Ready For A Bit Of The Old Ultra-Violence

So other than defeating lawyers with nonsense words what has been going on in Afghanistan during the Winter lull prior to the start of the fighting season?

Well, ISAF/Coalition/US forces are methodically pulling out of all those smaller bases we (and by "we" I mean all those folks who were here when I was chilling in Iraq) had slowly and painstakingly established over the years. In most cases ISAF is handing the bases and outposts over to Afghan forces who hopefully are willing and able to continue the counter-insurgency operations ISAF troops were doing before. So what occurs when ISAF begins pulling troops out of these bases?

Violence of course. Those Taliban/Haqqanni forces still operating during the winter are attacking the retrograding troops as they pull out of those bases. As there are less and less ISAF troops the Taliban increases its attacks in order to attempt to retake territory previously lost. The article linked just discusses US forces but believe me, it's happening to other coalition partners as well.

We're also removing threats as they pop up. The author of the article makes it sound like the Special Forces shot the individual in cold blood on a base but that really wasn't the situation at all. Shocking, a news article that isn't accurate. Two quotes from the article I'd like to bring up:

“Even if he was supporting the Taliban, did the Americans have the right to kill him?” said Wali Khan, a Parliament member from Helmand...
 

Yes, yes we did. Why? Because of this other quote:

Mr. Khan was on the American military’s list of people to be killed or captured, known as the Joint Prioritized Effects List, according to officials
 

Don't get on my list people. It probably won't end well.
.

Unicorns and Rainbows

About two weeks ago we had a target come up to my section for nomination that to me appeared pretty straight forward. Intel reporting stated that he was a weapons dealer for the Taliban and one of the reports mentioned a large amount of ammunition that he was acquiring.

The lawyer who reviewed the packet, however, determined that the reports just weren't quite good enough for them to fully approve the target. I argued the point about the report that mentioned the large quantities of ammunition and how from an analyst's perspective it was clear that he wasn't using that ammunition for good things. I was quite animated about it in fact and if you know me you know that I don't usually get worked up about things. The lawyer remained stubborn.

During the weekly update to the general about our target nominations the lawyer brought up her concerns about the target, specifically that only one report stated he was working for the Taliban and that the report of acquiring large quantities of ammunition didn't necessarily mean he was affiliated with the insurgency. Her argument was lengthy and I will admit, a bit convincing.

The general then looked at me for a rebuttal after the lawyer was finished, and I stated: "he's obviously not using *insert ammunition amount here* for unicorns and rainbows."

There was a bit of a stunned silence in the room as you can imagine. The general's reply?

"This target's good (for lethal nomination). Next."

I love beating a lawyer with nonsense.

Unless the ammo really was for rainbows and unicorns...oh hell, what have I done?