Afghanistan finally moves into the Lose column

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:21 am

I read about it in the newspaper this morning... it's bad news for every western country in there right now.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:30 am

I'm hoping this latest incident will force us out of the area (Pakistan too) and let them continue killing each other all they want.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:03 am

I agree. Just get us out, we gave them a chance, they didn't take it. Do a Somalia and just get out, no questions asked, and let them descend into anarchy.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:10 am

It wouldn't surprise me if six months after withdrawing from Afghanistan, there's no sign whatsoever that we were ever there in the first place. It certainly seems like it'll go down as a historically colossal waste of blood and treasure.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:14 am

raydude wrote:I agree. Just get us out, we gave them a chance, they didn't take it. Do a Somalia and just get out, no questions asked, and let them descend into anarchy.

This was never about doing anything for Afghanistan. It was about the "war on terror" and stabilization of the region. It was ill-advised from the start but you can't say, "They don't want democracy or peace so we're pulling the plug." It was never about them.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:16 am

Well, we went in to kill Osama, destroy the Taliban, and eliminate their ability to export Jihad to the West.

We leave having pretty much radicalized a whole generation against the West. But I guess we got Osama. In Pakistan.

Oh well. On to Tehran!

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:35 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
raydude wrote:I agree. Just get us out, we gave them a chance, they didn't take it. Do a Somalia and just get out, no questions asked, and let them descend into anarchy.
This was never about doing anything for Afghanistan. It was about the "war on terror" and stabilization of the region. It was ill-advised from the start but you can't say, "They don't want democracy or peace so we're pulling the plug." It was never about them.

Wait, so all that stuff about nation building and building roads in Afghanistan was just all in my head. Whew! That's a relief.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:06 am

raydude wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
raydude wrote:I agree. Just get us out, we gave them a chance, they didn't take it. Do a Somalia and just get out, no questions asked, and let them descend into anarchy.
This was never about doing anything for Afghanistan. It was about the "war on terror" and stabilization of the region. It was ill-advised from the start but you can't say, "They don't want democracy or peace so we're pulling the plug." It was never about them.
Wait, so all that stuff about nation building and building roads in Afghanistan was just all in my head. Whew! That's a relief.

Nah, you're just thinking one dimensionally and gobblilng up all the front page spin.

Roads were built to win the war, not to help Afghanis. They were part of the hearts and minds campaign.

WSJ wrote:The road-building efforts began a decade ago, as Washington began transforming USAID into a tool in its military counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, shifting the agency's focus from promoting long-term development to shorter-term initiatives meant to attract community support in insurgent-saturated areas.

...

From the start, President Barack Obama's administration saw road construction as key for winning support from Afghans by making it easier to travel, by opening up new trade routes—and by connecting remote villages to Afghan government institutions and services.

Officials at USAID and IRD say that the Afghanistan Strategic Roads Project wasn't a roads program in the usual sense. They said building roads was, in many ways, a secondary goal; the main objective was spreading jobs and money to win over rural communities that harbor insurgents.

And besides, you have to hand out the pork. Who was paid to build roads, schools, police stations?

DC wrote:It’s estimated that each mile of gravel road in Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers over $2.8 million by IRD, the most expensive U.S. government-built roads in Afghanistan. The project also set aside millions of dollars to build soap factories, run reading programs for illiterate villagers, teach sewing and flower-arranging to Afghan women and dig wells. Yet it was later discovered that IRD staff were falsifying reports and overstating claims about the impacts of community programs.

We need to either admit that we are incapable of building roads, in which case we shouldn't be there at all, or that we really didn't care all that much about building roads for roads' sake.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:37 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: We need to either admit that we are incapable of building roads, in which case we shouldn't be there at all, or that we really didn't care all that much about building roads for roads' sake.

Can't we just get out now and argue about why we were there later?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:33 pm

Holman wrote:Well, we went in to kill Osama, destroy the Taliban, and eliminate their ability to export Jihad to the West.

Change "Taliban" to "al Qaeda". While we did drive the Taliban from power, there was never any question of destroying it. Even the optimistic scenario has them sharing power with the Karzai government after 2014, hopefully on something resembling our terms. But the Taliban are convinced that they are winning the war and all they need to do is wait us out.

We did kill Osama and force al Qaeda to relocate, so we could claim victory as we retreat.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:43 pm

raydude wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote: We need to either admit that we are incapable of building roads, in which case we shouldn't be there at all, or that we really didn't care all that much about building roads for roads' sake.
Can't we just get out now and argue about why we were there later?

Us arguing about why we are there doesn't really have an impact on when we get out, does it? I mean I'm not a Joint Chief.

They will sort it out regardless of what we're talking about. What I'm more interested in is avoiding the act of yet again sweeping mistakes under the rug.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:56 pm

Holman wrote:Terrible.

I guess a soldier gets executed for this, right? Or do they?

If all the reports are true (and it looks like they are) that this had nothing to do with any combat operations, we should just hand this guy to the Afganis and let them decide what to do with him.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:00 pm

Kurth wrote:
Holman wrote:Terrible.

I guess a soldier gets executed for this, right? Or do they?
If all the reports are true (and it looks like they are) that this had nothing to do with any combat operations, we should just hand this guy to the Afganis and let them decide what to do with him.

COMPLETELY agree. But I seriously doubt that will happen given how big of a deal that is when we set up a base in a foreign land. Don't remember what country it was, but I definitely remember the row created when an argument about a base was down to how US soldiers would be treated in criminal circumstances (hell, may have even been Afghanistan, not sure) Apparently that is deal breaking detail (whether or not the US soldier is turned over to us for punishment, or whether he/she is tried locally according to local laws).

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:38 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Kurth wrote:
Holman wrote:Terrible.

I guess a soldier gets executed for this, right? Or do they?
If all the reports are true (and it looks like they are) that this had nothing to do with any combat operations, we should just hand this guy to the Afganis and let them decide what to do with him.
COMPLETELY agree. But I seriously doubt that will happen given how big of a deal that is when we set up a base in a foreign land. Don't remember what country it was, but I definitely remember the row created when an argument about a base was down to how US soldiers would be treated in criminal circumstances (hell, may have even been Afghanistan, not sure) Apparently that is deal breaking detail (whether or not the US soldier is turned over to us for punishment, or whether he/she is tried locally according to local laws).

Yeah, I know this wouldn't exactly be setting a great precedent, but you know what? I don't care.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: COMPLETELY agree. But I seriously doubt that will happen given how big of a deal that is when we set up a base in a foreign land. Don't remember what country it was, but I definitely remember the row created when an argument about a base was down to how US soldiers would be treated in criminal circumstances (hell, may have even been Afghanistan, not sure) Apparently that is deal breaking detail (whether or not the US soldier is turned over to us for punishment, or whether he/she is tried locally according to local laws).

You're thinking of Iraq and the terms of our departure there. The high-profile incidents that sparked controversy weren't even about U.S. soldiers but about thuggish behavior by Halliburton contractor types.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:30 pm

Holman wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote: COMPLETELY agree. But I seriously doubt that will happen given how big of a deal that is when we set up a base in a foreign land. Don't remember what country it was, but I definitely remember the row created when an argument about a base was down to how US soldiers would be treated in criminal circumstances (hell, may have even been Afghanistan, not sure) Apparently that is deal breaking detail (whether or not the US soldier is turned over to us for punishment, or whether he/she is tried locally according to local laws).
You're thinking of Iraq and the terms of our departure there. The high-profile incidents that sparked controversy weren't even about U.S. soldiers but about thuggish behavior by Halliburton contractor types.

Ahh, yes. Thanks for the clarification, the timing of that sounds exactly right (though it seems a little strange that we would be discussing such things as we're LEAVING, no?) "OK, on the way out, if one of our boys or girls accidentally sets off a series of exploding minefields, that is so not on them!"

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:39 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Ahh, yes. Thanks for the clarification, the timing of that sounds exactly right (though it seems a little strange that we would be discussing such things as we're LEAVING, no?) "OK, on the way out, if one of our boys or girls accidentally sets off a series of exploding minefields, that is so not on them!"

It also happened more recently in Afghanistan. Maywand District Incident. There was a lot of call, in Afghanistan, for a local trial.

[edit]There's another incident I can't remember the details of right now so I won't post what I may be misremembering but there are at least a few others I'm pretty sure.

EDIT: I was thinking of the Black Hearts which was in Iraq. Wasn't Halliburton though, that was US Army.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:24 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Ahh, yes. Thanks for the clarification, the timing of that sounds exactly right (though it seems a little strange that we would be discussing such things as we're LEAVING, no?) "OK, on the way out, if one of our boys or girls accidentally sets off a series of exploding minefields, that is so not on them!"

IIRC, the issue was the renewal of the prior agreement by which Americans aren't bound by Iraqi law. This has helped the speed up the timetable of our departure.

ichbinunique · Post by **ichbinunique** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:30 pm

Don't get me wrong, it makes for good drama and may well be a catalyst for withdrawal, but I'm not sure it really has to do anything to do with military policy. It sounds to me like the central problem is not the murder of civilians, which happens with some frequency and is written off as collateral damage, but rather that he acted alone and with such efficiency. However, lone gunmen on a killing spree are not precisely a new phenomena. People in the military are still just people, and still subject to the same problems as any other population.

Also, I will be amazed if the gunmen ever even finds out what courts in Afghanistan are called. We've never let our troops be tried locally, I doubt we're about to start now.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:02 am

ichbinunique wrote:Also, I will be amazed if the gunmen ever even finds out what courts in Afghanistan are called.

I believe the word you are looking for here is "noose".

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:46 am

I am not sure why but this just gives me giggles.

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

I just can't picture Cheney, Rumsfeld, or even Gates being so afraid of his own troops as to have them disarmed before speaking to them. Just unreal.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:05 pm

I thought I heard that the Iraqi soldiers present were forbidden to bring weapons. U.S. troops were then asked to leave theirs outside in order to avoid direct insult to our allied forces.

That would make it diplomacy rather than fear of fragging by disgruntled marines. But it's still awkward.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Holman wrote:I thought I heard that the Iraqi soldiers present were forbidden to bring weapons. U.S. troops were then asked to leave theirs outside in order to avoid direct insult to our allied forces.

That would make it diplomacy rather than fear of fragging by disgruntled marines. But it's still awkward.

I don't know of any Iraqi soldiers there, all I read about where tribal leaders and government ministers.

Combined with the stolen vehicle incident would have been ironic if it had been taken while he was in the tent and driven towards it. All those soldiers and they could do nothing but throw themselves in front of it.

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Whatever, just throw your rifle on the stack with the rest.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:38 pm

Afghan Soldiers Told to Come Unarmed to Panetta Meeting

Marine Major General Charles “Mark” Gurganus, the new NATO International Security and Assistance Force commander for the area that covers Helmand Province, said he ordered the American and other coalition soldiers to turn in their weapons to avoid signaling that their Afghan allies can’t be trusted.

“Somebody had said we were going to have the Afghans leave their weapons outside,” said Gurganus. “I wanted the Marines to look just like our Afghan partners.”

ichbinunique · Post by **ichbinunique** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:51 pm

Stacking rifles is a fairly common drill maneuver, and really shouldn't take that long with a unit at all worth it's salt. It's also a fairly routine occurrence. A lot of times you just don't want to have everyone with their rifles in a crowded space, just because it's awkward. All it means is that two people had to stand outside who wouldn't otherwise have had to.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:21 pm

Details have emerged about the soldier who allegedly murdered 16 Afghan civilians.

The military on Friday identified the soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan villagers earlier this week as Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a 38-year-old father of two who had been injured twice in combat over the course of four deployments and had, his lawyer said, an exemplary military record.

...

Pentagon officials, who have been scouring the sergeant’s military and health records for clues, have said little about what they think motivated the killings. But one senior government official said Thursday that Sergeant Bales had been drinking alcohol before the killings and that he might have had marital problems.

“When it all comes out, it will be a combination of stress, alcohol and domestic issues — he just snapped,” said the official, who had been briefed on the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the sergeant has not yet been charged.

But Mr. Browne has disputed those assertions, telling reporters on Thursday that the sergeant’s marriage was sound and questioning reports about drinking. On the day before the shootings, he said, the sergeant had seen a fellow soldier lose his leg from a buried mine.

Mr. Browne, who said he had had a short conversation with Sergeant Bales because he was worried that their phone call was being monitored, added that Sergeant Bales had thought he could avoid this deployment and was upset when he could not.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:53 pm

All your base are belong to us!

President Hamid Karzai insisted Thursday that the United States confine its troops to major bases in Afghanistan by next year as the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans, both of which served to complicate the Obama administration’s plans for an orderly exit from the country.

Karzai’s abrupt shift was at odds with a pledge offered just hours earlier by President Obama to stick to a 2014 withdrawal schedule for troops in Afghanistan. It also ran up against the Pentagon’s stark assessment that Afghan security forces were not yet ready to take over control of the country.

...

Further fraying the United States’ efforts to preserve some degree of control over its exit strategy, Taliban insurgents announced Thursday that they had broken off preliminary peace talks. While the move may have been coincidental, it imperiled another crucial element of the American exit strategy: brokering peace talks between insurgents and the government.

How about we just go home now and leave them with our best wishes.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:42 am

Rip wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

I just can't picture Cheney, Rumsfeld, or even Gates being so afraid of his own troops as to have them disarmed before speaking to them. Just unreal.

It has nothing to do with anyone being afraid of their own troops. Afghan troops were attending the meeting and not allowed to bring firearms. It was decided to require the same of the US troops as to not treat the two groups differently.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:47 am

Roadside bomb kills 13 in Afghanistan

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/world/asi ... index.html" target="_blank

Thirteen people were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan's southern Uruzgan province, police said Thursday.

The vehicle hit the homemade device as it traveled near the district of Dehrawod, Uruzgan provincial police spokesman Farid Ayell said.

The blast killed nine children and four women, he said, as well as injured two men.

He blamed the attack on "the enemies of Afghanistan."

Roadside bombs -- used primarily by militants to target members of NATO's International Security Assistance Force -- are a frequent cause of Afghan civilian casualties.

I guess it's ok for the Taliban to kill Afghans since no one is protesting this incident.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:01 am

Please tell me your defense of someone that killed a toddler by stomping on his head is not "well we're not the only ones doing it!".

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:54 am

Carpet_pissr wrote:Please tell me your defense of someone that killed a toddler by stomping on his head is not "well we're not the only ones doing it!".

It's not a defense, it's an example of the hypocrisy of the Afghan people.

I'm with Kraken. If a mass murder (in a country where people seem to be dying constantly from violence) can undo years of good will, billions and American lives spent trying to empower the citizens of that country, then fuck them. Yes, it's a horrific event. Yes, it was done by a foreign military member. Yes, I'd be outraged too. But members of your own community are blowing you up for their own political purposes. This soldier went nuts, a not completely unheard of occurrence.

Give me a break. Let the whole country burn. I'm tired of hearing how bad the west is from a bunch of barbarians.

The news article I read said he had joined in 2001, and had 3 successful and honorable tours, he and his wife had hoped for a promotion that didn't occur, and he did not want to go this particular tour and had tried to get out of it.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:09 pm

Look, this is the burden of being the good guys. The reason we oppose people like the Taliban is that they *do* target civilians and don't care about collateral damage.

We're still the good guys, right? That's why an American soldier murdering civilians (including children) is a bigger tragedy than the Taliban doing what makes them the Taliban. We have something to prove to this part of the world, and when we fuck it up it hurts more than the immediate victims.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:43 pm

Holman wrote:Look, this is the burden of being the good guys. The reason we oppose people like the Taliban is that they *do* target civilians and don't care about collateral damage.

We're still the good guys, right? That's why an American soldier murdering civilians (including children) is a bigger tragedy than the Taliban doing what makes them the Taliban. We have something to prove to this part of the world, and when we fuck it up it hurts more than the immediate victims.

You've been proving it (as has Canada) for years.

I'm not saying justice shouldn't be done. I'm saying fuck the Afghan people and their leaders who are willing to turn on their benefactors over this tragedy. I'd still be saying fuck'em if they weren't so nonchalant about the Taliban murders, but they are, so that makes the hypocrisy impossible to swallow. That they were willing to start calling for American deaths and to actually start murdering American soldiers after some books were burned was a pretty clear sign that any good will was an illusion.

It'll cost a helluva lot less next time a Taliban cell becomes a threat to the west if no one tried to pretend they were the good guys, and surgical strikes and special ops just went in and assassinated key members of the cell. You'd be just as far ahead and have spent a helluva lot less money and American lives.

Your country almost bankrupted itself and these wars were a factor in it. And today it appears there is very little to show for it. I said this before and got shit on for it, but I'll say it again because I believe it's true. Osama would be laughing his ass off right now.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:47 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:Please tell me your defense of someone that killed a toddler by stomping on his head is not "well we're not the only ones doing it!".

Please show me where I defended the former by the use of the latter. I don't think you can.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:51 pm

Holman wrote:Look, this is the burden of being the good guys. The reason we oppose people like the Taliban is that they *do* target civilians and don't care about collateral damage.

We're still the good guys, right? That's why an American soldier murdering civilians (including children) is a bigger tragedy than the Taliban doing what makes them the Taliban. We have something to prove to this part of the world, and when we fuck it up it hurts more than the immediate victims.

If we are the good guys, then why don't they give us some slack. I've read the US bombing of France to seal off the Normandy beach heads cost the lives of over 10,000 French citizens. Did they question the US, did they call us devils, did they demand we pull out and leave? No, they understood this was war, and bad stuff happens trying to deal with the "bad guys". You'd think hundreds of lives and billions of dollars would have earned us some understanding.

Funny, I read there was a protest at a university the other day. Do those students think they's be able to study under the Taliban?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:26 pm

Grifman wrote:Funny, I read there was a protest at a university the other day. Do those students think they's be able to study under the Taliban?

Well yes, they do. And they did. It's just who and what they were allowed to study that might change. I've seen university protest signs that basically said "we don't want democracy!!".

Which is a strange thing to protest.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 pm

Grifman wrote:If we are the good guys, then why don't they give us some slack.

Because the French wanted us there. The Afghanis don't.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:01 pm

I just think the WW2 France vs. GWOT Afghanistan comparison doesn't hold up.

In 1944, we were liberating France from an occupier that could only be fought by industrial-scale warfare. We could afford to be callous about civilian casualties because there was really no danger that the French would turn against us and welcome the Nazis as a replacement for the France we were very clearly trying to give them back. There was a strong shared sense of a world at stake.

In Afghanistan, none of that is so clear. Think about how long they've been living with this war. Yes, the Taliban are evil, but in Afghan eyes they're The-Devil-We-Know. If the Afghans don't trust the U.S. in 2012, it's not because they long for Taliban rule but because we've failed, in ten years on the ground, to prove that we value their interests anywhere near as much as we value our own.

This is all hearts and minds again. Sgt. Bales has handed the Taliban a bigger victory than they'll get from any RPG or IED.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:37 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

I just can't picture Cheney, Rumsfeld, or even Gates being so afraid of his own troops as to have them disarmed before speaking to them. Just unreal.
It has nothing to do with anyone being afraid of their own troops. Afghan troops were attending the meeting and not allowed to bring firearms. It was decided to require the same of the US troops as to not treat the two groups differently.

Was never an issue before!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:16 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

I just can't picture Cheney, Rumsfeld, or even Gates being so afraid of his own troops as to have them disarmed before speaking to them. Just unreal.
It has nothing to do with anyone being afraid of their own troops. Afghan troops were attending the meeting and not allowed to bring firearms. It was decided to require the same of the US troops as to not treat the two groups differently.
Was never an issue before!

There have been several incidents of Afghan soldiers killing Americans in the wake of the Koran-burning incident. At least one of them was just a day or two before Panetta's visit.