Video: Taliban attack on US consulate in Afghanistan, seven attackers dead

posted at 8:01 am on September 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

If the Taliban intended to make a point on the first anniversary of the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi, then they were a day late — literally — and several dollars short.  The Taliban used two bombs and a wave of gunfire in their attempt to seize the facility, but instead killed two Afghans and lost seven of their own fighters:

CBS News reports that it’s unclear just how far they got into the facility, but it’s clear that they didn’t last too long wherever they ended up:

Taliban militants set off two suicide bombs in an attack on a U.S. Consulate in western Afghanistan Friday morning, triggering a gun battle with security forces that left at least two Afghans and seven attackers dead.

The U.S. said all its personnel from the consulate in the city of Herat were safe and American forces later moved in to secure the site.

The attack underscored the perilous security situation in Afghanistan, where U.S.-led troops are reducing their presence ahead of a full withdrawal next year.

According to some Afghan officials, the attack in Herat started with the Taliban setting off two bombs — one in an SUV and the other in an explosives-laden small van — while militants on foot opened a firefight with Afghan security forces around the compound in the city, which is 625 miles from Kabul.

But Gen. Rahmatullah Safi, Herat province’s chief of police, told CBS News one of seven militants set off an explosives-laden truck, then the other six tried to enter the consulate. One of them detonated his vest inside the security parameter and the remaining five started battling with security forces and consulate guards, Safi said. The battle lasted an hour, he added.

It was not entirely clear whether any attackers managed to breach the facility itself, but at least two Afghans were killed and several were wounded, said an Afghan official. The seven attackers were all killed, including the suicide bombers, officials said.

This is becoming a pattern in the region, which had been one of the more pacified areas of Afghanistan — before we announced our withdrawal:

Insurgent attacks in Afghanistan are no longer concentrated in the country’s south and east, but also occur with troubling frequency in the north and west, which have been the more peaceful areas in years past. Friday’s assaults came on the heels of two days of celebrations as Afghans of all backgrounds welcomed their nation’s first international soccer championship.

McClatchy notes — coincidentally? — that the pullout has just shifted into “high gear”:

Coalition troops at the German base and an adjacent U.S. camp are packing up and shipping out equipment, trying to decide what to destroy, what to sell and what to give to the local Afghan security forces, trying to orchestrate a safe, orderly final withdrawal even as they dodge the occasional incoming rocket and respond to intelligence reports of bombs along the roads they’re using to truck equipment and people out.

With the U.S.-led coalition’s drawdown shifting into high gear – the American force of 62,000 will be reduced by half by late winter – its efforts to shut down its bases have hit a complicated peak.

Until now, most of the 700 or so bases demolished or turned over to the Afghan government or private land owners have been small and relatively simple, often little more than a perimeter wall of sand-filled boxes.

But now comes the complicated part.

Three quarters of the 100 bases that remain are giants like the sprawling Bagram Airfield north of Kabul, or are considered medium-sized, like the adjacent German and American bases at Kunduz, which held a few thousand troops at one point.

Eventually all that would be left in coalition hands are the nine bases that the U.S.-led forces reportedly are seeking to maintain in a bilateral security agreement with the Afghan government. Negotiations over that deal reportedly are stalled.

This sounds similar to Iraq, where we failed to settle on a continuing American presence when the end of the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) hit in 2011, despite Iraq’s desire to include us.  The Obama administration fumbled those talks, and that was with a government that’s friendlier to the US than Hamid Karzai’s is at the moment.  We certainly could use that presence in Iraq now, where we could have secured the western part of the country to keep radical Islamist terrorists from using it as a staging area for their operations in Syria. I wonder what will happen in Afghanistan to make us regret our abandonment of American strategic positioning there, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bush!

KOOLAID2 on September 13, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Tet version 2.0.

Steve Eggleston on September 13, 2013 at 8:03 AM

This sounds similar to Iraq, where we failed to settle on a continuing American presence when the end of the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) hit in 2011, despite Iraq’s desire to include us. The Obama administration fumbled those talks, and that was with a government that’s friendlier to the US than Hamid Karzai’s is at the moment.

Just like Iraq, as intended. The Left isn’t convinced that Iraq is this generation’s Vietnam, so their fallback of turning Afghanistan into this generation’s Vietnam is in high gear.

Steve Eggleston on September 13, 2013 at 8:06 AM

The Obama foreign policy can be roughly equated to a monkey seducing a football.

rplat on September 13, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Bark will send them weapons.

Wacko Bird says “In their hearts they’re actually quite peaceful”.

Linseed Graham offered a nice candlelight dinner to any Taliban who renounce violence.

Bishop on September 13, 2013 at 8:16 AM

It might be wise for them to leave anyways, hate to have the weapons we are giving the Syrian “freedom fighters” being used on our troops over there.

watertown on September 13, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Hell………Hole

2 Administrations, thousands of dead Americans, American financial treasure lost, for what?

Because two Presidents had no intention of winning this war.

Waste.

PappyD61 on September 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM

This sounds similar to Iraq, where we failed to settle on a continuing American presence when the end of the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) hit in 2011, despite Iraq’s desire to include us. The Obama administration fumbled those talks, and that was with a government that’s friendlier to the US than Hamid Karzai’s is at the moment.

And yet everyone will merrily blame Bush for any bad outcomes in Iraq.

SAZMD on September 13, 2013 at 8:20 AM

There are no longer any living children in Afghanistan–time to pack up the bags boys!
Barry

hillsoftx on September 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM

I blame the false god allah.

Mojave Mark on September 13, 2013 at 8:27 AM

So much for Peace In Our Time, amirite?

BigGator5 on September 13, 2013 at 8:37 AM

instead killed two Afghans and lost seven of their own fighters:

Their own “fighters?” Could we at least call them what they are Muslim terrorists?????

Happy Nomad on September 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM

So grateful, aren’t they.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I’m on the Jonah Goldberg wagon: To hell with all of them over there in the world’s crotch.

Besides the Kurds, Israelis and Christians, and a few scattered others who are drowned out by the Rage Boy fanatics, there isn’t anyone worth trying to save. Frack the living hell out of our own resources and turn our backs on those savages, let them regress, and if they get uppity and start killing westerners we have an answer for that too.

Bishop on September 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

2 Administrations, thousands of dead Americans, American financial treasure lost, for what?

Because two Presidents had no intention of winning this war.

Waste.

PappyD61 on September 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM

73% of those deaths are Obama’s. We can’t forget that point. He spent six months dithering over what to do in Afghanistan- all the way troops were in harm’s way. He should be put on trial for his dereliction of duty.

Happy Nomad on September 13, 2013 at 8:41 AM

PappyD61 on September 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM

I think your comment is a bit generalized. The two men in the Oval Office who have presided over that war have fought it very differently. President Bush certainly provided us with a ROE that would have allowed us to continue to suppress the actions of the Taliban and HIG. Forces will never gain any lastly advances under obama’s.

hawkdriver on September 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM

The Obama foreign policy can be roughly equated to a monkey seducing a football.Flogging a chicken

rplat on September 13, 2013 at 8:11 AM

There, that’s better.

Key West Reader on September 13, 2013 at 8:47 AM

lasting …

hawkdriver on September 13, 2013 at 8:49 AM

F’ing animals…

OmahaConservative on September 13, 2013 at 8:49 AM

KWR, how you be? So good to see you.

hawkdriver on September 13, 2013 at 8:50 AM

“We certainly could use that presence in Iraq now, where we could have secured the western part of the country to keep radical Islamist terrorists from using it as a staging area for their operations in Syria.”

Ed, why do you think having come to agreement on a SOFA with Iraq would have allowed us to do that? It would have required Iraq to approve of our leaving our bases to do that, and, if that is the case, why aren’t we requesting Iraq do that themselves. We give them more armaments already than they know what to do with and while they probably could use training, they can still ‘go to war with the army they have, not the army they wish they had.’

Besides, how big is the difference between putting boots on the ground in Syria and putting them on the ground in Iraq, or as you suggest, in having had a SOFA, just sending our boots from our Iraqi bases to become involved in Syria’s war?

Dusty on September 13, 2013 at 9:04 AM

KWR, how you be? So good to see you.

hawkdriver on September 13, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Doing great! Nice to see you as well!

Key West Reader on September 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Are these our “peace partners”?

Akzed on September 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM

… And just what do they think will be accomplished in Syria?

hoakie on September 13, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Frack the living hell out of our own resources and turn our backs on those savages, let them regress, and if they get uppity and start killing westerners we have an answer for that too. Bishop on September 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I wonder if anyone will ever root out the true source of funding for the enrovowhackos around here, but I have ideas.

Akzed on September 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM

If the Taliban intended to make a point on the first anniversary of the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi, then they were a day late

Probably thrown off by the lunar calendar that they use. That and the fact that they’re all a bunch of smelly illiterate sub-humans.

WhatSlushfund on September 13, 2013 at 9:33 AM

We may not be able to depend on the dhimocrapts and obama, but we can always depend on the Marines!

Old Country Boy on September 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Trashcanistan will go back to what it was between Ivan’s pullout, and our arrival. It is a hole and will never rise above that. After we got Osama, all else has been a waste.

Quartermaster on September 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM

The Obama administration fumbled those talks in Iraq on purpose, just as they are now handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban on purpose. As promised: “fundamentally transforming the US” destroying the power of the US.

Vietnam – lost
Iraq – going back to civil war
Afghanistan – reverts to 7th century barbarism

How many billions did you spend? How many Americans were killed or maimed? All for nothing in the end.

You can be sure the Democrats will hold these wars up as an example why he should not act every time a Republican president thinks it is necessary to go to war. Democrat presidents can go to war whenever they want, of course, even if it just to save face. After all, some Presidents are more equal than others.

Meanwhile, how many mosques do you now have in the US? A lot more than on 9/11 2001. How many Muslims? How many Dearborns are there now in the US?

Who is winning the war, Islam or the West? High time to wake up!

Antivenin on September 13, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Bush would have never surrendered in Iraq and Afghanistan. No wonder Putin and the Chinese are spitting in our face now.

nazo311 on September 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM

The Obama foreign policy can be roughly equated to a monkey seducing a football.

rplat on September 13, 2013 at 8:11 AM

On one of the late-night talk shows I saw a youtube of a bull trying to hump a motorbike. I guess he recognized the smell of the leather seat.

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM

agmartin on September 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM

.
Yeah, that works. : )

listens2glenn on September 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Alright, who made another anti-Islam video?

chewmeister on September 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Why should terrorists bother using western iraq to attack syria when they currently can use all of syria to attack syria.

philrat on September 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM