Two-star U.S. general dead, 15 wounded in ambush at Afghan military training facility; Update: General identified

posted at 12:02 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Details are hazy for the moment but it sure sounds like green-on-blue.

The general, whose name hasn’t been released yet, is the highest-ranking American officer to be killed by hostile action during the war. Given how many ambushes by Taliban infiltrators disguised as Afghan soldiers there have been over the last few years, security his visit must have been tight. (When Leon Panetta visited Afghanistan a few years ago, Afghan and American troops were ordered to disarm for fear of someone seizing a weapon and ambushing him.) Every Afghan there was presumably vetted. Whoever did it, I’ll bet, was lying in wait for a big target for a long, long time.

Gen. Mohammmad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry, tweeted in Dari that the gunman was wearing an Afghan military uniform and was shot dead after opening fire on Afghan and international colleagues.

Germany’s military said in a statement that 15 troops had been wounded in the attack, including a German brigadier general, according to The Associated Press. Those details could not immediately be independently confirmed by NBC News…

An Afghan intelligence source told NBC News that a high-level ISAF delegation was visiting and touring the academy when the shooter opened fire from a window. Two senior Afghan officers also were injured in the attack, the source added, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Four senior officers from three different countries killed or wounded by one subversive. The U.S. general is the only man dead so far, but that should change: Per NBC, the severity of the injuries to some of the wounded means they’re unlikely to survive. More from the NYT:

The shooting Tuesday was the first so-called insider attack in Afghanistan in months. Such attacks, in which Afghan troops open fire on unsuspecting coalition forces, at one point posed a serious challenge to the war effort, sowing distrust and threatening to upend the American-led training mission that is vital to the long-term strategy for keeping the Taliban at bay.

Though the number of attacks has dropped sharply since 2012, when dozens occurred, they remain a persistent threat for coalition troops serving alongside Afghan forces.

Afghan and ISAF officials told the Times they believe the shooter was indeed an Afghan soldier. I wonder what it means, though, that an ambush of this magnitude would happen after such a long lull in major green-on-blue attacks. Was this guy a lone wolf or is the Taliban picking its spots now, preferring to keep people under deep cover for longer periods of time in hopes of killing someone of higher rank? If so, that could be of necessity — it’s simply harder to infiltrate now than it used to be thanks to ISAF countermeasures — or strategic, trying to damage U.S. morale as we get closer to withdrawal. They’re already starting to advance militarily in anticipation of the security vacuum. Maybe this is part of that offensive.

Stand by for updates.

Update: WaPo has the general’s name.

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to provide the officer’s name Tuesday afternoon, but other officials identified him as Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene, deputy commanding general of Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan in Kabul.

U.S. officials said five of the eight wounded Americans are in serious condition; a number of British soldiers were also wounded.

Greene previously served as the Army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management, a role in which he oversaw acquisition reform initiatives. He was commissioned as an engineer officer in 1980, after graduating from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

The shooter has been enlisted in the Afghan National Army for the past two years.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

*Now* can we get out?

Never should have been there in the first place.

Lance Corvette on August 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM

We’re already getting out, genius. You see how getting out makes everyone like us?

Hmmmm. Doesn’t seem to work that way, does it. Withdrawing just makes them want to attack us more.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:38 PM

No invasions. No waterboarding. No nation building. Hell, no foreign aid.

Not until the American people decide the mass murdering of Americans on American soil by foreign nationals set on destroying us warrants actually going to war, real war, where we break the back of the ideology targeting us. That means killing the people funding it. Yes, hunting them down like dogs in their Middle East and European villas and blasting them and their ‘homes’ off the map. Don’t target their children, but let them do the worrying about keeping their children from getting killed. Not our problem in a real war.

Will waiting for the American people to wake up and actually get angry like that take another 9/11 or two? Probably. Maybe much worse. So what?

At least then we will actually go about fixing the problem. As it is, we’ve just made the problem worse, and we’ve made ourselves look weak and stupid. We are nothing but big, easy, stupid prey.

fadetogray on August 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Meople on August 5, 2014 at 1:26 PM

The problem is that we went in and devastated the Japanese and Germans in WWII – and then we went in and stayed there – to make sure the peace would work. This is what is so infinitely angering about Iraq – Obama threw it all away – he is more than any other human responsible for ISIS being able to consolidate power in the middle east.

Yes – Bush’s Islam is a religion of peace was incorrect, and foolish. Islam is a death cult if you will not join. We found people in Iraq who would follow us if we just stuck around – we didn’t and now we will never get people to stick with us. We had a chance to support a democratic uprising in Iran – who are more persians than arabs and consider themselves more civilized and cultured. Obama screwed that one up too.

Zomcon JEM on August 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Meople on August 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Basically Bush blew it when he decided he would turn Iraq into a democratic country. Bush and his administration believed that despotic governments are why the Middle East is such a messed up place, and democracy was the solution. The problem is he never understood the problem was Islam.

William Eaton on August 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM

This is Afghanistan, not Iraq. The Bush administration didn’t try to nation-build in Afghanistan, mainly because they already knew they didn’t have much to work with. Iraq at least had the potential to build a working nation-state.

You’re castigating the Bush administration for the Obama administration’s failures. It was the Obama administration that assumed that what worked in Iraq had to work in Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan is far less civilized.

There’s way too much simplistic “blame Bush” on the right — nearly as bad as on the left. The Bush administration made some mistakes, but Iraq would not be in the mess it is today if the Obama administration hadn’t basically made it plain they couldn’t get out of Iraq fast enough, then thrown the entire region into chaos so they could brag about an “Arab spring” that has turned into the Middle East Nightmare we have now.

This “Blame Bush” instinct gives the Obama administration a pass for the complete hash they’ve made of foreign policy in the Middle East.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

This “Blame Bush” instinct gives the Obama administration a pass for the complete hash they’ve made of foreign policy in the Middle East.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

That is a leftist argument. Each person is responsible for their own actions and the outcomes of those actions.
Only the left makes the arguments that because the daddy was a jerk the kid who murdered that family is not really guilty.

astonerii on August 5, 2014 at 3:02 PM

This “Blame Bush” instinct gives the Obama administration a pass for the complete hash they’ve made of foreign policy in the Middle East.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Bush handed Obama a screwed up situation Obama was certain to make even worse.

Even more, anyone who has been paying attention over the last 70 years know the America people were going to quickly tire of a continuing bloody quagmire. Any President who fails to factor that reality into his plans is an ignorant fool and deserves to be castigated for it.

fadetogray on August 5, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Today’s incident is nothing more than the Afghan army seeing that their future well-being relies on joining America’s enemies in the region. Thanks to the stupid policies of a single lazy stupid rat-eared coward.

Happy Nomad on August 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM

There is so much truth in that short statement. We criticize Iraq for making nice with Iran, but once we telegraphed we were withdrawing all strength from the region, Iraq had every incentive to try to suck up to their enemy.

That doesn’t make it right, but nations look out for their own best interests, and getting along with Iran is in Iraq’s interest. The old saying about “Peace through Strength” is probably more true in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world.

And right now, we’re projecting weakness.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 3:04 PM

This “Blame Bush” instinct gives the Obama administration a pass for the complete hash they’ve made of foreign policy in the Middle East.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

That is a leftist argument. Each person is responsible for their own actions and the outcomes of those actions.
Only the left makes the arguments that because the daddy was a jerk the kid who murdered that family is not really guilty.

astonerii on August 5, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I’m pretty sure “Blame Bush” is about as leftist an argument as you can get….

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM

I’m pretty sure “Blame Bush” is about as leftist an argument as you can get….

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Bush is to blame for many things. Ultimately Bush is to blame for Obama becoming president. He so destroyed the republican brand name that Republicans lost the house and the senate. Then he made it so much of a long shot for republicans in 2008 that no good candidates stood up to run for office. leaving the Democrats a walk in the park election cycle which was made even easier by the fact that he administered over the housing bubble and hired the man who blew that bubble as an October surprise.
I BLAME BUSH and the rest of the progressive (R) representatives and senators.
Bush should have won the war on his watch.

astonerii on August 5, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Speaki8ng of the M9ilitary:

Breaking:

https://twitter.com/WSJ

Nigeria schoolgirls kidnapped
12m
US surveillance flights over northeastern Nigeria showed what appeared to be large groups of girls held together in remote locations – @WSJ
Read more on online.wsj.com

canopfor on August 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

The mistake that BOTH Republicans and Democrats make is believing the axiom “EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION”. That’s not true and never was.

Some say: If we get out of Afghanistan it would be a mistake.
Others counter” If we don’t get out of Afghanistan it would be a mistake.

Strangely, both are correct!

A key to what we are dealing with: 1 An accidental Koran burning stirs nation-wide rioting. 2 A crazed US soldier murdering Afghan children yields mostly complacent yawns.

Americans recoil in horror at Jerry Sandusky’s child molesting but in Afghanistan Sandusky would be just “one of the boys”. In fact, tribal elders might well ask Sandusky7 to share the “cutest ones” with them.

How can we ask for loyalty from a collection of tribesmen who are perpetually disloyal to each other and, in fact, with whom treachery and deceit seem to be the ingredients for success?

There is no solution to Afghan chaos but perhaps we can devise an exit strategy that can effectively defund the Taliban for some time to come. Destroy the poppy fields, sow the ground with salt and radioactive isotopes and get the hell out of there.

MaiDee on August 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Peace through weakness, training your enemy to kill you, and financing terrorism, the liberal way to fight a war. This isn’t what they teach at the war college, but today’s politically oriented flag officers will do whatever it takes to keep the politicians happy. Thank God we didn’t have these generals and admirals during WWII.

savage24 on August 5, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Turkey was better. They reverted a few years back… Now they are not all that good.

astonerii on August 5, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Both Turkey and Egypt. About 10 years ago I worked with a Christian man who was born and raised in Egypt. He ended up marrying an American, moved here, and naturalized. He said growing up in Egypt, despite living under a dictator, he enjoyed almost as much Freedom and Liberty as we do (or used to) in America. Of course that was before Mubarak’s regime changed for the worse.

Now both are pretty much lost to Islamic extremism.

UnstChem on August 5, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Another “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” like that of Maj. Hassan at Fort Hood. Always a risk when fighting along side of Muslims: they can suddenly feel very guilty about working with the infidels (who Allah encourages to hate) and strike treacherously.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/quiet-spoken-muslims-who-turn-to-terror/29080/

Chessplayer on August 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I’m pretty sure “Blame Bush” is about as leftist an argument as you can get….

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Bush is to blame for many things. Ultimately Bush is to blame for Obama becoming president. He so destroyed the republican brand name that Republicans lost the house and the senate. Then he made it so much of a long shot for republicans in 2008 that no good candidates stood up to run for office. leaving the Democrats a walk in the park election cycle which was made even easier by the fact that he administered over the housing bubble and hired the man who blew that bubble as an October surprise.
I BLAME BUSH and the rest of the progressive (R) representatives and senators.
Bush should have won the war on his watch.

astonerii on August 5, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Yeah, there’s a lot that Bush could have done better. His biggest flaw was how much he compromised to get along with the left. Which, of course, did not make them like him or work with him any better. But then, Bush never really seemed to understand that the left views the struggle for power much like a war, and will use any tactic to win. In fact, they viewed the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the greater War on Terror as battles in the TRUE war, the war to take control of the country from conservatives.

And they’re not likely to ever change, either.

All that said, the current situation is Obama’s fault. Bush did win the war in Iraq to all intents and purposes, leaving Obama to do nothing more than withdraw the troops gradually and safely — and, of course, take credit for himself.

But it’s expecting a bit much for Bush to make it impossible for Obama to undermine everything we accomplished. The only way to prevent that would have been to keep power after Obama was elected. And Bush was never the dictator type that Obama would really, really like to be.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM

US General Harold J. Greene

US Army major general killed in Afghanistan, Aug. 5, 2014
26m
Slain US General Harold J. Greene was deputy commanding general of Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan in Kabul – @washingtonpost
Read more on washingtonpost.com
================================

US Army major general killed in Afghanistan, Aug. 5, 2014
30m
US official: Officer killed in Afghanistan identified as Maj. Gen. Harold Greene. – @AP
see original on twitter.com

canopfor on August 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Pictured: American two-star general, 55, shot dead by ‘insider’ at Afghan military training facility in attack that left 15 troops wounded

Major General Harold J. Greene shot dead in Afghanistan after man opens fire at military academy
ISAF, the international force in Afghanistan, said the attack took place at a British military training academy in the capital
Seven Americans, five British and one German soldiers among the reported injured
One British soldier is thought to be from London, Sky News reports
Their conditions are unknown but many are described as ‘critical’
The gunman was using a light machine gun according to a US official
This is the first time that an American general has been killed in action since Vietnam

By Associated Press

Published: 14:51 GMT, 5 August 2014 | Updated: 21:41 GMT, 5 August 2014
***********

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716430/Pictured-American-two-star-general-55-shot-dead-insider-Afghan-military-training-facility-attack-left-15-troops-wounded.html

canopfor on August 5, 2014 at 5:46 PM

This is Afghanistan, not Iraq. The Bush administration didn’t try to nation-build in Afghanistan, mainly because they already knew they didn’t have much to work with. Iraq at least had the potential to build a working nation-state.

You’re castigating the Bush administration for the Obama administration’s failures. It was the Obama administration that assumed that what worked in Iraq had to work in Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan is far less civilized.

There’s way too much simplistic “blame Bush” on the right — nearly as bad as on the left. The Bush administration made some mistakes, but Iraq would not be in the mess it is today if the Obama administration hadn’t basically made it plain they couldn’t get out of Iraq fast enough, then thrown the entire region into chaos so they could brag about an “Arab spring” that has turned into the Middle East Nightmare we have now.

This “Blame Bush” instinct gives the Obama administration a pass for the complete hash they’ve made of foreign policy in the Middle East.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I blame Bush because without him there is no Obama. See it is simple. The Bush administration did not make mistakes, they were incompetent. The reason I bring up Bush, is because people like you are still convinced that Iraq was a success militarily. Therefore conservative politicians, who think like you, will blunder us into another military “success” in the Islamic world, and this time we will get someone like the Castro brothers as president.

The fact is the “softy-softy” approach devised Gen. Petraeus was fraud. It was a smoke and mirrors show in Iraq, and guess what he help devise the Obama “surge” in Afghanistan as well. I am not going to sugar coat this for you, but his strategy is the typical bleeding heart crap that lost us the war in Vietnam and will continue to lose us wars in the future. We could have kept 100,000 troops in Iraq for a hundred years and would have still fallen apart the second we left. Why? We had no interest in dealing with Islam and its role in that society. You cannot have democracy and Islam in the same country. One must dominate the other into submission.

Is Obama to blame for the debacles in Egypt, Libya, and our current situation in Israel? Yes! He also is soft when confronted by real powers like Russia and China. However I am not going to blame him any less than Bush when it comes to this “hug a Muslim” approach to American military strategy in the Middle East.

If that gives Obama a pass…well who is to blame for that? Bush could have gotten revenge for 9-11, and instead he gave us “Religion of Peace!” and allowed Obama, of all people, to get Osama. That is not how you win wars….

William Eaton on August 5, 2014 at 5:48 PM

https://twitter.com/SitScape

SitScape ‏@SitScape

U.S. Army Maj. General Harold J. Greene highlights SitScape at “12th Army IT Day” at Vienna, VA (Mar 15, 2013) http://lnkd.in/q5JCgr

http://www.sitscape.com/news/news.html?q=92

canopfor on August 5, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Ok here is a good example of why I am not a fan of General Petraeus strategic thinking, and it was the same one he used in Iraq and why Iraq today is still a Jihadist paradise. It is also basically the same one we are still using in Afghanistan despite the good general being shuffled off into forced retirement after his love triangle got called out, or Obama threw him under the bus…either way, who cares..

GENERAL PETRAEUS ISSUES UPDATED TACTICAL DIRECTIVE: Emphasizes “Disciplined Use of Force”

Headquarters
International Security Assistance Force – Afghanistan

2010-08-CA-004

KABUL, Afghanistan (Aug. 4) – International Security Assistance Force Commander, General David Petraeus has issued his updated Tactical Directive, providing guidance and intent for the use of force by ISAF and USFOR-A units operating in Afghanistan.

The Tactical Directive reinforces the concept of “disciplined use of force” in our partnership with Afghan Security Forces to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan.

The updated directive is classified; unclassified portions of the document are included below.

“This directive applies to all ISAF and US Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) forces operating under operational or tactical control … Subordinate commanders are not authorized to further restrict this guidance without my approval.

Our counterinsurgency strategy is achieving progress in the face of tough enemies and a number of other challenges. Concentrating our efforts on protecting the population is having a significant effect. We have increased security in some key areas, and we have reduced the number of civilian casualties caused by coalition forces.

The Afghan population is, in a number of areas, increasingly supportive of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and of coalition forces. We have also seen support for the insurgency decrease in various areas as the number of insurgent-caused civilian casualties has risen dramatically. We must build on this momentum.

This effort is a contest of wills. Our enemies will do all that they can to shake our confidence and the confidence of the Afghan people. In turn, we must continue to demonstrate our resolve to the enemy. We will do so through our relentless pursuit of the Taliban and others who mean Afghanistan harm, through our compassion for the Afghan people, and through the example we provide to our Afghan partners.

We must continue – indeed, redouble – our efforts to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum. Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause. If we use excessive force or operate contrary to our counterinsurgency principles, tactical victories may prove to be strategic setbacks.

We must never forget that the center of gravity in this struggle is the Afghan people; it is they who will ultimately determine the future of Afghanistan …

Prior to the use of fires, the commander approving the strike must determine that no civilians are present. If unable to assess the risk of civilian presence, fires are prohibited, except under of the following two conditions (specific conditions deleted due to operational security; however, they have to do with the risk to ISAF and Afghan forces).

(NOTE) This directive, as with the previous version, does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options are available to effectively counter the threat.

… Protecting the Afghan people does require killing, capturing, or turning the insurgents. Indeed, as I noted earlier, we must pursue the Taliban tenaciously. But we must fight with great discipline and tactical patience.

We must balance our pursuit of the enemy with our efforts to minimize loss of innocent civilian life, and with our obligation to protect our troops. Our forces have been striving to do that, and we will continue to do so.

In so doing, however, we must remember that it is a moral imperative both to protect Afghan civilians and to bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform and the Afghan security forces with whom we are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder when they are in a tough spot.

We must be consistent throughout the force in our application of this directive and our rules of engagement. All commanders must reinforce the right and obligation of self-defense of coalition forces, of our Afghan partners, and of others as authorized by the rules of engagement.

We must train our forces to know and understand the rules of engagement and the intent of the tactical directive. We must give our troopers the confidence to take all necessary actions when it matters most, while understanding the strategic consequences of civilian casualties. Indeed, I expect our troopers to exert their best judgment according to the situation on the ground. Beyond that, every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine has my full support as we take the fight to the enemy.

Partnering is how we operate. Some civilian casualties result from a misunderstanding or ignorance of local customs and behaviors. No individuals are more attuned to the Afghan culture than our Afghan partners. Accordingly, it is essential that all operations be partnered with an ANSF unit and that our Afghan partners be part of the planning and execution phases. Their presence will ensure greater situational awareness. It will also serve to alleviate anxiety on the part of the local population and build confidence in Afghan security forces.

I expect every operation and patrol to be partnered. If there are operational reasons why partnership is not possible for a particular operation, the CONOP approval authority must be informed …

Partnership is an essential aspect of our counterinsurgency strategy. It is also an indispensible element of the transition of security responsibility to ANSF.

Again, we need to build on the momentum we are achieving. I expect every trooper and commander to use force judiciously, especially in situations where civilians may be present. At the same time, we must employ all assets to ensure our troopers’ safety, keeping in mind the importance of protecting the Afghan people as we do.

This is a critical challenge at a critical time; but we must and will succeed. I expect that everyone under my command, operational and tactical, will not only adhere to the letter of this directive, but – more importantly – to its intent.

Strategic and operational commanders cannot anticipate every engagement. We have no desire to undermine the judgment of tactical commanders. However, that judgment should always be guided by my intent. Take the fight to the enemy. And protect the Afghan people and help our Afghan partners defeat the insurgency.”

The directive was issued on August 1, 2010, replacing the July 1, 2009 version.

Ok here is the problem:

(1) We are fighting for the glory of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan?…so what happens to all the non-muslim citizens in a this Islamic Republic we are fighting for?

(2) Do we know what is a moderate Muslim vs. a “traditional” (aka radical) Muslim so we can “partner” with them? This is basically a recipe for getting shot in the back…like our two star general found out today.

(3)Does anyone see a end game here? So basically our soldiers sit in Afghanistan, the Taliban then make forays across the border from Pakistan where we occasionally go with drones to attack them, if no women and children happen to be around the Jihadists at the time. In the mean time we, infidels that we are, try to culturally understand Islam (the religion and culture of most people in Afghanistan) and make lots of partners….etc….etc….

Good god…what a waste of brave American warriors…

Yes…I blame Obama…but does that make anyone really feel better? This was Bush’s top general and then Obama’s top general!

William Eaton on August 5, 2014 at 6:20 PM

BTW the link for the above comes from here…

Also if want to see our Eid-Al-Fitr message…

Eid-Al-Fitr Message

General Joseph Dunford

Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force

Kabul, Afghanistan

28 July 2014

Salam-u-Alaikum and Eid Mubarak, to the peace-loving and honorable people of Afghanistan.

As the Commander of ISAF, I would like to congratulate you and your respected families for the upcoming Eid-al-Fitr.

As Ramazan comes to a close with the celebration of Eid-al-Fitr, on this Holy day, we hold to the spirit of cooperation, community and compassion to achieve our common goals of peace, security and prosperity for all the noble people of Afghanistan.

We, and the international community, remain committed to the people of Afghanistan, now… through the upcoming inauguration of your new President…and into the Decade of Transformation.

May the peace and blessings of almighty God be upon you, your families, and the great nation of Afghanistan.

Eid Mubarak… Manana…Tashakur

Please get out of Afghanistan…make it stop!

This is why we are not respected anymore.

William Eaton on August 5, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The left supported Afghanistan….mostly to pretend like they really loved this country.

Oh and Obama supported the Afghan war.

CW on August 5, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Hey – this is just another case of workplace violence. There is nothing to see here; move along.

earlgrey on August 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Good job, neocons. “Hearts and minds”

nottakingsides on August 6, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord,
And let Perpetual Light shine upon him.
May his Soul
And the Souls of all the faithful departed
Through the Mercy of God
Rest in Peace.
Amen.

Zorro on August 6, 2014 at 6:50 AM

Lesson: Don’t try to nation build an Islamic country into a democracy.

Obama is a fool,

William Eaton on August 5, 2014 at 12:15 PM

While I certainly agree with that sentiment, the real blame for this lies with George W. Bush and his neo-con acolytes.

Cleombrotus on August 6, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2