FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM


(Click on photo to see infomation)

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Deadly Attack in Kabul: January 18, 2010 by Dr. Jack Kem

Monday morning at around 10:30 we heard the first explosion – it was obviously a small explosion (unlike a car bomb), so the assumption was that we heard the explosion that came from a suicide vest. Not long after we heard the distinctive “rat-a-tat-tat” from AK rifles, a clear sign that the Afghans forces were responding to the situation.

Not long after there was another explosion; this one was still a small explosion, but closer… but the shooting was obviously out in the Afghan version of the “Green Zone” where Afghans are responsible for security. The small arms fire wasn’t constant, but instead a quick series of gunfire punctuated by silence as we wondered what was really happening.

Naturally, the best source of news was the TV – and, in Kabul, the best source (at least in English) is Al Jazeera. The story was reported clearly and accurately – and before long the picture showed some of the buildings on fire. A look out the window at the billowing smoke confirmed that the fighting was close – not all that close, but close enough to hear the gunfire, the explosions, and evidence of the buildings on fire.

It wasn’t long before the gunfire died down, and the loudest noise was the sound of a number of helicopters flying overhead, including Afghan MI-35 gunships. It also wasn’t long before the coverage on Al Jazeera switched back and forth between the situation in Kabul and events in the rest of the world.

It was a tragedy. Innocent civilians and Afghan soldiers and policemen were killed and wounded; the relative calm of Kabul was interrupted by a daring complex attack by the Taliban. Amidst the tragedy, however, the response by the Afghan Army and Police was immediate, and was led by Afghans. In less than five hours the situation was under control – which sounds (and feels) like a long time, but is quite an achievement when compared to recent terrorist attacks in major cities in other countries.

Dexter Filkins of the New York Times wasn’t far away. He posted a blog entitled “A Little Too Close to the Battle in Kabul” where he described the scene:

The war in Afghanistan does not come often to its capital. By and large the fight unfolds in the countryside, where the insurgents are, where the people live. For a capital at war, Kabul on most days is a remarkably quiet place, with daily life unfolding in its ordinary way. In this respect, it differs vastly from the capital city of that other American war, Baghdad, where the guerrillas and terrorists and government soldiers fought and died every morning for years.

Yet there the insurgents were, not 50 yards from the palace of President Hamid Karzai, trying to fight their way into one of the country’s most important institutions. They’d come wrapped in baggy shawls, under which they’d hidden their guns and grenades and suicide vests. First dozens, then hundreds of Afghans rolled toward the fight, some in uniform, some in slacks, some with polished American gear, some with the rusting antiquated junk left behind from the Soviet epoch.

And they fought. The Afghan soldiers were undisciplined and chaotic, but no one flinched and everyone fired. They rushed to the battle like kids to a school yard brawl. After three decades of uninterrupted warfare, that’s the way it is here.

Daniel Korski wrote a blog on the U.K. Spectator Coffee House Blog entitled “Deadly attack in Kabul = Taliban on the defensive” on January 19, 2010, where he provided his perspective:

Many will claim that the Taliban’s recent attack in Kabul shows how powerful the insurgency has become. No doubt the psychological impact – the real aim of all terrorists - will be felt for some time. Faroshga market, one of the city’s most popular shopping malls, lay in ruins and the normally bustling streets of Kabul emptied.

But the attack was an operational failure. All seven militants died in the attack; five were gunned down and two killed themselves. Three soldiers and two civilians — including one child — were killed. Seventy-one others were injured, including 35 civilians, but the majority are only slightly wounded. Such a toll must frustrate the Taliban’s leaders, watching the event from afar. Like previous attacks in Kabul, the local security forces seemed to have acted professionally and courageously. Compared to the Mumbai attack or even their previous commando-style raid on the Serena hotel, this attack was unimpressive.

It is more likely that the Taliban has been feeling the pressure and are on the defensive. The US, streaming soldiers into the south, will take the fight to the Taliban and aim to hold territory. The Karzai government, meanwhile, has begun talking up lavish new incentives of jobs and training for defectors. The world’s attention has moved on, first to Copenhagen and now Haiti. If there is one thing terrorists hate, truly hate, it is to be forgotten. What better way to remind the world that they exist than to strike in Kabul?

It wasn’t a good day for Kabul, but it was a worse day for the Taliban. The Afghan Security Forces responded to a threat to their capital, and will no doubt gain confidence and learn from the experience. Perhaps the most telling story of this confidence and leadership was related by Dexter Filkins in his blog:

“Should I abandon my post?” an Afghan soldier shouted into his radio.

“Stay!” his commander barked back, guns booming all around. “Stay at your post and fight!”

No comments:

Post a Comment