Share This Page

U.S. military denies role in alleged Afghan abductions, killings

| Monday, Feb. 25, 2013, 6:48 p.m.

KABUL — The U.S. military in Afghanistan has determined that its forces weren't involved in the alleged abduction and killing of civilians in a restive eastern province, officials said on Monday.

“In recent months, a thorough review has confirmed that no coalition forces have been involved in the alleged misconduct in Wardak province,” Lt. Col. Les Carroll, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said in a statement.

Nonetheless, the Afghan government moved ahead to expel U.S. special forces from Wardak province within two weeks, undeterred by fears the decision could leave the area and the neighboring capital more vulnerable to al-Qaida and other insurgents.

A joint commission of inquiry composed of Afghan and NATO coalition officials will explore the claims raised over the weekend by President Hamid Karzai's administration.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, asked at a news conference on Monday in London about Karzai's demand, said any concerns the Afghan government has will be “appropriately evaluated” by the international coalition.

Because special operations troops carry out classified missions, it is difficult to confirm their activities or links to local groups.

“The U.S. has had a long history in Afghanistan of working with some of these irregular militias that are not accountable to anyone,” said Sahr Muhammedally, legal adviser for the Center for Civilians in Conflict, who has studied such groups.

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.