On the front page of the New York Times today
is an article written by Matthew Rosenberg explaining that 2012 has seen an increase of “green on blue” attacks, or Afghan army members attacking members of the US army.
You should read the article. It’s well-written (by that I mean, hey, nice prose), but it doesn’t really answer much—at all. The article simply states a fact—US army members are being attacked more frequently by Afghan army personnel—but when get to the end of the article you arrive at a one paragraph explanation of motives saying essentially “hey, those haven’t been released yet.”
The detainee has since presumably been asked those questions. But in a reflection of the official reticence to discuss green-on-blue attacks, his answers remain shrouded in secrecy. It is not even clear whose custody he is in.
The detainee in question is the third member of the Afghan army to partake in the March 1st attack. The fact no one even knows whose custody he’s in should sound alarms to anyone reading this piece.
There is something about these attacks the public is not supposed to know which is an indication that these attacks can probably be explained by something more than, “they just went crazy” or “the Taliban got to them.”