"Today NATO Training Mission Afghanistan suffered a tragic loss from an attack, which occurred this morning, resulting in the deaths of nine coalition trainers," said U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, IV, NTM-A commanding general. "On behalf of those here at NTM-A, I want to convey our heartfelt condolences to the families of our trainers that were killed today.
"Although details are still unclear, we are working closely with the Afghan Ministry of Defense to determine the facts of the incident, and as our joint investigation moves forward, we will make more information available," said Caldwell. "We remain vigilant in our efforts to continue to train and develop the Afghan National Security Force and resolute in our support for our Afghan partners."
In the News:
Afghan Military Pilot Guns Down 8 NATO Troops - Voice of America
Shooting Incident in Kabul Leaves 9 Americans Dead - AFPS
Gunman Kills NATO Troops at Kabul Airport - New York Times
9 Americans Killed When Afghan Pilot Opens Fire - Los Angeles Times
Afghan Officer Opens Fire, Kills 9 Americans - Associated Press
Airport Attack Claimed by Taliban - Bloomberg
Shooting Raises Questions about Readiness, Loyalty - Christian Science Monitor
20 Incidents Where Afghan Forces Have 'Turned' - The Guardian
Comments
I think a point that is lost here is that these people are willing to die for ideology. I think our posture of whether we look more prepared is important but when a 14 year old boy can strap explosives to himself and run into a police station because by making the sacrifice he will go to heaven speaks volumes to a mindset we cannot understand. The amount of training received by the everyday airman/soldier is low and could/should be increased but religion is the ultimate motivator here and until we realize that and train/prepare for it, these incidents will continue to happen.
Why are soldiers/airmen required to clear weapons prior to entering a chowhall? Because the average troop lays it on the floor or hangs it on a chair while he/she eats and no Chief/SGMaj wants an AD in the chowhall. There is a different mindset "inside the wire" versus outside it. Additionally troops that work in the motorpool or spoon chow etc. see their weapons as a nusance and not a part of them. Partly beacause they don't train with it. Secondly because they aren't in a job that requires them to.
Lastly, I would like to say that there is no way to prepare for incidents like this. How do you prepare to go to your job everyday and there is a chance a coworker turns a gun on you? You can't and that is why these incidents are so unsettling. Because it makes us feel vulnerable which is the desired goal. Is the anwser to keep them all in internment camps like we did the Japanese in WWII? Hardly. The best thing I can come up with is to analyze the incidents, continue to train, remain vigilant and learn from our mistakes.
Would more weapons training improve our odds during an incident like this? Maybe, but when there are sorties to fly and NCOERS to write and other administrative queep that keeps us occupied, things like that take a backseat. The issue here is our troops saftey. Watch each other backs and remember, sight picture, sight alignment and squeeze.
We are all I believe talking in general terms... NOT about this specific case. You both Andy and Bill have good points. More training is good. Confidence and looking/acting like RoboCop are not the same thing. If the person you are interacting with also notes that you go to the range once every two weeks that is different than if he knows you do not. Most Afghans, and I would submit that on a conscious or unconscious level this Afghan Col more than most can in fact identify an easier vs. a more challenging victim. We all can if we just thought about it even a little...
Andy:
If they have rags stuffed into the magazine well to keep the dust out and they tell you how little they shoot, if is pretty easy to guess that those guys might not be proficient with their weapons and appear to be vulnerable. Man the animal, when contemplating an attack, is pretty damn good at picking up very subtle almost intuitive clues about who might be a formidable opponent and who might not be; especially when that particular man the animal comes from a place close to Hobbes' world like Afghanistan. One of those clues is how someone handles a weapon. You can tell who has training and practice by how they handle themselves and their weapon. They WILL BE less likely to be attacked because attackers prefer not to die.
You may consider that an unsupported assertion. I consider that to be fully supported by my life's relatively benign experience and I suspect that the people with the pertinent experience would feel the same.
Carl,
Everyone's carrying guns. How can you tell which one have had good training on how to use them and which ones haven't? What's does "appearing vulnerable" mean in that context.
I'm not advocating that people need to appear purposely appear weak. At the same time the idea that better weapons training will give the appearance of strength which will in turn cause a murderous ally to reconsider what would be a suicidal murder spree, is a completely unsupported assertion. The whole notion that weapons training had anything at all to do with this in the first place is pure speculation.
Andy:
I very strongly disagree that appearing vulnerable is as likely to lead to an attack as not appearing vulnerable. Man the animal, like any animal contemplating an attack, is ALWAYS less likely to attack something that appears capable of fighting effectively vs. something that looks less able to fight. It is a matter of calculating chances of survival. It is also intuitively obvious. I don't mean that to be an insult or a putdown. It is something so frequently and obviously observed while growing up and living as to be almost an instinct. It is a fundamental of everything from police work, to soldiering (as evidenced by numerous articles and comments on this site) to walking down the street in a questionable neighborhood.
Bill,
I agree that weapons training is very important. It is fundamental and we should be doing more of it. I maintain, however, that the discussion of that in relation to these murders is a secondary concern. The primary concern should be preventing these incidents in the future and better weapons training is not prevention. On that topic, your suggestion that the "appearance" of vulnerability will lead to a greater likelihood of attack from those we train and mentor is an assertion without evidence. The opposite argument is just as valid - that the attempt to reduce the appearance of "vulnerability" to our partners will be viewed as a lack of trust leading to resentment and a greater likelihood of attack.
You're right about my poor choice of words. What I meant to convey is that we don't know if weapons training would have made any difference. The comments here are focusing on that aspect when we don't even know if it was a factor. Additionally, even if it would have made a difference, it's still important to consider actions and policies which would prevent such tragedies in addition to policies and actions which might lessen their impact.
Andy,
I understand your point, but strongly disagree. We know there are many (far from a large percentage, may even numbers in the tens are incredibly dangerous) in the ranks of both Iraqi and Afghan security forces that are opposed to our presence for various reasons, and if we appear vulnerable to an attack they'll be more likely to conduct an attack. If we appear to be less vulnerable, which happens when service members are properly trained and carry their weapons in a ready posture (this projects confidence and competence), then they'll be less likely to attack, and less likely to succeed if they do.
They're supposed to be our allies and many are, but the "reality" is many are not and they will they will continue to try to kill their advisors, so training and weapons posture for advisors is far from being a tertiary concern. It is nothing short of leader neglience to employ service members without the right training.
As for your statement, at best it would have reduced the number killed is probably not what you met to say (I hope), because 1 to 8 less killed in this incident would have been 1 to 8 less families destroyed by grief.
I'm sorry, but this entire discussion on weapons training is a tertiary concern at best. The problem with this incident is not the victim's training, or lack thereof. At best better training would have reduced the number of people killed. There's a limit on what training and weapon's status can do when what you think is an ally suddenly starts shooting.
Even USAF Security Forces members on duty carry their M-9s with a round in the chamber and the safety off, unless that has changed in the last 6 years. Additionally as a person who has shot the M-9 and other weapons I find the "safety" on the M-9 to be engaged easily (accidentally) while not all that ergonomic to disengage quickly.
In the SOF community, the M9 is carried with a round chambered and the safety OFF (RED status). The safety lever is used as a de-cocking lever - not for keeping the weapon safe. The safety is the shooter. The M9 is a safe weapon - it will not go off accidentally unless you put significant pressure on the trigger. The M9 is carried this way because trying to unsafe it after drawing takes a critical split second that could cost your life. Glocks and other brands eliminate the conventional safety lever altogether for this reason.
Why are soldiers required to clear weapons before entering the mess hall? The mess hall is one of the most lucrative targets for a suicide bomber. So, why disarm everyone and prevent the ability to put a potential bomber down before he detonates?
Todd
All - I am not a psychiatrist but would also contend that if you KNOW that X amount of time (99% for fobbits and less for the rest of us) there is no round in the barrel that you do treat the gun differently. I know what we tell people but when they KNOW that X amount of time there is no bullet there some people are more prone to "playing with the gun". It happens. If there was a round in the barrel at all times I wonder if there would actually be less problems as they would truly be treated with the respect they deserve. At home I carry my handgun, yes I have a CCW, and it is a 1911 and I always have it cocked and locked. I have never had a ND. I concur with the recommendations that people that are over here in roles as mentors/advisors etc should have some additional training prior to arrival in theater. The 100 rds I fired with my M-9 prior to arrival in theater are dwarfed by the rds I have fired since my arrival. I have the pleasure of working on a PRT with other nations troops who truly respect the ability of a person to use their weapon and I am provided basically all the rounds I would want. I feel sorry for those who are not able to do the same. Training that demands you act like a professional and not have your hand held is needed at least for people who will be out in small groups or as individuals.
Negligent discharges used to be called accidental discharges. I have seen the name change in line with a CYA mentality as well as a "lead by policy/punishment" environment.
One will not have as many NDs or ADs if troops are trained. The bottom line: troops in theater get little, if any, training on their weapons in theater. A week without firing your weapon means your skills are starting to atrophy- but, a year?!? Yes- a year without firing your weapon. That's the rule, not the exception, for many.
I submit that if our troops trained more they wouldn't have NDs. I further submit that troops who haven't fired their weapons in a month should not be allowed to carry them until they do so...
APH:
This is a minor quibble but there should be no negligent discharges, none, on fob or off fob on any piston with the round chambered if the people carrying the weapons follow the basic rules of firearms handling. If the Army or any other service can't inculcate those rules into the people with the weapons, then I'm more worried than I was.
This is preaching to the choir though.
APH,
I agree it would be hard, but not impossible and regardless it is worth the effort. Since when as the military started bypassing difficult tasks? Unfortunately I know the answer, but you get my point. SOF training is O.K., but it is focused on offensive operations (that can be used for defensive purposes). I recommend a civilian contracted course that focuses on essential skills for self defense, most advisors don't need to know how to kick a door and clear a room, or multiple rooms. This training can make one proficient in self defense shooting in a week, but then skills have to be maintained. I suspect this tragic incident will be a wake up call. I think we also know that training won't provide skills to overcome every situation. If you're surprised it is hard to react (although the right training would make a little less likely you would be surprised) effectively, and sometimes things just happen. I want to clarify my point is to ensure our guys and gals on point have a fighting chance.
One of the problems though is the advisors don't really belong to any centralized organization stateside that is capable of providing adequate training. By farming it out through individual augmentation we're coming from all over the place, and given the ranks of most of the APHs at least a lot are coming from COCOMs or the Pentagon where combat skills aren't part of the regular work routine, and our out of theater assignments are the same way. There's a lot of us in the program who've worked in the SOF community before and have an idea of what right probably should look like, but I doubt it'll happen.
APH and Peter,
We're setting many military members up with check the block the training, where the goal is to get a green circle in that training event so they're deployable. Giving them the knowledge and skills needed to survive is secondary. Outside of some special Operators, most members deploying on advisor missions do not have effective combat shooting skills. They all (there may be a couple of exceptions) have the ability, but they need their commands to invest the time and $$$ to ensure they can shoot in a combat environment. It isn't all physical either, there are some psychological mindsets that need to be learned and engrained. Peter's points about getting treated like and expected to act like an adult are critical. The military is too concerned about absolute control of the people training (don't use the term trainees for adults), and when that is their metric for success then we need to reassess our training programs. In the meantime I recommend sending our service members that will work in those roles to appropriately vetting civilian shooting schools that teach self defense as a collective of shooting, combatives, and mindset, instead of worthless task, condition and standard (qualify with your pistol). Since it isn't a cookie cutter approach the Army won't adapt it, but other services might.
I definitely wish we (or at least me) got more shooting practice in. In my particular case I fired the basic pistol qualification table at CRC before deploying and that was it. I qualified, but will freely admit it wasn't impressive and that I could use more range time.
I have no issue with guys working on the FOB in an office not having a round in the chamber. Realistically on ISAF or IJC HQ at least the odds of someone getting inside the compound and starting a fire fight versus the odds of a negligent discharge are enough that I support being unloaded on the base. But advisors working outside of a FOB/Green Zone should be chambered and ready to go.
Our recurrent training could be much better and help to increase familiarity, but the safety nut mentality drives treating the shooters like mental ward escapees to be barely trusted with a weapon. I was sent to a civilian shooting course once. The difference was shocking. We were essentially expected to act like professionals (shock). When it came to some of the drills we did with short range engagements, I gave significant thought to making sure I didn't shoot myself in the hand. By putting us in a more uncontrolled and slightly riskier situation, I think it drove up situational awareness and actually made us respect the weapon and our skills and mental preparation more. You have to trust and treat people like professionals if they are to act as such.
Carl, regretfully the US military does not fire nearly enough. We also do not have a gun on us when at home as Law Enforcement Officers in the US do. Due to that only infrequent use by many in the military there is a general lack of true familiarity with guns. There are of course exceptions to this and the average familiarity is greater today than 12 years ago, before 9/11. The overall lack of familiarity is a major cause of Negligent Discharges. Negligent discharges of course can kill and so as a mitigating action many unit/base commanders in many places do not allow people to even have a magazine in their guns much less a round in the chamber. Even being provided more bullets alone will not solve this issue. I say that because there is a significant difference between only firing on the range in a controlled environment compared to firing on a person who is shooting at you and or the person next to you. I have not experienced this first hand however I think we can all agree that is would be at least a bit more stressful. This all is a digression from the fact that mentoring must continue and we should absolutely not let the act of a few psychologically disturbed people stop us from completing our mission... and we will continue the mission. More confidence on the part of the mentors in their own abilities would be helpful in this culture where being a confident warrior is respected.
The M-9 is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber I believe. Most military side arms and police side arms are. I would be surprised if there was even one P.D. in the entire US whose officer's sidearms didn't have chambered rounds. The military mystifies me sometimes.
IAA: That is a great human factors observation.
APH - I completely concur on the issue of needing to trust those around you. There needs to be a basic level of trust/understanding to be in any way effective. I also concur that this tactic has the potential for significant impact to the relationships that all mentors need to build to be effective. That being said I have fired between 1,000 and 1,200 rds through my M-9 since I arrived in country this time. That is probably nearly as many rounds through an M-9 as I have fired in the previous 10 years combined. I have improved significantly, and I am in no way anything special. There are too many people in country who are frightened at the though of using their weapons unless on a range and under proper instructor supervision. This is of course in no way something the individual military members should feel ashamed of. This stems from a lack of training and familiarity with the weapon. Nearly all Afghans are quite good at reading people. They are masters at "street smarts" relative to the "average soldier". If the person you are mentoring feels you are more capable, at nearly any skill that can readily translate into increased respect which alone could save your life. Even if he is a bonafide good guy he will likely respect you more if you are more proficient with a gun. There is nearly no down side that I can ascertain to added proficiency with a duty weapon. It alone is not a game changer, I do not believe there is any one thing that is, but it is likely far more helpful to mission accomplishment than 50% of the CBTs that US military members need to contend with every year.
These mentors who have passed were having a significant impact on the effectiveness and capabilities of the Afghan Air Corps, to the point where ANA units were beginning to receive air lift support from them.
I fear this incident will push us back a few years in our progress.
May they rest in peace.
To add to Todds comment. How many people in the room that day would have been able to draw and fire in under 4 seconds. The DoD is far more concerned even today with buying more F-22/F-35 aircraft or more other sexy multi-million dollar equipment items than on bullets. The average US Military member fires far too few rounds per year. That is a large part of why the "average" commander in country does not want his troops to have their guns loaded... perhaps dull knives will be mandated at some point as well. One less Apache and one less F-35 would buy A LOT of bullets and range time. It could be helpful, perhaps...
The carnage inside an operations room of the Afghan Air Corps at Kabul airport has yet to be sorted, identified and tallied but this much we know: Another Afghan Muslim "partner" in uniform -- a veteran military pilot according to the AP -- has opened fire on NATO troops in a meeting, killing as many as eight troops and a contractor.
While we await the grim but thoroughly predictable details -- the exemplary lives of the personnel murdered while "partnering" with our Afghan "allies"; the shooter who for reasons "unknown" to ISAF earned his place in Islamic paradise through this "holiest" act of jihad against infidels (ISAF would croak before saying that) -- I want to call attention to a <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/gannett-army-campbell-afghanistan… from the Clarksville, Tenn. Leaf-Chronicle that was featured last week at Army Times</a> and which came to my attention from friends in the military segment of our thoroughly bifurcated society
The article is titled: "NCOs offers stern message for war-bound soldiers." And what is that "stern" message? The article -- written a day after another Hair-Trigger-Moderate in the Afghan Army went off, using grenades to kill five Americans troops -- reports that message as being, "Don't trust anyone but you still have to partner up" -- and in that order.
Stern though the "old Army sergeant" described in the article undoubtedly is, I hear in his message a plaintive SOS. Help. We want you to live through your thoroughly ill-conceived and even insane nation-building mission, So don't trust any Afghan you are ordered to "partner" or "mentor," train or relax with. Any one of them could kill you and your comrades any time, from teatime to meeting time.
And why is that, old and stern Sergeant? Not even he is about to go there even as he pounds his contradictory, logic-defying, but, we pray, life-saving message into the young soldiers' heads.
If he did, he would say something like: There is indeed a clash of civilizations where the West and Islam meet, and we are putting you, our men and women in uniform, on its front lines, defenseless against its violent manifestations "inside the wire." You are not there to stamp it out, or to protect our country against it, but rather to remain blind to it for the unfounded ideological reasons of our leaders, to appease its demands, to adapt to its laws, and, ultimately, be subsumed by its worldview. Nation-building is good, our leaders tells us. COIN is the way, our leaders tell us. Congress doesn't give a damn about you, your legs or the gaping hole in the US Treasury. So "partner" enough so as not to get thrown in the brig but never let your guard down ever and come home safe.
Don't know what their weapons status was, but I'm not aware of a policy that forbids those of us who works off of the FOBs from being loaded. My office is typically mag loaded, but no round chambered and we had a good internal discussion about that yesterday. Personally I'd prefer to be chambered, but if I'm being honest in the scenario those indivduals found themseles in I don't think it would have made a difference. The shooter was prepared and ready, they weren't because they trusted the people they worked with.
I should note it's not at all conclusive that the shooter was an insurgent, though from what I've seen there's no question the murders were premeditated. The guy was apparently mentally unstable before this. But this is the most effective tactic I think the insurgents can employ for wrecking US/ISAF resolve. I trust the guys I work with, but I can't possibly account for everyone in a police uniform on the MOI compound. I wouldn't fault a soldier with less experience working with Afghans for wondering whether he can trust the partners he just met. But if you can't find a way to give that trust, you'll never really be able to partner/mentor.