US to end combat missions in Afghanistan in 2013

**Hooahguy** · 02-01-2012, 23:12

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...p_t1&hpt=us_c2

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the U.S. and NATO will be ending their combat mission at some point next year, transitioning to a training role and letting Afghan security forces take the lead.

“Hopefully by mid to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” Panetta said. His comment, while en route to Brussels for a NATO meeting, was confirmed to CNN by a defense official.

Late last year, Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said U.S. forces will begin to be deployed this year within Afghan units as advisors and trainers, reducing the direct combat role of foreign troops in the country.

**rvg** · 02-01-2012, 23:23

Looks like it's time for Mr. Karzai to refresh his memory on what happened to Najibulla. Maybe that'll get him to cooperate with us better in the remaining 23 months.

**Major Robert Dump** · 02-02-2012, 18:52

The France thing seriously hit a nerve. We had a major operation planned in that area with the French playing a major role, all that got scrapped, the French are seriously pulling out...

What you have to understand here (in addition to to a dozen other issues) is that NATO forces suffer intentional casualties at the hands of Afghans at a rate of almost 15%. This excludes attacks by "infiltrators" wearing a uniform.... this is attacks that include heat-of-the-moment attacks, attacks due to "disrespect", attacks due to stress (the pilot who killed allthose NATO and Afghan troops was bankrupt and getting divorced, he came unhinged) and due to outright anger and misinformation (the US guys in the airport who were lined up and shot by an Afghan intelligence agent who was accusing the US of supplying weapons to the Taliban; the Iowa NG guys in May who were killed when an afghan intelligence agent stopped their patrol through Kabul and insisted on searching their vehicles, accusing them of weapons smuggling, and killed them when they refused)

Figure in attacks by infiltrators and you are up to 25%

Friendly fire is one thing. Accidents are one thing. these things happen.
Army always gonna fight Navy in the bar. Brits gonna fistfight with Italians at the pig roast....

But to have 15% of your troop casualties killed by an ally and another 10% killed by allied infiltrators is, well, it is unheard of. Seriously.

Think about this. 15%. Yes, we work with them in massiave amounts without incident, primarily because we are walking on broekn glass and so scared of hurting someones felings. But if you talk to ground troops, to include educated, experienced soldiers, they would rather be running missions and out on dangerous roads than entrusting and exposing their backside to the afghan forces. In joint FOBS they steal us blind (in-shallah), shoes, coats, tools, and no one says anything for fear of getting fragged.

15%. Outrageous.

**rvg** · 02-02-2012, 20:33

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Think about this. 15%. Yes, we work with them in massiave amounts without incident, primarily because we are walking on broekn glass and so scared of hurting someones felings. But if you talk to ground troops, to include educated, experienced soldiers, they would rather be running missions and out on dangerous roads than entrusting and exposing their backside to the afghan forces. In joint FOBS they steal us blind (in-shallah), shoes, coats, tools, and no one says anything for fear of getting fragged.

15%. Outrageous.

In the meantime Karzai is calling Taliban his "dear, disaffected brothers". Osama is dead. Let's pack up and leave this God forsaken rock to the vultures. Karzai will get what is coming to him when his "disaffected brothers" will chop his balls off.