Share This Page

Casualties sharply higher for Afghan troops, police

| Friday, Nov. 8, 2013, 9:57 p.m.

WASHINGTON — As the United States withdraws combat forces from Afghanistan, Afghan police and army units are suffering a sharply higher casualty rate and, in some cases, have negotiated local nonaggression pacts with insurgents to avoid coming under attack, according to a Pentagon report.

Afghan army and police casualties have soared by 79 percent this year, while casualties from the international coalition have fallen by 59 percent, according to the congressionally mandated report, which covers developments in Afghanistan from April to September.

The casualty shift has emerged as Afghan troops have taken the lead in combat operations. U.S. forces, other than special operations units, in most cases no longer join combat missions as the clock ticks down toward a full pullout by the end of next year. About 39,000 U.S. troops are in the country.

The Pentagon report paints a mixed picture of Afghan security after 12 years of war. It warns that the Afghan police and armed forces could be overwhelmed by Islamist insurgents unless Washington and its allies provide financial support and training when their troops leave.

Afghan forces “will be at high risk” without foreign aid and military assistance, including advisers, the report concludes. With such assistance, it adds, they “will remain on a path towards an enduring ability to overmatch the Taliban.”

The White House has been trying since last year to negotiate an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for some troops to remain after 2014.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.