civilians have to be held up for a while as a convoy fixes a potentially dangerous situation, so be it.   But, efforts should be made to minimize the effects; ie. letting an ambulance by and possibly working with local authority to redirect traffic (which would, invariably, be to our benefit... No traffic = less chance of VBIED).   

I hope that make some kinda sense.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

It's all so easy when it isn't one of your own loved ones in the back of the emergency vehicle possibly in a life-threatening condition.

Just as soldiers want to protect themselves and their buddies ... citizens want to look out for the best interests of their own loved ones too. I guess, in a war zone, it's a matter of who has priority for looking out for their own.

It really sucks when soldiers have to assume that every vehicle is a threat until proven otherwise, or that every citizen is a threat until proven otherwise. Or that every ambulance may be done up as a VBIED until proven otherwise -- especially so if that ambulance being held up carries yet another innocent victim of the latest IED blast by the Taliban. I can imagine how I'd feel as a parent if it were my child (for example) in the back of an ambulance who was in critical need of care but was held up by people there to help them. It's a frustrating situation for everyone -- not just the soldiers. And you can't fault human feelings of compassion for the one laying in the back of the ambulance needing care either, that's an instinctive and normal reaction. Usually emergency vehicles with lights flashing indicate an emergency, not a threat. 

Sadly, the Taliban are one fucked up bunch and normal human instincts will get people killed. Soldiers and innocent civilians. That sucks. Not a nice situation to be in at all - either as the soldier or that innocent civilian trying to get to the hospital.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Jun 2008)

I see your point, but I didn't say that it was easy.  The soldiers are also trying to protect everybody in that situation. Letting everybody crowd around invites a catastrophy for both soldiers and innocents in that situation since they are are fixed target.


----------



## McG (11 Jun 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> The way I see it is; The mission is the most important, ...


It is also important to remember that the mission is defeating the insurgency.  In the conduct of all the many tasks & operations executed, it is important to ensure we are not sacrificing the end goal in order to achieve today's milestone.

In fighting an insurgency, the civillian population is the vital ground.  Insurgents will thrive if they hold the popular support of the nation, but they may also thrive amongst a population that is indifferent & sees no gains subverting insurgent activities.  Often you will hear speak of the importance of morally isolating the insurgence or driving a wedge between insurgents and the population.  This is essential.  It is also essential that we avoid things which will drive a similar wedge between our own forces and the population.  This is not to say we need to "win hearts & minds" and become liked by the Afghans, but we must earn and retain their trust and respect.

It seems to me that the article described a situation which had the potential of eroding away from that strategic aim of defeating the insurgency.  I won't judge the forces on the ground; I can't.  There is by far not enough information about their situation and there is no indication that the convoy did or did not have the tools to handle the situation any different.  For all we know, there may have been an attempt, to communicate the situation, that failed to trickle the message back as more and more traffic arrived.  There may have been errors, but it is possible that there were none.  It does not matter.

There are lessons to be seen here still.  It is a warning that planning and development of tools are required to avoid/minimize future incidents and the resulting impact that may be had on the big-picture mission.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I see your point, but I didn't say that it was easy.  The soldiers are also trying to protect everybody in that situation. Letting everybody crowd around invites a catastrophy for both soldiers and innocents in that situation since they are are fixed target.



I agree 100%.

My post actually wasn't related to yours at all.

Just the thoughts that came immediately to my mind after reading the article.


----------



## Kiwi99 (24 Jun 2008)

I guess some people become experts in less than a month. You know who you are.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jun 2008)

Perhaps the situation could have used a blend of efforts.  Having driven that very road in the decent double-digits of times, I can understand the US soldiers' twitchiness just as much as the locals' frustrations.

In this situation, the major cause factor is a spill of munitions off a carrier that the troops are trying to get back on board.  At a calculated risk, knowing my convoy was the cause of the building slow up, not the other way around (some vehicle by the side of the road, perhaps by the "pink gas station" or other pinch point on that route - something that would definitely get my spidey sense going!) I would carefully approach the first vehicle in line and with my terp, explain (it should be obvious, but hearts and minds is not always obvious) that there is great risk because of the spilled munitions and that you are halting traffic until the area is safely secured; then ask the driver to pass the pessage down the line (minimizing risk to any of my guys having to continue down the line repeating the explination).  Hopefully the Afghans would appreciate the polite engagement, yet firm action, much of it for their own good as well.  The manner that the soldiers apparently barked back at the locals would clearly not help things.

Rosie was taking an incredible risk in what she did.  I like her, and I am especially respectful of Christie (hoping she would not have done the same as Rosie...she has enough field time [as should Rosie] to recognized spilled munitions and back off) but the guys were already on edge with spilled ammo all over the place....who's to say AQ hadn't co-opted Jihadiis with a more Western look, with faked Press Credentials, that frankly you couldn't tell from moldy toilet paper at 100m?  She's frickin lucky...could have turned out much worse.

In this situation, one could say the only damage done was one more story for Afghans to tell their children in the years to come.  Yes, it might have been done better, but it also could have been worse; a lot worse.

My 2 ¢

G2G


----------

