Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Civilian Deaths Undermind Allies' War on Taliban

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Poll: Most in Afghanistan Say Life Better

    7 Dec. Associated Press - Poll: Most in Afghanistan Say Life Better.

    More than three-fourths of the people living in Afghanistan say living conditions, security from crime and freedom of expression have improved from the days when they were living under Taliban rule, an ABC News poll says.

    Almost nine in 10 - 87 percent - say the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 was a good thing for the people of Afghanistan. And three-fourths of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction...

  2. #2
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default Conservative MP: We are losing Afghan hearts

    Telegraph opinion piece by Conservative MP Adam Holloway.

    In Helmand I learned that while the Afghans want us there, it is so that we provide precisely that reconstruction and security. We the British talk a good plan in terms of development and governance.

    The only problem is that we are not delivering our "comprehensive approach". The Department for International Development's contribution has been woeful.

    "They sit in their office in the British base and write reports for London," said one local.

    Only a few months ago the Taliban were a remote force, but now, as one person put it, "they are not in the mountains - they are in the houses." Not a mile from the British base fly white Taliban flags.

    A friend of mine narrowly missed abduction recently just the other side of the river from Lash Kar Gar, the provincial capital. Some families are said to be sending a son to work with the Taliban - to protect the poppy fields, and for $10 a day. Our Royal Engineers have built checkpoints on the edges of Lash Kar Gar, but the Afghan army are said to be too afraid to man them at night - so security, even in this centre of an "Afghan Development Zone", remains an aspiration. Other checkpoints merely provide cover from view for Afghan police to rob road users. The Afghan government's department of health is reported to ask Taliban permission before carrying out child inoculations in most rural areas: this is "peace through reality".

    ...

    Of course my knowledge is based on imperfect information, but I think we are contributing to the insurgency. While Afghans have cheered our troops following engagements with the Taliban, there seemed to be a widespread feeling amongst the people I spoke to in Lash Kar Gar that we are killing a lot of people through bombing, that there are many thousands of displaced people from the north, that people in the north are angry with the British, and that the Taliban are the only people who can protect poppy crops. In a sense it does not matter whether or not this is true. What matters is that they have come to think this, and that the Taliban exploit this and so are winning the information war.

    Most families in Helmand are in some way involved in opium production. While the US wants mass eradication programmes, the Royal Marines believe that eradication fuels the insurgency, and that unless you have some sort of alternative lifestyle for people you should not destroy poppy. The UK might be the "lead" nation on drugs, yet we continue to help with eradication and recently supplied - via the Royal Logistics Corps base in Kandahar - 80 tractors for the purpose. So we are effectively throwing resources at a policy that results in increased violence against our troops. One official told me that we had to do some eradication, otherwise the US would steam in and do a lot more - so our eradication is a means of managing the US, not a means of managing insurgency.

    ...

    We are in Afghanistan for the right reasons. Ministers rightly point to the many good things that are happening beyond the military activity, and you don't change a society like this in seven days. Our troops are keeping their side of the bargain and performing with great heroism, buying time for development and governance initiatives to take hold. But the Armed Forces are being let down by the absence of these things.

    A major reason that Iraq has not been a success is because, as a coalition, we failed to get to grips with the most basic need of the Iraqi people: security. Our Government needs to wake up to the real possibility of another strategic failure in Afghanistan if we do not turn words into action very, very soon. We can still do something about it, but there's not much time. If we do not, it will not only be the Afghan people who will be in greater danger: Britain will be as well.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default Civilian Deaths Undermind Allies' War on Taliban

    ZERKOH, Afghanistan, May 9 — Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance.

    Afghan, American and other foreign officials say they worry about the political toll the civilian deaths are exacting on President Hamid Karzai, who last week issued another harsh condemnation of the American and NATO tactics, and even of the entire international effort here.....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/wo...ef=todayspaper

  4. #4
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    “We know that the Taliban hide in villages. The job that we have not done as well is making it clear to European publics that it’s the Taliban who are exploiting the civilians."

    One senior NATO official said that “without air, we’d need hundreds of thousands of troops” in the country.

    The above two citations are from the story, the first from "a senior American official." The curious thing to me is neither official seems to care much about what the Afghan villagers think.

  5. #5
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Of course one of the joys of the media is that you never know what might have been said that wasn't considered worthy of inclusion in the story....

    That said, I'm sure that NATO relies too much on fire support. Why? Because it's the way they're trained to operate. Techniques don't always change, even when they should. That's one of the great "Catch 22s" of COIN.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #6
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    “We know that the Taliban hide in villages. The job that we have not done as well is making it clear to European publics that it’s the Taliban who are exploiting the civilians."

    One senior NATO official said that “without air, we’d need hundreds of thousands of troops” in the country.
    Quote one is irrrelevant because the European publics are not the the objective; it is the "civilians" who know for sure that the Taliban do not have airpower. That the Taliban are "exploiting" them hardly compares to high explosive.

    Quote two is equally irrelevant. Continued bombing with resultant civilian deaths will elminate any need for "hundreds of thousands of troops" by losing the war.

    Best

    Tom

  7. #7
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Karzai Decries Civilian Deaths

    24 June Washington Post - Karzai Decries Civilian Deaths by Griff Witte.

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai chastised U.S. and NATO-led troops Saturday for their "careless operations" and accused them of killing more than 90 civilians in the past 10 days, as fresh reports emerged of more noncombatant deaths.

    Using some of his strongest language yet against the foreign forces that occupy his country, Karzai asserted that "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such."

    "We do not want any more military operations without coordinating them with the Afghan government," a visibly angry Karzai said at a news conference in Kabul, the capital. "From now onwards, they have to work the way we ask them to work in here."

    It was unclear late Saturday whether Karzai's statement indicated that he plans to formally restrict the operations of the 32,000 NATO-led troops and 21,000 U.S.-led troops who patrol Afghanistan...

  8. #8
    Council Member Mark O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default His concerned is echoed..

    Our (Australian) Defence Minister had this to say today:

    Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has rung his Dutch counterpart to express his concern after Afghan President Hamid Karzai accused NATO troops of carelessly killing scores of Afghan civilians.

    And:

    "Given the Australian government's concerns regarding civilian casualties, ... Dr Nelson has spoken with his counterpart in The Netherlands, Eimert Van Middelkoop to discuss the operation and express his concerns."

    ADF chief Angus Houston has also spoken with his Dutch counterpart, General Dick Berlijn, to discuss the operation generally including civilian casualties, defence said.

    ADF vice-chief Ken Gillespie also has been in direct contact with the Dutch national commander in Afghanistan, and has told the Australian Reconstruction Task Force commander in Uruzgan to ensure that his views are expressed to the commander in Uruzgan province.

    More at the link:

    http://http://www.smh.com.au/news/wo...623734777.html

  9. #9
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Civilian Casualties in COIN

    And this would be exactly why I wrote this piece for SWJ.

    This really requires a fundamental shift in thinking and conventional conflict thinking is deeply entrenched in Western militaries. NATO forces are no different. I am beginning to believe that the role of political advisors must be filled by those with a law enforcement and law enforcement policy background.

    Best

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 06-24-2007 at 12:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Hi Tom, if you get a chance watch a news clip of him being interviewed. He flatly states "That you can not enforce your Western ideas of police and military actions on us. we want help with training local police drawn from local communities. And help building our own Army." I would post a link but I saw it on TV last night and can not remember which station but it is out there and he was Pissed!!!

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    USIP, 16 Aug 07: Hearts and Minds: Afghan Opinion on the Taliban, the Government and the International Forces
    Since the election of new leaders and the establishment of a new constitution, the government of Afghanistan has been trying to prove its legitimacy and ability to foster stability, security, and the rule of law. The Taliban resurgence is playing a major role in public perception of the government’s competence and the role of the international forces. Understanding current trends in public opinion can aid in tailoring the international intervention to ensure that prior progress is not lost and that elements corroding the strength of the state are diminished.

    Opinion polls, focus group results, and interviews in Afghanistan were discussed by a panel of experts at a meeting of the Institute’s Afghanistan Working Group on July 18, 2007. Panelists included Craig Charney , principal, Charney Opinion Research; and Tom Periello, consultant, International Center for Transitional Justice and fellow, the Century Foundation. J Alexander Thier, senior rule of law advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace, served as moderator. Following is a summary of the views expressed by the speakers and the audience during the meeting. It does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not take policy positions.....

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    U.S. Killed 90, Including 60 Children, in Afghan Village, U.N. Finds

    By CARLOTTA GALL
    New York Times
    Published: August 26, 2008


    KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in airstrikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Friday, according to the United Nations mission in Kabul.

    If the assertion proves to be correct, this would almost certainly be the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001.

    The United Nations statement adds pressure to the United States military, which maintains that 25 militants and 5 civilians were killed in the airstrikes, but has ordered an investigation after Afghan officials reported the higher civilian death toll.

    The United Nations team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been wounded in the airstrikes.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Divergent Accounts of Afghan Strike Raise Tension
    New York Times
    By CARLOTTA GALL
    Published: September 7, 2008

    AZIZABAD, Afghanistan — To the villagers here, there is no doubt what happened in an American airstrike on Aug. 22: more than 90 civilians, the majority of them women and children, were killed. The Afghan government, human rights and intelligence officials, independent witnesses and a United Nations investigation back up their account, pointing to dozens of freshly dug graves, lists of the dead, and cellphone videos and other footage showing bodies of women and children laid out in the village mosque.

    Cellphone footage seen by this reporter shows at least 11 dead children, some with blast and concussion injuries, among some 30 to 40 bodies laid out in the village mosque. Ten days after the airstrikes, villagers dug up the last victim from the rubble, a baby just a few months old. Their shock and grief is still palpable.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    HRW, 8 Sep 08: Troops in Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan
    In the past three years, the armed conflict in Afghanistan has intensified, with daily fighting between the Taliban and other anti-government insurgents against Afghan government forces and its international military supporters. The US, which operates in Afghanistan through its counter-insurgency forces in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), has increasingly relied on airpower in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. The combination of light ground forces and overwhelming airpower has become the dominant doctrine of war for the US in Afghanistan. The result has been large numbers of civilian casualties, controversy over the continued use of airpower in Afghanistan, and intense criticism of US and NATO forces by Afghan political leaders and the general public.

    As a result of OEF and ISAF airstrikes in 2006, 116 Afghan civilians were killed in 13 bombings. In 2007, Afghan civilian deaths were nearly three times higher: 321 Afghan civilians were killed in 22 bombings, while hundreds more were injured. In 2007, more Afghan civilians were killed by airstrikes than by US and NATO ground fire. In the first seven months of 2008, the latest period for which data is available, at least 119 Afghan civilians were killed in 12 airstrikes.

    These figures do not include the airstrike on August 22, 2008 in the village of Azizabad, where many civilians were killed in airstrikes in support of an OEF operation. Although the total number of dead was disputed at the time of writing, the political fallout was significant. The Afghan government ordered its ministries of foreign affairs and defense to review the presence of foreign troops and regulate their presence with a status of forces agreement, negotiate a possible end to airstrikes on civilian targets, uncoordinated house searches, and illegal detention of Afghan civilians.....
    Complete 45-page report at the link.

  15. #15
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Just goes to show that we remain borderline retarded (un-PC word now, I know) when it comes to waging media battles.

    If we screwed up, admit it. If we didn't, declassify the evidence.

    Don't use a 15-6 by some anon SF officer as a crutch. This is stupidity. You'd think that after a week we could get our story together.
    Last edited by Cavguy; 09-08-2008 at 09:31 PM.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  16. #16
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default If "borderline retarded" is politically incorrect,

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    Just goes to show that we remain borderline retarded (un-PC word now, I know) when it comes to waging media battles.

    If we screwed up, admit it. If we didn't declassify the evidence.

    Don't use a 15-6 by some anon SF officer as a crutch. This is stupidity. You'd think that after a week we could get our story together.
    I guess that means my "#*@%!^& criminally stupid" is worse, huh?

    Good post, Niel.

    SOCOM drives another nail in the 'accuracy in reporting' and 'trust' coffins...

  17. #17
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    This is a serious question. I am not trying to be a smart aleck.

    Is there some kind of organizational, bureaucratic or sociological reason we have not paid much attention to Karzai's strong complaints about these things over the past years. I just don't get it.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #18
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default The Arrogant Westerner?

    Arrogance IMHO. A failure of both political and military will to acknowledge we are there to pursue our national interest(s) in a country with a long history of resisting foriegn involvement. We pay them, we give them guns, we keep Karzai alive....so we can do what we like.

    Now if we gave the Afghans the decision whether to launch an airstrike that would be different. Even better if it was Afghans who did the deed.

    All from the comfort of a faraway armchair.

    davidbfpo

  19. #19
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I have written on here and briefed that the measure that has to be made is a careful consideration of whether we are willing to kill friendlies to get at an enemy. If as we seek to win the support of a given population, we chose to use targeting considerations that treat civilian casualties as collateral damage, we are shooting ourselves in the colective foot. At a certain stage, indemnity payments become self-defeating if not absolutely self-destructive. And if we cannot get our collective rationale and explanation together when we do decide to launch an airstrike, we add incompetent to the already established label of uncaring.

    Tom

  20. #20
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Hate to disagree with two esteemed elderly gentlemen,

    albeit only very slightly...

    I think davidbfpo is mostly correct on the arrogance angle but it's also, IMO more complex than just that. He, Karzai, has to say something (which doesn't mean he isn't sincere) and we have to ignore him sometimes (which doesn't mean we're evil).

    Tom Odom is absolutley correct in what he says but as I suspect he knows, when you're out there on the ground and our own troops are getting clobbered, civilization and what's best can go by the wayside. Joe and Tommy will take care of each other to Ahmed's detriment just as Ahmed and Mohkdar will take care of Ali to the detriment of Joe and Tommy.

    Way of the world, I'm afraid.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-09-2008 at 06:50 AM. Reason: Add Karzai to clarify it is 'he' and 'our' to own troops.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •