Afghan military gunned down US troops

The US military contingent in Afghanistan continues to suffer losses. Often, attacks on US soldiers occur from militants deployed in the ranks of the Afghan security forces.

American media report that during a joint operation in the province of Nangarhar, a shootout occurred between US troops and Afghan forces, which resulted in deaths on both sides.

Later it became known that American soldiers were attacked by a man in the form of Afghan government forces, who opened fire on them from a machine gun.

According to Colonel Sonny Leggett, spokesman for the US forces in Afghanistan, two US troops were killed and six others injured in the attack.

According to him, representatives of the military department continue to investigate the causes and motives of the attack.

Perhaps, in this case, the Americans once again faced with the so-called “insider” attacks, when the attack is carried out by a fighter who has been introduced into the local armed forces or security service and does not cause suspicion.

It should be noted that the places of basing and military personnel of the government forces of Afghanistan are more often attacked by militants and suffer losses that are several times greater than the losses of Americans.
  • Photos used:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
    Afinogen (Afinogen) 9 February 2020 10: 35
    It is not clear what such thoughtful Americans are doing there? Why do they need this Afghanistan? There is no oil and no gas. Their presence there is very expensive. They made their bases impregnable fortresses and sit in them, almost never leaving and not controlling anything, plus they pay big money to local gangs for security so that they are not touched. There are even "showdowns" among the gangs for the right to protect the Americans, this is good money. And since they are guarded by nearby gangs (there is simply not enough money for everything), the goods to these bases have to be delivered by air. And it’s not cheap.
    1. Pivander Offline Pivander
      Pivander (Alex) 9 February 2020 11: 40
      Drugs, sir, drugs. A lot of opiates for export.
      1. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
        Afinogen (Afinogen) 9 February 2020 11: 46
        Well, firstly, criminal structures are involved in drugs, not state ones. Secondly, all drugs in Afghanistan and 10% will not cover all the colossal costs that Americans spend on the maintenance of all bases.
        1. Pivander Offline Pivander
          Pivander (Alex) 9 February 2020 11: 49
          That's right - State, criminal structures. About "not cover" - ridiculous. Only what goes for the needs of the pharmaceutical industry of the States themselves pays for the entire project. The rest is a cash profit of tens of billions.
    2. beeper Offline beeper
      beeper 9 February 2020 12: 07
      Drug and emeralds are more expensive and more liquid than oil and gas, Athenogen (Plus for me from you for the right question! good ).
      To finance the operations of special services and undermine the enemy’s gene pool, this is just that. winked
      In addition, the long, with a complex mountainous terrain, Afghan border with post-Soviet Central Asia opens up scope for agents to penetrate into their territory, smuggling weapons and drugs.
      The same is true on the border with the packs, Persians and Chinese!
      So, this is all the sphere of American strategic interests - we can say that there is already a whole bunch of them here!
      Great Britain, the USSR, and now the United States, not in vain sought to gain a foothold in Afghanistan!

      1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
        A.Lex (Secret information) 10 February 2020 08: 12
        And no one really conquered them (although the Soviets were INVITED by the government there).
        1. beeper Offline beeper
          beeper 10 February 2020 14: 58
          Our Soviet Union there was no task to conquer Afghanistan!
          But the peaceful settlement was impeded by the growing intervention and anti-Soviet arming of local tribes from the United States and NATO, China, Iran and Pakistan, which thereby solved their own tasks (including purely mercantile ones - increasing sales of their weapons and ammunition, equipment and medicines) against the backdrop of an escalation of the armed struggle (tribal, between the opposition and the DRA government, and against OKSVA).
          So, with the Americans, the saying goes -

          For that fought for it and ran!

          - they diligently "set the trend" that war is more profitable for Afghan farmers than trade or hard work on a piece of land!
          I think that these anti-American actions can also be a "reflection" of Chinese, Iranian and Pakistani interests, projected through their own connections among Afghan tribes, developed back in the years of the struggle against OKSVA ?!
          1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
            A.Lex (Secret information) 10 February 2020 20: 56
            You have forgotten one more thing - the creation of tension, instability, and simply a war on the border of the USSR, and the fact that a lot of people will die there, they don’t care at all - they don’t die. That's why I think that they understand all this horror and the enormity of their crimes, they must get a civil war on their land!
            1. beeper Offline beeper
              beeper 11 February 2020 04: 23
              hi I have not forgotten anything, A. Lex, and I remember well the gangs of Afghan Basmachi (I will not call them Mujahideen!) Who were rushing across our border and opposed by our Soviet border guards. He was well acquainted with one of the participants in "those battles of the unknown" and in the raids of moto-maneuvering groups of PV.