Insider attacks raise tough questions about U.S. strategy

In the hours after a suspected coalition-trained Afghan soldier opened fire at Afghanistan’s national defense university, killing an American two-star general and injuring more than a dozen others, a question that has plagued U.S. efforts arose again at coalition bases: How are we supposed to train people who often want to kill us?

Attacks by Afghan forces on their coalition partners — the Long Wars Journal has counted 87 since 2008 — reached a peak in 2012. That’s when the U.S. military imposed security and education measures intended to protect coalition troops from the very people they are supposed to help. Until Tuesday’s attack, those measures were thought to have been successful.

But the attack raised questions about whether the respite was because of the increased security measures or whether it was just the drop in U.S. interactions with Afghan soldiers resulting from an ongoing draw-down of American troops. The answer may be important to the safety of the small number of men and women the United States plans to leave in Afghanistan after combat troops leave at the end of 2014.

When the gunfire erupted Tuesday, Maj. Gen. Harold Greene, 55, was surveying a water treatment facility at the Marshal Fahim National Defense University outside Kabul, the Afghan capital. The shooter, a two-year veteran of the Afghan army who went by just one name, Rafiqullah, had just returned to the base from patrol.

Unlike his colleagues, he did not turn in his NATO-issued assault rifle. Instead, still wearing his uniform, he hid in a bathroom and fired from a window at Greene and several coalition commanders. According to the Afghan Defense Ministry, an Afghan soldier shot and killed the attacker.

In Kabul on Wednesday, generals and rank-and-file alike gathered in what is called a ramp ceremony to salute as his remains were placed on a U.S. aircraft bound for home. The body is expected to arrive this morning.

Upon his arrival two years ago, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the current Afghanistan commander, sought to put new safety measures in place. His confirmation hearing was consumed by questions about the co-called green-on-blue attacks.

Among the measures was insistence that armed “guardian angels” be stationed at U.S. posts to watch for suspicious Afghan behavior and special training for U.S. troops in ways to avoid cultural missteps that might unintentionally offend Afghans. There were also efforts to train troops on psychological warning signs that someone could turn.

Citing security reasons, the U.S. military refuses to detail what other steps have been taken to mitigate the threat. But those on the ground say many of the measures are not followed in practice. They note, for example, that in many cases they remove their helmets and body armor as a sign of respect when meeting with their Afghan counterparts.

And it was not lost on anyone that Tuesday’s shooter made it into the Afghan army two years ago, in spite of a supposedly tougher vetting process imposed to make sure Taliban fighters are barred from joining up.

A joint Afghan-coalition investigation has begun. But in the past, authorities have often found it impossible to determine why such attacks occur.