Article in German journal "Stern"

[Fuchs]

This is a (my) translation of the first page of a Stern article of April 2nd.
"Stern" is one of the three major political weekly journals in Germany.
Circulation is about 950k, readership about 7.5 million.

Strategy of failure

The people in the town called him "Mr. Hassan", he had studied, was teacher at times - but for years he was cook in the guest house of the mayor and always provided hot tea or listened to his favourite cassettes in the atrium.
Most likely he would have liked that the new American president wants to send hundreds of new aid workers to Afghanistan, Hassan's home town of Imam Sahib far in the north belonged to the most peaceful towns in Afghanistan. there were no Taliban and the greatest concern was to get the spray car to fight the dust on the roads.

But Mr. Hassan is dead, just like Ahmad, the kinky Faktotum who washed cars all the time in the, the bodyguard and his cousin Sar-e-Pul, who was living there while searching for a job.
Victims of an assault at dawn. At about four o'clock on March 22nd came two Chinook helicopters and dismounted 60 soldiers of a U.S. special forces unit who blew up the gate to the compound of the mayor.
They shot Hassan and Ahmad in their beds, the puddle of blood still show their position, before the other three were executed as well. The face of one of the dead was almost irrecognizable afterwards. The bodyguard of the family pleaded for minutes that the Americans should not proceed, as women and children were in the next building.
Finally the soldiers killed him as well, took four guests as prisoners - and flew away.
None of those independently interviewed witnesses heard a shot fired with a Kalashnikov. Only the fizzle of the silenced rifles of the soldiers.

The press release of the next morning from the headquarter of OEF claimed that they eliminated a terror network, had asked civilians to leave the building, was then being shot upon and had killed five enemy fighters and confiscated numerous weapons.
Women and children would not have been in the attacked buildings.
A report, of which nothing was correct except the number of dead and the date.

It's not been the first time that something like this happened, but it was the first time that it happened in the German area of responsibility in Kunduz.
The airfield operated by the Germans had been used, but they didn't tell the Bundeswehr what they were about to do.
The U.S. terror searchers in Kabul meant that this was about the arrest of an Iraqi who was possibly courier for al-Qaida.
Yet, to kill the whole personnel of the local mayor for it and afterwards claim that it was a terror network?
(...)
"I have lived there myself for two and a half months in the guest house. Everybody can live there, because Imam Sahib has no hotel."
(...)
At the day after the assault more than 1,000 people from the whole north join for the mourning.

(...)
"We want no revenge" says the mayor, who escaped the shots in the next house: "We want clarification of facts! Justice!What shall we do with democracy and elections if it's allowed to simply kill us?"
Even in case that terrorists were indeed in the house, "the Americans could have encircled the house and knock."

The crowd comes the muttered question why nobody of the Bundeswehr has come to condole.

The next pages of the article are about rampant corruption, how a police chief steals the pay of his policemen, how a highway police chief is even worse ans actually that bad that police officers fear that many Afghans in the area would turn to the Taliban if the highway police chief became police chief of the town. Apparently not an unlikely prospect, as it was said that the highway police chief had already "removed" several competitors.
Oh, and the police chief was immune to prosecution because he's member of Karzai's tribe and friend with him as well.

Plus two more pages of the usual terrible stories about Afghanistan.

Contact me by PM if you want a scan of the translated page.
I attempted to translate as close as possible, bear with me if readability suffered.

[Ken White]

where, as in the Middle East, nothing is as it seems...

Assuming the report is accurate, the shooting of two people in their beds is possibly wrong. Not enough information provided to tell.

There is a probabiltiy that the report is not accurate but was based on what the Reporter was told; local custom is to ask for solatia payments and that 'corruption' cited extends to making the circumstances look terrible to increase the amount of said payments if at all possible. Folks in that area are quite pragmatic.

The fact that the women were in an adjacent house is indicative of the fact that the "guests" were probably foreigners (read not from that tribe or area) and thus quite likely to have been the courier(s) alleged. Mounting an operation with two Chinooks and 60 people in an area nominally under NATO / German control is highly unlikely to have been undertaken without pretty firm evidence -- we're a rather risk averse nation nowadays -- and some thought.

Moral of the story is, I think, four fold:

Security force assistance is always a dirty, messy job.

One should be selective in ones guests.

The old media cliche, "If it bleed it leads" is still true -- worldwide, apparently.

Afghanistan hasn't changed much in several thousand years.

[Uboat509]

The sixty "Special Forces" in two Chinooks armed with silenced rifles who executed an Afghan after he begged them not to attack one of the buildings for fear of injuring women and children all pegged my BS meter. I don't know where the reporter got his info from but I'm just not buying a lot of it.

SFC W

[jmm99]

Here is the sequence of stories as I found them.

New York Times broke it the same day (22 Mar 2009); and the same version by AP was distributed by 24 Mar (where it showed up on Michael Moore com !). This story lacks the "detail" of the later April articles.

------------------------------
A much shorter version appeared on 23 Mar in the Peoples Weekly World. This is the old Daily Worker's successor (official newspaper of CPUSA). It led its story with "hundreds of Afghans" rallying re: the event (full story since it's short):

Author: Morning Star
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 03/23/09 12:32

Original source: morningstaronline.co.uk

Hundreds of Afghan citizens rallied for an end to the occupation of their country on Sunday after US-led forces killed five civilians in Kunduz Province.

According to Afghan officials, US soldiers broke into the house of Imam Sahib Mayor Abdul Manan before dawn and killed two of his bodyguards and three other employees including a cook and a driver.

The US insisted that the morning raid had targeted a "terrorist network" and asserted that the five killed in the operation were insurgents.

The Pentagon released a statement which asserted that the raid had involved Afghan police and targeted a "terrorist network."

But a senior Imam Sahib official rejected the suggestion, saying that Afghan police were neither involved in the operation nor aware of it.

And Kunduz governor Juma Din claimed that all the victims of the attack had been local-government employees.

The Afghan Interior Ministry said only that "five of our countrymen" had been killed in the mayor's house and a spokesman declined to label them as either militants or civilians.

Deputy provincial police chief Abdul Rahman Akhtash said that about 300 people had gathered in Imam Sahib to protest against the raid and the increasingly bloody occupation.

US and NATO officials insist that they are doing all they can to limit civilian casualties and observe that guerillas regularly operate in residential areas.

The highlighted urls lead nowhere as to "Morning Star" or its source.

---------------------------
The Stern story of 2 Apr adds details not found in the three above. Have no idea of sources.

--------------------------
The next round comes from Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) - read its About - which published the report of its "investigative probe", based on "extensive interviews with local people", on 16 Apr 2009 (it has some resemblence to the Stern article, but is much longer - too long to quote).

This report gave rise a number of reposts, e.g., at AlterNet on 17 Apr, which has this comment appended:

Killing civilians as usual
Posted by: john2007 on Apr 19, 2009 9:12 PM

There is absolutely no reason to believe the statements from Colonel Greg Julian about the killing of these people. Maybe he's telling the truth but it's more likely he is lying; after all, that's what they pay military spokesmen to do.

The elite troops that did the killing should be dragged into a military court and charged with murder. If it turns out the villagers are telling the truth then there should be severe punishment, including the death penalty.

We, as Americans need to start demanding that when our troops kill innocent civilians they are committing crimes against humanity as well as crimes against their fellow Americans.

I wonder whether john2007 is a general death penalty proponent - or does he reserve it only for US troops.

-------------------
I will neither analyse nor comment on this "stuff". I've learned that analysis of alleged war crimes requires a judicial record where evidence is subject to rules and cross-examination; and classified evidence can be reviewed and protected. Trial by media leads to john2007s.

[Schmedlap]

The same bits of information that pinged UBoat's BS-o-meter also pinged mine, so I presume that both of our meters are properly calibrated.

The less sensational story from the NY Times seems a little more believable. It would not be the first time that a US force hit the wrong target and used a bit too much force (black SOF, anyone?). The details in the BS story that were not present in the NY Times story sound to be entirely fabricated. When is the last time that you saw a Soldier take the time to discuss with a target whether or not he was going to shoot him? Makes no sense. Likewise for shooting people in their beds, especially if they went on to take prisoners (why not take the sleepers, as well?). And silenced rifles? Maybe it happens, but I've never seen a force conduct a raid on a building with silenced rifles. Seems a bit awkward and unnecessary. Shorter barrels seem to be the preferred tools.

I could fathom the real story being somewhat similar to the NY Times piece, with flabbergasted locals contriving the added details in the BS story in an attempt to draw attention. But even that is a stretch. Not having any additional information, I'm more inclined to believe the PAO. They have learned their lessons the hard way over the past 8 years. Honesty (and speedy disclosure) is the best policy and I think our PAO's know that.

[Surferbeetle]

This is a (my) translation of the first page of a Stern article of April 2nd.
"Stern" is one of the three major political weekly journals in Germany.
Circulation is about 950k, readership about 7.5 million.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_(Zeitschrift)

Ich habe gesucht fur Strategie von Versagen aber habe dieser Artikel bei Stern und Google News Deutschland nicht gefunden. I would be interested in seeing a url if this article made it to the web. Stern is certainly not the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung but neither is it Bild either.

Der Spiegel carried this article this morning Bundesregierung fordert Ende der Kriegsdebatte

Berlin - Trotz der steigenden Zahl getöteter Soldaten sieht die Kanzlerin keine Alternative zum Bundeswehreinsatz in Afghanistan. "Wir stehen hier weiterhin vor großen, vor schwierigen und vor gefährlichen Herausforderungen", sagte Angela Merkel am Donnerstag im Bundestag. "Aber ich sage auch: Ziel und Strategie des Einsatzes der Nato und unseres zivilen Engagements sind ohne vernünftige Alternative."

My quick translation:

Berlin-Despite the rising count of killed soldiers the Chancellor (fem.) does not see an alternative to the Bundeswehr element/mission in Afghanistan. "We continue to stand behind large, difficult, and dangerous challenges." said Angela Merkel on Thursday in the Bundestag (Lower House of German Parliment). "However I also say: The objective and strategy of the NATO element/mission and our civilian engagements are without reasonable alternatives."

Das Ziel sei, dass die Streitkräfte und die Polizeikräfte die Sicherheit des Landes selbst garantieren könnten. "Dazu bedarf es der internationalen Hilfe." Es gebe aber auch Fortschritte, wenn zum zweiten Mal ein Präsident gewählt werde.

My quick translation:

The objective is that the (Afghani) military and police forces can ensure the security of the country. "In order to do so will require international assistance." A second Presidential election however, will be making progress (towards this objective).

[Fuchs]

The story is entirely believable in my opinion, including the "begging" part (I assume he was interrogated meanwhile, but that was uninteresting for the author).

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Nationalities with a history of having been at least once on the evil side may understand this more easily than nationalities who are able to keep the illusion that they're always the 'good guys'.
This shouldn't be much of a problem in this forum,a s everyone here should be aware of enough military history, like the Philippine insurrection in the case of the U.S..

This is an important part of every war and should be understood by any student of war. The participation in a war means the commitment of war crimes. It's inevitable.

It's inappropriate to think of a clean record good guys army vs. a terrorist monster enemy because the real world looks grey - no matter whether veterans can accept that or not.

I've seen a lot of remarks over time that took press releases by OEF-A as gospel and true but beleievd in every atrocity of Talibans. That's badly misleading, as OEF-A was proved to have lied many times (and along the same patter as Western military lies since at least 1991) while likely not every atrocity attributed to Taliban is true and not every Taliban propaganda is untrue (except probably a standard exaggeration).

Fools believe in wartime propaganda, but students of war should see through this veil.


The article had an interesting quote that should be emphasized:

"What shall we do with democracy and elections if it's allowed to simply kill us?"

To create "security" for the population (if that's possible at all) is not just about keeping Taliban away. It's also about taming the own demons.

[J Wolfsberger]

The story is entirely believable in my opinion, including the "begging" part (I assume he was interrogated meanwhile, but that was uninteresting for the author).

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Nationalities with a history of having been at least once on the evil side may understand this more easily than nationalities who are able to keep the illusion that they're always the 'good guys'.
This shouldn't be much of a problem in this forum,a s everyone here should be aware of enough military history, like the Philippine insurrection in the case of the U.S..

This is an important part of every war and should be understood by any student of war. The participation in a war means the commitment of war crimes. It's inevitable.

It's inappropriate to think of a clean record good guys army vs. a terrorist monster enemy because the real world looks grey - no matter whether veterans can accept that or not.

I've seen a lot of remarks over time that took press releases by OEF-A as gospel and true but beleievd in every atrocity of Talibans. That's badly misleading, as OEF-A was proved to have lied many times (and along the same patter as Western military lies since at least 1991) while likely not every atrocity attributed to Taliban is true and not every Taliban propaganda is untrue (except probably a standard exaggeration).

Fools believe in wartime propaganda, but students of war should see through this veil.


The article had an interesting quote that should be emphasized:

"What shall we do with democracy and elections if it's allowed to simply kill us?"

To create "security" for the population (if that's possible at all) is not just about keeping Taliban away. It's also about taming the own demons.

Well, as long as it comes from trustworthy propaganda sources ...

It pegged my BS meter, too. Then this: "What shall we do with democracy and elections if it's allowed to simply kill us?" Oh, well. Meter busted.

Fuchs, there is so much in your post I vehemently disagree with that I don't know where to begin. Maybe this weekend when I have more time. Until then, you should follow your own advice: "Fools believe in wartime propaganda, but students of war should see through this veil."

[Entropy]

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Well, hey! Who needs evidence when we can let confirmation bias do our thinking for us?

You're right that a lot of bad things happen in war, but that doesn't mean one should believe every story that comes along. Doing so is simply enabling propaganda.

[Fuchs]

You two seem to have missed the difference between "believe" and "believable".

There are few certainties in war, and reports about actions are never certainly true.

All these "BS-meters" mentioned here may be fine - it's just important that they're not blind on one eye.

[Steve Blair]

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Fools believe in wartime propaganda, but students of war should see through this veil.

I'm quoting these two lines for a reason. There's a chance that the story as reported is true, BUT there's also a chance that the story did not happen as reported. As any student of war and history should know, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle (shaded toward one end or the other) and may never be found.

Obviously war brutalizes people. But it also enables sensationalist propagandists on BOTH sides of the spectrum. One source, no matter how appealing it may be to a person's innate views and biases, does not truth make. Any historian with an ounce of common sense and an education that stretches beyond one term paper should know this. All accounts are in some manner suspect, so a good historian (and a good reporter, although these seem to be few in number these days) gathers as many accounts as possible and then tries to distill a better view of what probably happened. Something students of war should keep in mind.

[Schmedlap]

The story is entirely believable in my opinion, including the "begging" part (I assume he was interrogated meanwhile, but that was uninteresting for the author).

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Fuchs,

I understand what you're saying. In a nutshell, people occasionally do very horrible things in war. But I think you are overlooking that some elements of the article make zero sense regardless of the intent of the individuals involved. In particular, silenced rifles for an air assault raid on a building? That makes no sense. First off, what is the value of silencing your gunfire if you lose the element of surprise immediately upon your arrival? Once inside the building, the silencer would extend the length of the barrel, making it more difficult to maneuver in the building and increase the odds of a malfunction (for example, if you strike the side of the silencer on a wall or doorway, this is more problematic than if you strike the end of a muzzle). This makes about as much sense as a unit opting to carry shotguns in lieu of rifles for a movement to contact. The assertion that this detail in the story is "BS" is not based upon the morality of the actors. It is based upon a straight-face test of, "is anybody really that stupid?" Certainly no professional force is that stupid, especially if it arrives at and then leaves the scene in two extremely loud Chinooks. Do you see why that particular piece of information does not make any sense? That is not to reject the article in its entirety, but just to highlight that some of the information in the article is highly suspect.

As I noted earlier, I do not reject the possibility that some atrocity occurred. I've had tasks associated with the mitigation of black SOF in Iraq dumped onto my lap before. There were at least a few occasions when they were, in my opinion, overly reckless. But we should temper our leaps to judgment by looking at each fact, rather than the story as a whole. We do not need to believe or reject the article in its entirety. We can recognize that some elements of the article may be believable and some are not. I see some believable elements of the German article, but see much of it as obvious fabrication.

In regard to the "IO" angle, the elements that I regard as obvious fabrication would most likely be seen by most Americans as "likely fabrication" so I don't think this article is all that troubling. It will appeal to people who already hold very skewed negative views of the US military. It is preaching to that choir, isolated in its echo chamber. For those who are indifferent or hold no strong opinions or who are predisposed to assuming no ill intent on the part of our Soldiers (which, thankfully, is still the vast majority of Americans), this will be perceived as just another crackpot article, assuming that anyone even notices it (which is pretty unlikely).

[Fuchs]

@Schmedlap

M4 carbines ("rifles" for civilians) of SOCOM are afaik often silenced.
This does almost eliminate the muzzle flash (important at night for eyesight, starlight scopes and stealth).
Silencers also reduce the battle noise very much (especially indoors), which improves communication.
The removal of the silencer changes the zero badly (much changed vibration of the barrel = much changed internal ballistics = difference between hit and miss at 250 m). So it's better to have it on all the time than to miss it critically when you need it.
In fact, the indigenous people had little chance of making this up because there was very little if any opportunity of getting familiar with silenced weapons. You don't add elements to a story if you don't know about the elements.

The use of silenced 'rifles' is therefore plausible and realistic.
That's a false BS meter alarm (or if right, then it's a random hit in my opinion.

- - - - -

I believe you're overly optimistic about the "crackpot article" thing.

There are three important regions for this:

1. U.S. : most likely doesn't get published there (at least not prominently)

2. Afghanistan : I've heard so many REALLY crackpot rumours from there that are supposedly well-regarded in much of its population that I'm strongly inclined to believe that such an affair does damage.
A thousand people joining the mourning the very next day reminds me A LOT of "accidental guerrilla" (I wish I would invent such catchy terms).

3. Europe : It got published in a conservative-leaning (conservatives are the most pro-U.S. party here) top 3 weekly political journal. Any more questions?

I have seen dozens of German mass media reports about reckless U.S. forces (and seriously, the U.S. forces have done a lot for that reputation since the Sudan bombing!) and not a single one about how U.S. soldiers are nice, build schools and dams (the usual reports in the early German ISAF years).


This wasn't the only example of horror stories about USSOCOM personnel.
I recall a report years ago when KSK members complained about the situation in Afghanistan. They were suddenly being trained for assassination missions.
One of their assertions in the article was that U.S. troops would and did kill civilians to merely keep their own location secret (it was pretty similar to the "Bravo Two Zero" story incident with the shepherd boy, when things started to go wrong).
That was if I remember correctly a story in Spiegel, a social-democrat biased and the most important German weekly political journal.


The behaviour of U.S. troops in Afghanistan isn't very relevant for our ISAF participation, though. That will exclusively be decided in coalition talks next fall and is therefore subject to political trades. The majority of the Germans (about 55-60%) has always been against our participation in ISAF.

A poor reputation can do significant political long-term damage, though.

[Schmedlap]

M4 carbines ("rifles" for civilians) of SOCOM are afaik often silenced.
This does almost eliminate the muzzle flash (important at night for eyesight, starlight scopes and stealth).
Silencers also reduce the battle noise very much (especially indoors), which improves communication.
The removal of the silencer changes the zero badly (much changed vibration of the barrel = much changed internal ballistics = difference between hit and miss at 250 m). So it's better to have it on all the time than to miss it critically when you need it.

When I was in the school house and when I was a 2LT, those were all reasons that I asserted for why we needed silencers/suppressors. Then my platoon sergeant pulled me aside and explained that, aside from the "no chance in hell" probability that we would get such toys, he went on to explain that while my schoolhouse theories were solid reasoning on paper, they broke apart brilliantly in practice - in particular for the reasons that I cited (barrel length, increased chance of malfunction) and he also pointed out that the issues raised (by you and I, to include noise and muzzle flash reduction) were largely irrelevant, especially when you white light the room and you're using monocular NVDs, rather than the old-school PVS-7s. Lastly, stealth is irrelevant, as I already noted, if one arrives and leaves in loud helicopters.

Again, I am not attacking the article in its entirely - just the tidbits that don't make sense.

[Uboat509]

M4 carbines ("rifles" for civilians) of SOCOM are afaik often silenced.

Not so much. Schmedlap has already discussed the problems with barrel length and the shear pointlessness of using a suppressed weapon after landing on a helicopter.

This does almost eliminate the muzzle flash (important at night for eyesight, starlight scopes and stealth).
Silencers also reduce the battle noise very much (especially indoors), which improves communication.

I have been doing this CQC thing for a while now and I have never even heard of anyone using suppressors for reducing battle noise for communication or reducing muzzle flash.

The removal of the silencer changes the zero badly (much changed vibration of the barrel = much changed internal ballistics = difference between hit and miss at 250 m). So it's better to have it on all the time than to miss it critically when you need it.

Relevant to snipers, not so much to assaulter's going into a building at night where combat ranges are typically 3-7 meters.

In fact, the indigenous people had little chance of making this up because there was very little if any opportunity of getting familiar with silenced weapons. You don't add elements to a story if you don't know about the elements.

The elements they describe could have come from any number of movies.

I could point out more things that peg my BS meter but really, there is nothing in this article that makes it sound like anting more than the type of fact-lite hit pieces that Sarajevo used to post.

SFC W