# French troops were killed after Italy hushed up ‘bribes’ to Taleban



## GAP (15 Oct 2009)

French troops were killed after Italy hushed up ‘bribes’ to Taleban
Article Link
 October 15, 2009

When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.

Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.

What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.

US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic. 
More on link


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Oct 2009)

Wow.  In World War One, Italy adopted a "wait and see" policy before joining on the side of the Triple Entente.  In the next war, they switched sides.  Are they doing the same now?  :


----------



## ballz (15 Oct 2009)

Da FUCK???

A couple people should be sent a .50 calibre bullet via air for this one. :sniper:


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2009)

...courtesy of France's wire service Agence France-Presse - highlights mine:


> The French military Thursday dismissed as "baseless" a British newspaper report that French troops died in Afghanistan because Italy had failed to inform them of a Taliban payoff deal.
> 
> The Times of London said 10 French soldiers were killed in Sarobi district east of Kabul in August 2008 because they were not told that Italy had been paying the Taliban not to carry out attacks and failed to properly assess risks.
> 
> ...


----------



## leroi (15 Oct 2009)

Bolded by me:


> “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down. *But it is madness to do so and not inform your allies.” *



*Is this  article true or is this some form of dis-information Black Ops?* ???

*If True:* 

I guess I have a letter to write to someone political and as a civilian I don't know who is best to write it to but will make inquiries.

This idea that the incoming force, French in this case, did not get briefed by the outgoing force on their defensive modus operandi, Italian in that case, is en- :rage: ing!!!

Once again, observing this war from the naivety and civilian comfort of Canada must preclude me from a better understanding of: Simply removing all of those persons from the theatre of war in Afghanistan who/when it can be *proven* they have failed to effectively communicate VITAL information that consequently leads to the mortality of another countries soldiers. 

*Is it fair to blame the entire Italian army or Italy itself for this? I don't think so--unless it can be proven they were all complicit.
*Is this war in Afghanistan typically fought by buying protection?  If so, then we might as well pull Canadian troops out now and just sent the al-qaeda backed Taliban a shitload of money so they can continue re-fuelling worldwide insurgencies. At least that way, our blood, our treasure could remain at home alive and on Canadian soil! Maybe we could just pay the bass-turds off to leave their terror outside of our door before they enter Canada.

I think I've understood the concept of Friendly Fire, that accidents can happen anywhere, and I think I understand the concept that war can be a fog, a blur, but to negligently fail to communicate this VITAL tactical information to another nation's incoming troops is unforgivable.

I think, also, if it was Canada who made a mistake of this magnitude, we would already be hung in the courts of public opinion and would have masochistically set up untold commissions of inquiry--it would have been an international scandal fueling the Troops Out Now campaign back here at home. 

(Edit: I'm out'a here before I give myself a nose bleed--I would love for this piece of news to be untrue and welcome any corrections anyone would like to make if my comments are errant, misguided, naive or just plain stupid, etc.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2009)

It's so Italian to pay bribe to keep things cool. Paying the locals to keep the peace is fine, but doing so without informing your allies is crazy. I sspect there is some bad blood flowing between the 2 governments right now.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Oct 2009)

Italy denies paying off Taliban 
*Article Link*

ROME - Italy and NATO on Thursday denied a newspaper report that the Italian intelligence secretly paid the Taliban thousands of dollars to maintain peace in an area in Afghanistan that was under Italian control. 

Premier Silvio Berlusconi's office called the report in the Times of London "completely groundless." The Italian defence minister denounced it as "rubbish" and said he wanted to sue the newspaper. 

In Kabul, a U.S. spokesman for NATO forces in Afghanistan denied the allegations. "We don't do bribes," Col. Wayne Shanks said. "We don't pay the insurgents." 

The Times reported that Italy had paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to Taliban commanders and warlords in the Surobi district, east of the capital, Kabul. The newspaper cited Western military officials, including high-ranking officers at NATO, speaking on condition of anonymity. 

It accused Rome of failing to inform its allies about the payments and of misleading the French, who took over the Surobi district in mid-2008, into thinking the area was quiet and safe. Shortly afterward, French troops were hit with an ambush that killed 10 soldiers and had big political repercussions back in Paris. 

French Defence Ministry spokesman Christophe Prazuck said he had "no information to confirm what has been written in the Times" and stressed that allied troops in Afghanistan share information and enjoy mutual trust. 

More on link


----------



## brandon_ (15 Oct 2009)

I do not have the link right now.

But i was reading this in history class.  It said somewhere that the defence minister is planing to sue the times...

Ill look for the link...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2009)

1)  A bit on the proposed litigation:


> The Italian government has vehemently denied a report in “The Times” that it paid off Afghan warlords and was indirectly responsible for the deaths of 10 French soldiers in an ambush last year.
> 
> The paper says US communication intercepts discovered the Italian secret service made payments of tens of thousands of euros to warlords, in an area then under Italian control.
> Italy’s defence minister said he is preparing a lawsuit against “The Times”:
> ...



2)  A bit more on this allegation in particular, and the "bribe the tribes" approach in general:


> .... the biggest flaw in the “bribe the Taliban” argument: What happens when you stop paying?
> 
> Once again, the Iraq example is instructive. Responsibility for paying Sunni tribal militias, referred to by the U.S. military as the Sons of Iraq (SoI), was handed over to the government of Iraq, and a certain number of SoI were eventually supposed to be absorbed into Iraq’s security forces. But not all has gone to plan: Earlier this year, fighting erupted in Baghdad after the arrest of Adel Mashadani, a Sunni militia leader and key figure in the “Awakening” movement. As the central government moved to disarm and disband Awakening councils, it prompted concern about a renewed violence in Iraq as U.S. troops packed up for withdrawal.
> 
> And Afghanistan presents a much more difficult case. Iraq’s central government can count on a decent stream of revenue; Afghanistan’s government is pretty much broke. Bribery may work to a point, but it seems highly unlikely that Kabul could keep its internal opponents on the payroll when its operating budget is largely drawn from foreign aid and it can barely cover the cost of maintaining its army and police.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2009)

This isn't new to Italy.

Little while ago one of their reporters were kidnapped in Iraq (or Afghanistan whatever). The US said to the insurgents we do NOT neeotiate for prisoners (lest it elicit more kidnappings)

Well Italy decided to go behind the US's back and make a deal anyways.  They naturally didn't tell the US and when the freed prisoners drove towards the US checkpoint at a high rate of speed, probably out of fear, the US guys lit them up. Killed the driver and wounded the reporter I think?   Italy didn't bother telling the US that they made a deal and to expect their own people to come through the checkpoint.

Yup, screw Italy.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (15 Oct 2009)

While I believe there is merit in buying off tribal militias to aid us,it should be done at NATO level.As doing it at the country level I believe you risk paying off wrong people who in turn are against a tribe another NATO country is funding.Suddenly the USA ,Canada U.K, Italy are essentially in Proxy wars with one another!


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> While I believe there is merit in buying off tribal militias to aid us,it should be done at NATO level.As doing it at the country level I believe you risk paying off wrong people who in turn are against a tribe another NATO country is funding.Suddenly the USA ,Canada U.K, Italy are essentially in Proxy wars with one another!



I know buying people gets results but I think as far as Afghanistan goes it doesn't help. (Agreeing with that you're saying)
I find it makes then even more lazy and greedy.
Locals show up for work getting paid a considerable amount all things considering and it's 
When am I getting paid
I want more money
I want food
I want a 2 hour lunch break and I want off at 230 so I can pray and do tea time the rest of the day.
OH I also want more money.

I think one of our biggest mistakes in Afghanistan was that we came in throwing money around. They know that higher ups are desperate for any kinda results and use it against us. I read a great comment from someone before, basically we taught them the concept of western welfare.

I wonder how much of that 'peace money' Italy was dishing out was spend on IEDs that killed our troops.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I think one of our biggest mistakes in Afghanistan was that we came in throwing money around. They know that higher ups are desperate for any kinda results and use it against us. I read a great comment from someone before, basically we taught them the concept of western welfare.



Every country the US has gone into to help has ended up with a false economy. Italy literally killed other NATO servicemen in it's pursuit of selfish safety. The economic crash in Afghanistan once NATO leaves is going to really hurt the country and everything that was built up.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Oct 2009)

Wow.
If it turns out to be true... Italy has the blood of many good French soldiers on their hands. Nations have been suspended from the commonwelth before. What about suspensions from NATO? (Be advised that comment is from a civvie with no international affairs degree, and half a bottle of Chivas consumed)
If this turns out to be flase... I fully support any lawsuit by the Italians against 'The Sun,' and hope that it would bring this tabloid paper out of publication.

(Alcohol asideand genuinely curious) What history of suspensions from NATO (if any) is there?

Oddball


----------



## Armymedic (16 Oct 2009)

The allegations, regardless of if true or not, has just undercut all NATO allies in their attempt to "improve" the situation in Afghanistan.

This combined with the international interpretation of the elections results will put nails into the casket of this mission for us and everyone else.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2009)

....if you believe this Agence France-Presse account:


> .... according to a number of Western and Afghan officers, all speaking on condition of anonymity, the politically sensitive practice is fairly widespread among NATO forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> *One Western military source told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar*, while another officer spoke of similar practices by the German army in northern Kunduz.
> 
> ...



A CEFCOM spokesperson denies this, bringing up a good point:


> "I haven't heard of any type of payment that would be done by our troops in order to remain protected," said Lt.-Col. Chris Lemay, a spokesperson with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command.  *"With the number of casualties we've been getting, had we paid these guys they wouldn't be holding up their end of their bargain."*


----------



## leroi (16 Oct 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> The allegations, regardless of if true or not, has just undercut all NATO allies in their attempt to "improve" the situation in Afghanistan.
> 
> This combined with the international interpretation of the elections results will put nails into the casket of this mission for us and everyone else.



I agree SFB and this is why I refuse to believe in it's absolute truth yet for I suspect our enemies love playing these types of demoralizing games in an attempt to fractionalize ISAF in theatre and, as you say, undercut support for the the mission in NATO home countries. But whether truth or fiction, the perception of this will be bad PR for the Afghan mission.

Now that the allegation of 'bribes for tribes' is being alleged in the press against Canada and other nations, isn't it time for someone in our political class to take a stand and make a public statement?

If this tactic of paying for protection is used by Canada, I'm thinking it's done in a worst case scenario and only after careful consideration when situations arise that present immediate danger and require immediate action and cannot be resolved in an a more traditional manner. I refuse to believe Canada is carelessly and regularly throwing money at insurgents to keep them at bay.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2009)

leroi said:
			
		

> I agree SFB and this is why I refuse to believe in it's absolute truth yet for *I suspect our enemies love playing these types of demoralizing games in an attempt to fractionalize ISAF in theatre and, as you say, undercut support for the the mission in NATO home countries. *But whether truth or fiction, the perception of this will be bad PR for the Afghan mission.


Along these lines, now we have a Taliban "commander" confirming this:


> After furious denials in Rome of a Times report that the Italian authorities had paid the bribes, the Afghans gave further details of the practice. Mohammed Ishmayel, a Taleban commander, said that a deal was struck last year so that Italian forces in the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, were not attacked by local insurgents .... Mr Ishmayel said that under the deal it was agreed that “neither side should attack one another. That is why we were informed at that time, that we should not attack the Nato troops.” The insurgents were not informed when the Italian forces left the area and assumed they had broken the deal. Afghan officials also said they were aware of the practice by Italian forces in other areas of Afghanistan.


Must be true then, right?


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2009)

Now we are being painted with the same brush.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091016/Canada_Taliban_091016/20091016?hub=TopStoriesV2

If this takes hold and the Canadian public beleives it....we're done.
So is the MND.


----------



## leroi (16 Oct 2009)

I've been googling stuff on this all day (dishes not done) now I've got to go to my real job. I'll look up this later:

Naylor, Sean, “Insurgents in Afghanistan Have Mastered Media Manipulation,”
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/04/3489740
2008/04/3489740. 

The Sean Naylor report (above) is found in the reference section of the 2009 report (below) with a caveat--I've only read half of it but it's an interesting (although disheartening) read:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/taliban_winning_strategy.pdf

(Edit to fix first link)


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2009)

Let's all remember the source of the original allegations against the Italians:


> The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by *Western military officials.* .... *a number of high-ranking officers in Nato* have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made ....



And in the case of the Canadian accusation:


> One *Western military source* told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar....



While the Taliban "commander" was asked as follow-up, it was folks on _our side_, as well as _Afghan_ officials, who anonymously allege that Canada, Italy and Germany made such payments.  One has to also wonder what other agenda such sources might have.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let's all remember the source of the original allegations against the Italians:
> And in the case of the Canadian accusation:
> While the Taliban "commander" was asked as follow-up, it was folks on _our side_, as well as _Afghan_ officials, who anonymously allege that Canada, Italy and Germany made such payments.  One has to also wonder what other agenda such sources might have.



Agenda...indeed. I am having somne suspicious thoughts about some of our "allies".


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Agenda...indeed. I am having somne suspicious thoughts about some of our alleged "allies".


There, fixed it for you  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> There, fixed it for you  ;D



Thank you sir. Once again you have kept me out of the doo doo, maybe


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's so Italian to pay bribe to keep things cool....



- Not a fair comment.  In any case, we do the same.  We pay terrorists in Canada not to block highways.


----------



## leroi (16 Oct 2009)

Glad to see this: Canada Denies Bribing Taliban in Efforts to Bring Stability to Kandahar

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i8GteG0T5HdjlTS50le8Wzs-9vHQ

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Allegations that Canada and its NATO allies have been paying the Taliban for peace in parts of Afghanistan were denied and denounced as enemy propaganda Friday by both military officials and the federal government.

A report that cited an unnamed Western military official saying Canadian soldiers tried to buy off insurgents in Kandahar is "totally baseless," said Maj. Mario Couture, a spokesman for Task Force Kandahar. "Canadians are not involved in any way, shape or form with payments to Taliban," Couture said.

The Agence France-Presse story claimed several NATO countries, with the U.S. and Britain as notable exceptions, made payments to the Taliban in order to pacify territory under their control. The report named Germany and Canada in particular. It also referenced an earlier report in the Times of London that said Italian forces had been giving money to the Taliban in exchange for peace in the areas it was patrolling near Kabul.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, speaking in St. John's, described the allegations as likely little more than "Taliban propaganda." "This suggestion that we're bribing the Taliban not to engage in military - or I would call them terrorist attacks - clearly isn't working," he said."We've had 131 casualties. So, that sad reality seems to put to lie what the Taliban are saying."

While NATO has strenuously denied knowledge of any such payments, it did acknowledge that the Afghan government has at times struck agreements with militants on its own initiative. Canadian efforts to secure areas of Kandahar have also included payments to Afghans who have at times sided with insurgents.

But Couture stresses such payments are either compensation for taking part in structured disarmament programs or part of recent counter-insurgency tactics to provide work for potential Taliban recruits. "We're using work as a weapon against the Taliban," he said. "It's not money that we distribute... for no reason. This is hard-earned money."

The approach reflects an emerging consensus in military thinking that considers the Taliban a factional group, comprised of fighters with varying degrees of loyalty to its hardline Islamist cause. What money is distributed by Canadian soldiers is aimed at separating hard-core insurgents from so-called "soft Taliban" - fair-weather fighters whose loyalties shift with the wind and who might be willing to plant IEDs for as little as US$50.

"It's not true that all of those people shooting at us are insurgents," Lt. Col. Joe Paul, the outgoing commander of Canada's battle group in Afghanistan, said recently." Some are drug dealers, some are part-time Talibans, some are hard-core Talibans."

The hazy demarcation line of what constitutes an insurgent means security in many areas of Afghanistan is the product of an unstable patchwork of arrangements between government officials, international troops and influential local figures.Canadian soldiers have suffered from the tenuousness of such arrangements in the past.

The Afghan government had in 2008 reached an understanding with a militia in the Arghandab district, west of Kandahar city, often patrolled by Canadian troops.But the deal had apparently collapsed by the end of that year, when two separate IED incidents over an eight-day span killed six soldiers.

At the same time, Canadian military officials have struck several successful arrangements with private security contractors to provide perimeter security at forward operating bases as well as the Provincial Reconstruction Team headquarters in the heart of Kandahar city, freeing more soldiers for patrols and other operations.

As Canada prepares to scale down its presence in Afghanistan by 2011, security will increasingly depend on uneasy alliances underpinned by material interests.The incoming battle group commander, Lt. Col. Jerome Walsh, has indicated a willingness to explore using local militias to provide security where Canadian troops are unable to maintain a presence." That is an option that is being examined, but it must work within the greater security framework," he said earlier this week.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2009)

*French families sue over Afghan war dead*
Reuters, 29 Oct 09
Article link

The families of two French soldiers killed in Afghanistan last year plan to file a lawsuit to find out whether their lives were put at risk unnecessarily, their lawyer said on Thursday.

The two were among 10 French soldiers killed in an ambush in a valley east of Kabul in August 2008. A NATO account later said the men had been insufficiently trained and equipped, sparking a national debate over French troops in Afghanistan.

The lawsuit over "deliberately endangering the lives of others" is expected to be filed with a military tribunal on Monday, lawyer Gilbert Collard said.

It was not clear whether the lawsuit would be filed against the army or against an unknown party, a procedure often used to push demands for an investigation....

_More on link_


----------

