| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghan Civilian Deaths Surge |
| 2007-06-25 |
| The new favorite word - surge, along with an old favorite activity - hand wringing. Taliban fighters attack U.S. or NATO forces in populated areas, then retreat to civilian homes. Western forces respond with massive firepower or an airstrike. That increasingly common pattern of clashes has led to a climbing number of civilian deaths and rising anger among Afghan officials and ordinary people. While militants killed 178 civilians in attacks through June 23, Western forces killed 203, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. There are several different totals near the end of the article. Exact counts are nearly impossible in the chaos of war. Separate figures from the U.N. and an umbrella organization of Afghan and international aid groups show that, through May 31, the number of civilians killed by international forces was roughly equal to those killed by insurgents. What is clear is the political fallout: President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly pleaded with foreign troops to exercise caution and work more closely with Afghan forces, who might be able to minimize civilian casualties because of their knowledge of the terrain. On Saturday, he denounced the Taliban for killing civilians but directed most of his anger at foreign forces for being careless and viewing Afghan lives as "cheap." "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," Karzai said. The AP would have us believe he believes infidel life is worth less. NATO defends its right to fire on anyone who fires at its troops first, noting that it is not intentionally targeting civilians, as the Taliban sometimes does. The U.S.-led coalition suggested that many civilians reportedly killed by international troops may in fact have been killed by insurgents. But such arguments fail to address the growing Afghan anger, said Michael Shaikh, a researcher for Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan. "When you're on the ground and your child has been killed by a 2,000-pound bomb, you don't care if the attack was legal or illegal in the laws of war. You care if your son or daughter was killed," Shaikh said. "That's what NATO is not getting. They need to be doing it cleaner and doing it better. Every death has a profound effect on the Afghan population," he said. ...much of Afghanistan's violence takes place in remote areas are too far or dangerous for independent observers to reach, and it is not uncommon for figures cited by international forces, the U.N. or Afghan officials to vary widely. In addition, militants often wear civilian dress and seek shelter in innocent villagers' homes, making it hard to differentiate between fighters and civilians in the aftermath of battles. Further complicating death toll counts, Afghans tend to bury their dead soon after they are killed - following the rules of Islam - and those deaths are hard to verify or not included in casualty tolls. The AP count of civilian casualties runs from Jan. 1 through June 23 and is based on reports from witnesses and U.S., U.N., NATO and Afghan officials. Of the 399 civilian deaths in the tally, 18 were reportedly from crossfire between Taliban militants and foreign forces. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has counted 213 civilians killed by insurgents through May and 207 killed by Afghan and international forces, based on reports from Afghan and international forces and verification by its own human rights officers. ACBAR - the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief - has counted 230 civilians killed in U.S. and NATO operations through May and roughly the same number killed by militants. The ACBAR tally is based on numbers from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the Afghan NGO Security Office and the U.N. The U.N. and ACBAR figures do not include June, which saw a huge spike in military operations and insurgency attacks. Karzai on Saturday said that in the past 10 days more than 90 civilians have been killed in U.S. or NATO operations. He did not say how many had been killed by the Taliban. The U.S. and NATO said they did not have civilian casualty figures. NATO says it tries to observe a target for as long as possible from both the ground and the air and only attacks it if there is no sign of civilians. NATO blames the insurgents for hiding among civilians, and insists that troops have the right to defend themselves. "If someone's firing at me, he's a combatant," said Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #10 Helmand district Pashtos revere Taliban/al-Qaeda as protectors of the heroin trade. Karzai is depraved for treating drug lords and their workers and families, as "civilians." There are alternatives to nation-building in Afghanistan; Karzai wouldn't like them. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-06-25 18:10 |
| #9 Yeah, but I think this is a HRW story, with a Karzi quote taken out of context. If so, that's just what Harry Reid and the MSM want - encourage us to run away and make him a prophet. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-06-25 09:25 |
| #8 The guy firing at you is a combatant, but his wife is loading mags for him and his 8-year old kid is spotting for him, and his mother is cooking for him, all within a single 10' square room. That means if you call in an air or arty strike, or even just fling a grenade into the room or do a 'Haditha', you are going to kill 3 'innocent' civilians as well as the guy shooting at you. According to the desired new ROE, that is unacceptable, which leaves two choices: sit there quietly and get shot at or leave. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-06-25 09:12 |
| #7 "If someone's firing at me, he's a combatant," said Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force. Words to live by... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-06-25 09:07 |
| #6 Karzai is beginning to make me sick. His failure to denounce the Taliban use of human shields is compounded by his posturing about NATO. This from a guy who owes his position to foreign fighters. Maybe instead of withdrawing from Iraq we should withdraw from Afghan. Let the Talibs and others slaughter each other to their hearts content. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-06-25 08:10 |
| #5 The enemy are civilians. They are not a uniformed, structured army, just gangs of gunmen attacking everything under civilian control so they can take control. Karzai better wake up, because Glenmore is right. If NATO leaves, he better fly solo, and never land. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-06-25 07:58 |
| #4 If you are shot at from a place where there might be civilians around, you must not shoot back. Same thing if they run to somewhere civilians might be. If those are now the rules, I hope Karzai is ready to fly solo, because we have to leave. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-06-25 07:38 |
| #3 when a Taliban presence gets a civilian killed, they caused the death, HRW Assholes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-06-25 07:36 |
| #2 So, when Talibs blow up busses, that's not "civilian deaths". But when NATO goes through Talibs human shields.... |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-06-25 06:53 |
| #1 Militants = terrorists. It is the fault of the terrorists who are causing civilians (if they are really civilians) to get killed. The MSM and human rights organizations should take this up with the terrorists---hah hah hah. As if that is going to happen. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-25 06:46 |