Friday
May082009
Afghanistan Civilian Deaths: US Military Un-Apologises
Friday, May 8, 2009 at 7:28
Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn
Al Jazeera's headline this morning cleverly uses scare quotes: "US Military 'Confirms' Afghan Deaths".
The raised eyebrows over "confirm" are justified, however. While "a senior military official" told the press, in advance of a formal briefing on Friday, that, yes, US airstrikes had killed civilians, he was quick to shift responsibility.
According to CNN, the official said that the "buildings and compounds" hit by the U.S. had been "identified as areas from which insurgent fighters were firing on Afghan and coalition forces". The insurgents were holding residents in those buildings "as a means of causing civilian casualties". And, just for good measure and a good headline, he added that there was "separate intelligence that some civilians in a nearby area were killed with hand grenades by militants who then displayed the bodies".
Never mind that there was no evidence, in eyewitness accounts and from the International Committee of the Red Cross, who had officials on the scene, that the dead civilians were human shields. Never mind that tribal elders who contacted the ICRC made no reference to civilians held by insurgents in the bombed buildings, as they asked for help to deal with casualties.
Forget the possibility that American officials could say what, at this point, is the likely scenario. In the battle between Afghan insurgents and the Afghan military, there was crossfire. That crossfire included US bombs. And crossfire is not always accurate or discriminate. In war, stuff happens.
No, the "collateral damage" --- not to the innocent but to the US military --- must be limited. So Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will say, with a straight face, ""We regret any, even one, Afghan...innocent civilian casualty." The US senior official will frame the "real" issue, "The question now for investigators, the official said, is how much information was available at the time of the strikes about the potential presence of civilians and whether those in charge should have known civilians might be in the vicinity."
And that will do until the next incident.
Al Jazeera's headline this morning cleverly uses scare quotes: "US Military 'Confirms' Afghan Deaths".The raised eyebrows over "confirm" are justified, however. While "a senior military official" told the press, in advance of a formal briefing on Friday, that, yes, US airstrikes had killed civilians, he was quick to shift responsibility.
According to CNN, the official said that the "buildings and compounds" hit by the U.S. had been "identified as areas from which insurgent fighters were firing on Afghan and coalition forces". The insurgents were holding residents in those buildings "as a means of causing civilian casualties". And, just for good measure and a good headline, he added that there was "separate intelligence that some civilians in a nearby area were killed with hand grenades by militants who then displayed the bodies".
Never mind that there was no evidence, in eyewitness accounts and from the International Committee of the Red Cross, who had officials on the scene, that the dead civilians were human shields. Never mind that tribal elders who contacted the ICRC made no reference to civilians held by insurgents in the bombed buildings, as they asked for help to deal with casualties.
Forget the possibility that American officials could say what, at this point, is the likely scenario. In the battle between Afghan insurgents and the Afghan military, there was crossfire. That crossfire included US bombs. And crossfire is not always accurate or discriminate. In war, stuff happens.
No, the "collateral damage" --- not to the innocent but to the US military --- must be limited. So Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will say, with a straight face, ""We regret any, even one, Afghan...innocent civilian casualty." The US senior official will frame the "real" issue, "The question now for investigators, the official said, is how much information was available at the time of the strikes about the potential presence of civilians and whether those in charge should have known civilians might be in the vicinity."
And that will do until the next incident.
Reader Comments (4)
While the deaths of the civilians are a shame, it happens in war.
In WW2 we saw both sides lose hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens.
Korean civilian casualties -- dead, wounded and missing -- totaled between three and four million during the three years the Korean war lasted.
I could continue to list the amount but I do not have the time, so I will repeat what I said, while it is a shame and my heart goes out to the families, it is war, mistakes are, and always will, be made, (perhaps there were Taliban or Al-Queda insurgents hiding those building, perhaps not) that will result in collateral damage.
Keeping civilian deaths to an extreme minimum is necessary to 'win the hearts and minds.' If civilians continue to be killed their friends and family are more likely to embrace the other side. One way to turn popular opinion in our favor would be to tape these strikes in order to show that there was no option but to bomb the compound. I am more in favor of using snipers than bombings; one would think it would lessen collateral damage.
1)Keeping civilian deaths to an extreme minimum is necessary to ‘win the hearts and minds.’ If civilians continue to be killed their friends and family are more likely to embrace the other side.
-Agreed, however all I said was that it is very difficult to avoid such casualties in a time of war, what with the fog of war and and enemy that doesnt wear a uniform.
2)One way to turn popular opinion in our favor would be to tape these strikes in order to show that there was no option but to bomb the compound
-The FLIRs on the aricraft are allways recording when ordnance is realeased, you can go on youtube and find about fifty of them.
3) I am more in favor of using snipers than bombings; one would think it would lessen collateral damage.
-Snipers primary roles are to damage the enemy chain of command and provide information for the task force commander, infact the mission theyve seen the most is calling in such air strikes, and also lets not forget, a sniper can only kill one man with one bullet, which gives the others to make an escape or even fight back, air strikes do not.
Mike and shady,
Remember that our perceptions of the legitimacy of the civilian deaths is next to irrelevant. If the Afghan citizens are conveyed the apparent message that the US is slaughtering non-combatant women and children by the hundreds (!!!) then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the fog of war.
Afghans are bit backward for sure, but they're reasonably savvy with news and information about the war, and if Scott (the author above) is able to pick up on stalling and evasiveness in NATO's response, there's a pretty good chance that Afghans will as well. They are patient and understanding, and they do accept that war is dangerous and people may die, but they're not suicidal or insane, and they're not willing to sacrifice 50+ civilians just to kill 11 Taliban. It would be simply inhuman of us to expect them to make any other calculation.