Click to read Qatar Tribune news Click to read outstate news Click to read economy news Click to read sports news Click to read  Qatar Tribune news Click to read  Qatar Tribune news
US army's Afghan mission in chaos: Pentagon report



Amid fierce fighting after the Taliban captured the northern Afghan city of Kunduz last year, US special forces advisers repeatedly asked their commanders how far they were allowed to go to help local troops retake the city.

They got no answer, according to witnesses interviewed in a recently declassified, heavily redacted Pentagon report that lays bare the confusion over rules of engagement governing the mission in Afghanistan.

As the Taliban insurgency gathers strength, avoiding enemy fire has become increasingly difficult for advisers, who have been acting as consultants rather than combatants since NATO forces formally ceased fighting at the end of 2014.

In the heat of the battle, lines can be blurred, and the problem is not exclusive to Afghanistan: questions have arisen over the role of US troops in Iraq after a US Navy SEAL was killed by Islamic State this month.

"'How far do you want to go?'is not a proper response to 'How far do you want us to go?'"one special forces member told investigators in a report into the US air strikes on a hospital in Kunduz that killed 42 medical staff, patients and caretakers.

That incident was the biggest single tragedy of the brief capitulation of Kunduz to Taliban, and there is no suggestion that the mistake was the result of a lack of clarity over the rules of engagement.

But the 700-page report, much of it blacked out for security reasons, sheds light on how the rules are not fully understood, even by some troops on the ground, compromising the mission to stabilise the nation and defeat a worsening Islamist insurgency.

The issues exposed in the report are likely to be considered by the new US commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, as he prepares to makes recommendations in the coming weeks that may clarify or expand the level of combat support the US-led training mission can provide.

Critics say the confusion comes from political expediency, because US leaders are keen to portray the Afghan operation as designed mainly to help local forces fight for themselves.

"The rules of engagement are trapped in the jaws of political confusion about the mission,"a senior Western official told Reuters.

Further complicating matters are counter-terrorism rules that allow strikes against al Qaeda, as well as militants linked to Islamic State which did not exist when the US military intervened in Afghanistan in 2001, but not the Taliban.

In recent weeks US commanders in Afghanistan have reported that al Qaeda and the Taliban are working more closely together, signalling that the dominant Taliban group could once again be attacked by more air strikes.

Calling the authorities in Afghanistan"exceptionally complex,"previous training had failed to prevent confusion, the Kunduz report found.


Add your comment


Follow Us