E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn light of recent attacks, troops are told to "build trust, but make sure you have a bodyguard present." NBC's Richard Engel reports.
Updated at 5:54 p.m. ET: An apparent insider attack by Afghan forces has killed a U.S. service member and a contractor, officials said Sunday – bringing the total number of U.S. troops killed inside Afghanistan to 2,000 according to some measures.
A U.S. official confirmed the latest death in the 11-year-old conflict on Sunday.
The American service member killed was a soldier. The American contractor was working as a trainer for either the Afghan army or police, according to NBC News.
On Saturday night, an Afghan soldier approached Americans, killing a soldier and a contractor; with that, the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan is around 2,100 in the United States' 11-year-war in the country. Insider attacks have become increasingly common – and no one seems to have a good answer about how to stop them. NBC's Lester Holt and Richard Engel report from Kabul.
The attack happened Saturday at a checkpoint on a highway in Wardak Province, a defense official said. Two Afghan National Army soldiers approached the checkpoint and had a brief conversation with the troops there. One of the ANA soldiers then shot and killed the American service members and the contractor, officials told NBC News.
With a suspected "insider" attack at a checkpoint. the US military has suffered its 2,000th death in the war in Afghanistan. NBC's Atia Abawi and Mike Viqueira report.
A brief firefight ensued, and left at least three Afghan Army soldiers dead - including the initial shooter, officials said.
The Afghan military claimed the Americans were killed by a mortar attack, but the American military insisted that is not true, that the Afghan soldier opened fire and they returned fire.
The dead U.S. soldier was identified as Sgt. 1st Class Riley G. Stephens, 39, of Tolar, Texas. Stephens was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), based at Fort Bragg, N.C.
The U.S. toll in Afghanistan has climbed steadily in recent months with a spate of attacks by Afghan army and police against American and NATO troops, and questions about whether allied countries will achieve their aim of helping the Afghan government and its forces stand on their own after most foreign troops depart in little more than two years. The U.S. is preparing to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that the latest death was the 2,000th member of the U.S. armed services killed inside Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion on Oct. 7, 2001. However, that AP figure did not include those who died after sustaining injuries in Afghanistan or those killed in other countries as part of the same campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
TODAY's Lester Holt heads down the road to Sangasar, the physical and spiritual heart of the Taliban. He speaks with American and Afghan soldiers along the way.
According to icasualties.org, an independent monitoring organization which uses the wider definition, the latest death brings the toll of U.S. service members to 2035. At least a further 1,190 coalition troops have also died in the Afghanistan war, it says.
The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based research center, said 40.2 percent of the deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices, with the majority of those after 2009 when President Barack Obama ordered a surge of 33,000 troops to combat heightened Taliban activity. According to the Washington-based research center, the second highest cause, 30.6 percent, was hostile fire.
Tracking civilian deaths is much more difficult. According to the U.N., 13,431 civilians were killed in the Afghan conflict between 2007, when the U.N. began keeping statistics, and the end of August. Going back to the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, most estimates put the number of Afghan deaths in the war at more than 20,000.
The 2001 invasion targeted al-Qaida and its Taliban allies after the Sept. 11 attacks, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives in the United States.
"The tally is modest by the standards of war historically, but every fatality is a tragedy and 11 years is too long," Michael O'Hanlon, a fellow at the Brookings, told the AP. "All that is internalized, however, in an American public that has been watching this campaign for a long time. More newsworthy right now are the insider attacks and the sense of hopelessness they convey to many. "
Attacks by Afghan soldiers or police — or insurgents disguised in their uniforms — have killed 52 American and other NATO troops so far this year.
The so-called insider attacks are considered one of the most serious threats to the U.S. exit strategy from the country. In its latest incarnation, that strategy has focused on training Afghan forces to take over security nationwide — allowing most foreign troops to go home by the end of 2014.
As American troops draw out of Afghanistan, officials say the removal plan is on track but that time is precious and the Taliban threat is worrisome. NBC's Lester Holt reports.
Although Obama has pledged that most U.S. combat troops will leave by the end of 2014, American, NATO and allied troops are still dying in Afghanistan at a rate of one a day.
Even with 33,000 American troops back home, the U.S.-led coalition will still have 108,000 troops — including 68,000 from the U.S. — fighting in Afghanistan at the end of this year. Many of those will be training the Afghan National Security Forces that are to replace them.
"There is a challenge for the administration," O'Hanlon said, "to remind people in the face of such bad news why this campaign requires more perseverance."
The Associated Press and NBC News' Courtney Kube and Atia Abawi, in Kabul, contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Afghan generation comes of age, post-Taliban fall
- Trial of pope's ex-butler over leaked papers begins
- In Iran, sanctions bite and currency collapses
- 'Lady whisperer': Cabbie snaps topless female passengers
- Officials: Terrorist groups in Libya tried to unite
- Women on ballot in Palestinian city's 1st election in decades
- 'Overwhelmed' aid agencies seek $340M to help Syria refugees
- Free speech? Egypt cleric burns Bible pages at US Embassy
- Italy rocked by corruption, drug scandals
- Libya leader to NBC: Film had 'nothing to do with' consulate attack
- Royal censorship? BBC 'sorry' for daring to report queen's comments
- China brings 1st aircraft carrier into service, joining 9-nation club
- Robbers try to blow up ATM, but blow up entire bank instead
- Ancient land of 'Beringia' gets protection from US, Russia
- Stay informed: Sign up for our newsletter
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Afghanistan is an occupied country by foreign forces who have established an illegal and oppressive puppet government. Where suffering, unemployment and hunger is at a staggering rate. Using the fake excuse of spreading democracy and freedom the United States and it's imperialist cronies of NATO have killed or maimed over 1 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan, have tortured, imprisoned, sport killed, urinated on, destroyed infrastructure, bombed and dashed any hope and aspirations of a whole generation of children in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the legacy of the United States Imperialist Empire. Is it no wonder that the people of Afghanistan harbor resentment and hatred toward the occupiers?
To punish an entire nation for the deeds of a few radical terrorists who by the way where not even Iraqi or Afghani but most Saudi's is bizarre and irrational. For Obama to continue the killing and oppression is worse than the original crime committed in the heat of the moment, not that the "heat of the moment" justifies these crimes against humanity.
The Afghan people have a right under international law, and more than that a duty to repel the invaders and occupiers by any means possible under international law. It not the people of Afghanistan that are the criminals but the occupiers. The Capitalist media wrings their hands and cries foul and makes excuses for the imperialist policies of Washington instead of pointing out the illegality of US and NATO's invasion and occupation.
It is a tragedy on both sides, Americans or Afghans dying, both are victims of a sick and relentless government driven by greed and the insatiable desire for power and world domination.
looks like obama is a good at creating jobs for undertakers and grave diggers........
"There is a challenge for the administration," O'Hanlon said, "to remind people in the face of such bad news why this campaign requires more perseverance."
...and it requires more perseverance because??
Ru,
Do you know how to count? I find it about 5-1 in his favor here on this issue. It can and has run 10-1. That is because the Jack Parks and comments was eliminated from the list.
Obama just doesn't care about this country and doesn't have any answers to correct our economic problems, unemployment, housing crisis, national debt and the 2,000 dead, "bumps in the road" in Afghanistan. The man is totally absorbed with "himself", obviously narcissistic and delusional. His remarks on the "View" this week, referring to himself as "eye-candy" (while the entire world is getting ready to explode in anarchy and war) is yet another symptom of his mental health instability.
These brave servicemen were unfortunate cannon fodders arising from US ill-concieved Afgan policy.
More troops killed in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush, and the democrats and media are silent on it. No protestors at Obama's Chicago home like those at the Bush ranch. When the democrats are the ones in charge with a worthless war no one cares.
Thank you so much G W.Bush for causing the deaths, injuries to our soldiers. Plus billions of dollars of tax payer money for nothing in this S-it hole country. The only saving grace is that for the 2,000 brave American souls we lost over there we killed 50,000 plus of these sheet wearing SOB's.
Under Bush, it was Us and the Afghan government against
the Taliban. Now, it's Us against the Taliban and the
Afghan government. Obama has turned Afghanistan into
friggin' Vietnam.
Jerry, if you think the Afghan government welcomed an invading force in their country you are sadly mistaken.
The U. S. should have gotten out of this years ago instead of prolonging it. The troops belong here on our shores protecting it instead of being the world's police. We have lost countless men and women who should have been home with their families instead of fighting some 'Vietnam' war where everyone is tired of it and would like to forget about it.
Liberals love war. Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Frankin Roosevelt, Harry Truman (WWII), John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam), Barack Obama (Afghanistan). Liberals only hate wars when a Republican is president.
WWI and WWII were wars of necessity. JFK wanted and planned on getting us out of Vietnam. Obama didn't start the Afghan war though he is going to end it.
LBJ badly misread the Vietnam war.
Bush started two wars, one illegally and one he walked away from to start another (without removing the troops).
In other words, your comment is inane and makes me think you don't read very much.
I repeat. Liberals love Democrat wars regardless of who started them. Liberals like to make excuses for Democrats going into or staying in wars forever. It took a Republican to get out of Vietnam. People close to Clinton said he wish 9/11 had happened under his watch. Fat interns were boring.
so you cannot refute the fact that your post if false.
How is my post false? It's pretty obvious liberals love Democrat wars. You can call it necessity, misread or whatever, but you haven't heard much negative about the wars from the Sarandons, Moores, Streisands, Sheehans and Hanois the last four years, have you? If McCain had been elected and we are where we are now, do you think the libs would be so quiet? Even you can't say being in Afghanistan four years later is a acceptable. Bin Laden has been dead for two years.
I just explained how WWI and WWII are wars of necessity that any republican predicent would have done the same thing. I also explained that JFK wanted out of Vietnam. LBJ, I agree with you.
Most GOPer's that I've heard wanted us to stay in Iraq and all want us to stay in Afghanistan. Romney's response to the question of how long we should stay in Afghanistan was "until we win". Obama put together a timetable to get us out of Afghanistan, where most of the right wing wants us to stay indefinitely.
Democrats start wars of necessity, except LBJ, right wing starts wars of discretion (or lack thereof).
Put another way, which war do you think democrats started that didn't need to be started?
Obama is showing Democrats are no better. So much for Nobel Peace Prize. I wonder why the Middle East is burning Obama in effigy? If you can't get out of Afghanistan in four years, that means you love war. Obama recently said we will still be in Afghanistan in 2014.
Road, to your original post, what evidence do you present that "liberals love war"?
That was your contention, right?
Right wing coudn't get out of Iraq in 8 years. Does that mean right wing "loves wars"?
In other words, regardless of our agenda, let's at least be mature and thoughtful in our posts.
How much longer do our service men and women have to put in harms way? How much longer do we have to keep the war machine chugging along? Why are we really over in Afghanistan, a country who's inhabitants could care less if we are there protecting their turf. Now if that isn't enough, there is talk of starting a war with the nut job in Iran. The military contractors who build the weapons get rich and our service people pay the ultimate price. Enough with this madness already.