Taliban: Troop deaths were planned attack

A member of Afghan security forces inspects weapons seized in an operation east of Afghanistan on November 29.The Taliban says the gunman had been plotting an attack all alongThe border polcie says Hezatullah was a trusted memberThe Pentagon confirms 6 U.S. service members were killed Monday ISAF: Gunman in an Afghan Border police uniform opened fire

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A gunman in an Afghan Border Police uniform who killed six U.S. troops was a reliable officer who had been with the force for three years, a senior official said Wednesday.

But the Taliban claimed that Hezatullah had been a member of the militant group who joined the border police precisely to launch an attack on U.S. forces.

Six U.S. troops died Monday when a gunman opened fired on NATO-led service members, the Pentagon said.

Hezatullah, a 23-year-old who goes by one name, was a trusted member of the border police and had been receiving training from coalition forces, said Aminullah Amarkhil, commander of the border police in eastern Nangarhar province.

"Afghan and NATO forces have launched a joint investigation into this incident, and preliminary reports suggest that there is no reason to believe that Hezatullah was not trustworthy," Amarkhil said.

But Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed responsibility for the attack and said Hezatullah had been planning such an assault all along.

"He has been waiting for the right moment, and now he finally achieved his goal." Mujahid said.

CNN could not independently confirm the Taliban claim.

The shooting broke out during a training mission in eastern Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force said in a news release. A joint Afghan and ISAF team is investigating.

The suspect also was killed in the incident, the ISAF said.

Spokesman David Lapan confirmed the deaths, and said no names are being released pending notification of the families.

View the original article here

Daily View: North Korea attack

Commentators consider what could have triggered North Korea's artillery attack on South Korea.

Senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Cambridge, John Swenson-Wright says in the Independent there may be an internal reason for the attack:

"[A]t a time when the North has been grappling with weak economic conditions, food shortages brought about by flooding and the uncertainty surrounding the succession process for the young heir Kim Jong-un, the government may be looking to a foreign crisis as a means of shoring up support at home. Conflict abroad can mobilise domestic opinion, reinforcing the position of the military and legitimising a leadership in transition."

In the Times Bronwen Maddox says [registration required] the latest artillery attack comes at a time when the Kim regime struggles to maintain its isolation:

"Life in the North continues to be harsh, plagued by shortages of food and energy. But those living there can now compare their lives with the South, as television and film from south of the border are increasingly available. Those governments who protest - in vain, so far - at the flood of counterfeit DVDs from China washing around the globe might take comfort from their effect in North Korea. Even that regime cannot keep them out, and the films show North Koreans that another life could be - and should be - theirs."

The English language South Korean newspaper the Dong-A Ilbo points the blame squarely at Kim Jong Il, saying the attack was planned:

"The North attacked Yeonpyeong Island after unveiling new uranium enrichment facilities to an American nuclear expert as recently as two weeks ago. Obviously, Pyongyang thoroughly planned and prepared to launch Tuesday's attack.
"The North staged the aggression by protesting the joint 'Patriotic Drill' conducted by the South Korean armed forces from Monday. The South Korean military simply carried out artillery exercises in South Korean waters west of Baeknyeong Island and south of Yeonpyeong Island inbetween the two islands Tuesday morning. Having tried to find an opportunity to blame the South, the North launched the attack."

The International Herald Tribune's editorial says it is difficult to tell why the conflict has come about now:

"It is nearly impossible to know what is going on there, but these outbursts are almost certainly tied to the struggle over replacing the ailing leader, Kim Jong-il."

While Simon Tisdall is more confident in the Guardian, saying there is no mystery behind North Korea's actions as their demands have been clear for years:

"First, the regime wants respect, through recognition of its legitimacy, however distasteful that idea may be. Second, it wants a peace treaty - finally ending the Korean war - that guarantees its territorial sovereignty and banishes the spectre of regime change (they watched the Iraq movie, too).
"Third, Kim wants an end to international sanctions and diplomatic isolation - the monicker of America's chief bogeyman is no longer for him. Fourth, he wants food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse."

View the original article here