EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Errant Afghan Civilian Deaths Surge
U.S. and NATO troops killed more noncombatants in the last six months than did Taliban insurgents, several tallies indicate.
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - After more than five years of increasingly intense warfare, the conflict in Afghanistan reached a grim milestone in the first half of this year: U.S. troops and their NATO allies killed more civilians than insurgents did, according to several independent tallies.
The upsurge in deaths at the hands of Western forces has been driven by Taliban tactics as well as by actions of the American military and its allies.
But the growing toll is causing widespread disillusionment among the Afghan people, eroding support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and exacerbating political rifts among NATO allies about the nature and goals of the mission in Afghanistan.
More than 500 Afghan civilians have been reported killed this year, and the rate has dramatically increased in the last month.
In some instances, it was difficult to determine whether the dead were combatants or noncombatants. But in many other cases, there was no doubt that the person killed was a bystander to war.
Still, Western military leaders argue that any comparison of casualties caused by Western forces and by the Taliban is fundamentally unfair because there is a clear moral distinction to be made between accidental deaths resulting from combat operations and deliberate killings of innocents by militants.
"No [Western] soldier ever wakes up in the morning with the intention of harming any Afghan citizen," said Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. "If that does inadvertently happen, it is deeply, deeply regretted."
Moreover, alliance officials say Taliban fighters are ultimately to blame for many of the fatalities attributed to coalition military operations because the insurgents deliberately place civilians in harm's way, using them as human shields and employing other brutal tactics.
Human rights groups acknowledge that there are mitigating circumstances. But to the families of victims such as Azizullah the salt merchant, such distinctions are lost in a wave of grief and indignation.
At dawn on June 16, Azizullah went to prayers with his older brother, Mohammed Reza. It was the last time Reza saw his younger brother alive.
At midmorning, Reza received a call on his cellphone from Afghan police saying Azizullah had been wounded, then another saying that he had died, shot by North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops as he sipped a cool drink a few steps from his storefront in a rundown district of Kabul.
"Why? Why?" Reza asked. "They are supposed to protect us, not kill us."
In a communal society such as Afghanistan, "no death is isolated," said Hekmat Karzai, who runs a security think tank in Kabul and is a cousin of the president. "When one person dies, it affects a whole village or clan or tribe. Ultimately, it affects everyone, and there's no escaping that."
By late June, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, working with local rights groups, had counted 314 civilian deaths at the hands of Western-led forces and 279 people killed by the Taliban and other militants. But that figure did not include at least 45 civilian deaths reported by local officials last weekend in Helmand province's Gereshk district.
Separate counts by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Associated Press differed slightly, but also indicated that more civilians were killed by Western troops than by militants during the first half of 2007.
On June 23, in response to the deaths of more than 100 noncombatants in a single week that were blamed on Western artillery or airstrikes in southern Afghanistan, President Karzai unleashed an angry call for caution by U.S. and NATO forces.
"Afghan life is not cheap, and it should not be treated as such," the Afghan president told reporters in Kabul.
Aides said Karzai believed that his language, the sharpest to date on the subject, was the only way to get the attention of Western policymakers after repeated appeals had gone unanswered.
Neither NATO nor U.S. forces keep a tally of civilian deaths, but Thomas said the military did not dispute the figures cited by Karzai. All sides, however, acknowledge that counting casualties is an inexact science.
Because Taliban fighters do not wear military uniforms, they can be as difficult to identify in death as in life. Much of the fighting takes place in remote, rugged areas that are difficult for independent investigators to reach.
NATO and U.S. military officials say that when in doubt, human rights groups sometimes count ambiguous cases among the civilian dead, a contention sharply disputed by the investigators.
"There is always a margin of error, but no one is interested in inflating these figures," said Anja de Beer, the director of the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief, a consortium of humanitarian groups that also tallies civilian deaths.
"We do not rely only on what people say immediately after a battle. Our investigators follow up afterward, talk to village elders, to families, and look at fresh graves," De Beer said. "When there is any question of identity, we take that into account."
Often, civilians are killed in the aftermath of an attack by insurgents. Azizullah was shot and killed by troops responding to a car bomb that went off about half a mile away.
The NATO-led force said at the time that initial indications were that a soldier's weapon had accidentally discharged. Two weeks later, a spokesman said there had been no further findings.
Azizullah's family, an extended clan of 25 living in a mud-brick compound on the outskirts of the capital, veered between mourning and fury.
"Who will bring my son back to me?" asked his weeping, white-turbaned father, Mohammed Zia. "No one, no one. Not even God."
The family was particularly angered by the fact that the shooting took place more than an hour after the explosion and that there was no report of hostile fire directed at troops.
"We thought the foreign troops, the Americans, would bring peace to this country," said the father. "Now they have killed my son, and I do not want to see their faces ever again."
Political analysts say that despite the increase in civilian deaths, most Afghans still support the presence of international troops.
"It's an obvious truth that the Western forces bring security that we need," said Said Najib Mahmood, a political science professor at Kabul University. "But they are killing a lot of people, and because of that there is a loss of trust and confidence in the government."
Many analysts say the nature of combat tactics employed by both sides makes it very difficult for the military to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, a fact that the Taliban movement exploits to the maximum.
When allied forces come under fire from a walled compound of the kind that dots every Afghan village, the likeliest response is an airstrike - a strategy that exposes Western troops to less danger than moving in on foot.
Sometimes, even hours of painstaking surveillance fail to turn up signs of noncombatants in the line of fire.
"Often we will refrain from making a strike because we suspect there might be civilians present," said Thomas. "But sometimes we're wrong."
If so, the consequences can be devastating.
"We see whole families killed together in their home - mothers, babies, everyone," said Abdul Matim, a parliament member from Helmand province, who has personally investigated many of the civilian deaths in his home district. "It's a terrible sight."
Another common insurgent tactic is suicide car bombings aimed at military convoys. In response, jittery troops sometimes fire on civilians who are merely driving erratically or who accidentally come between military vehicles. Often there are more such shootings when a contingent of troops has recently arrived in Afghanistan.
"It takes time to figure out that not everyone in a turban is a suicide bomber," said Karzai, the analyst, who directs the independent Center for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul.
After a suicide bombing last week on the outskirts of Kabul that targeted a U.S. military convoy and killed two Western security officers, Afghan police anxiously waved journalists away.
"Don't go close," they warned. "The Americans might shoot you."
Criticism over civilian casualties frustrates NATO and U.S. officials, who say atrocities by the Taliban expose civilians to far greater dangers.
In one widely cited recent case, insurgents allegedly tried to trick a 6-year-old boy into blowing himself up at an Afghan police checkpoint, fitting him with a suicide vest they told him would eject flowers at the push of a button. Police managed to free the child.
At the same time, Western officials acknowledge that whatever the provocation, they must adhere to international norms of combat.
"We are rightly held to a higher standard of behavior," said Nicholas Lunt, the chief NATO civilian spokesman in Afghanistan.
At the compound of Azizullah's family, his four children, all younger than 5, tussled together on the floor and gazed with bright curiosity at visitors. Their uncle Mohammed Reza explained that they were too young to comprehend that their father was dead.
"I asked them where they think he is, and they say they don't know," he said. "They don't understand yet that he is never coming back."
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

13 Comments so far
Show AllThe Taliban are not nice people and neither are we.
We should get out and supply the people of Afghanistan so they can defend themselves. They should decide who represents their interests instead of a proxy-war, which is masking an occupation.
What a pity! I understand that over 800,000 Iraqis have been killed and over a million crippled for life - thanks to corporate America and our top politicians. The US forces are composed mostly of young/immature kids who haven't learned to think entirely for themselves yet.
The majority of the US political establishment and their corporate masters have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands.
We need a revolution. We need to set free the hundreds of thousands who are in prison for victimless crimes and lock up our president, his staff, along with 95% of the senators, & congressmen. They deserve to live in steel and concrete cages.
:-)
------------------------------------
http://www.impeachbush.org
http://kucinich.us/
My heart is breaking for the loss of Mohammed Zia's son- another horrendous, needless tradegy.
I agree with the above post- true, mostly kids doing the fighting- OUR kids, and they are also dying.
BRING HOME THE TROOPS NOW!
Afghan villagers in the eastern province of Kunar say 35 civilians have been killed in separate air attacks by international forces.
The villagers said neighbours in Watapour were burying 10 people killed in a strike when planes attacked again, killing 25 more people.
. (BBC today)
.
.
And so it goes . . .
Imagine police pursuing four armed gunmen who just robbed a bank and killed a teller. Imagine the gunmen entering a crowded mall in Washington, Amsterdam or Ottawa. Imagine then the police calling in airstrikes to bomb the mall producing 46 dead,184 wounded. Imagine then a police spokesmen saying It's the bandits fault so many people are dead ,because they use unfair tactics and hide amonsgt civilians.
Tell me then are we all MAD as hatters that we accept the explanations of our military leaders without question.
It is obvious to anyone that Afghan life is cheap, so is Iraqui life so they do not even bother counting casualties.
And we are there to teach them DEMOCRACY.What good is that to dead people.Better a Kingdom run by good people than a democracy run by criminals.
The US and NATO should not leave Afghanistan. The Afghan people do not want to suffer under Taliban rule again. The NATO forces must find a better strategy for dealing with the Taliban that does not involve air strikes on civilian homes. This is difficult and dangerous but not impossible. They must find a way. Afghanistan is a wonderful country with good, decent people who have suffered much and need our help. We should not abandon them -- again.
Death by war lords has gone on before during and will go on after we leave. The many invaders over the years have made some form of tribal leadership necessary for survival.
If we leave and never return and other nations stop interfering perhaps some form of government can develop in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These people have the absolute right of self determination and self rule. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you will quickly see what the opinion of the founding fathers was on military occupation.
"We thought the foreign troops, the Americans, would bring peace to this country," said the father.
They lied to us too........
"dux" - Perhaps you have fallen for the propaganda, though it is of a typically old-fashioned colonialist transparancy, it seems for many the rightful disgust of the taliban makes it somehow less improbable. But rest assured, the US and their NATO "partners" do not waste their time and resources to such noble causes as helping the Afghan people (supposedly develop their country toward a relatively secularist pro-Western welfare state were little girls attend NATO build schools and such.) Such sympathetic targets are not part of the political calculus and never is.
If defeating the taliban would be the goal, they would always fail as long as they can fulfill their role as legitimate "insurgency" read: resistance (this means in the eyes of the average Afghan in Afghanistan and not anyone else) and any serious political analyst or military historian would second that. Maybe not always clear enough publicly, since many of them have mouths to feed too.
There's no way around that besides creating a new, more effective, better organized and more radical movement. Already the partly misguided focus on the taliban has brought to power warlords and other islamist scum who are no less backward than taliban, but on the positive side (for us) are way more corrupt.
The goal of the US and NATO presence in Afganistan, the "Eurasian pivot," to me however seems primarily twofold. Afghanistan is a hub in the energy transport net (oil and gas) in which China and India collaborate (see Asian energy grid, for example explained in excellent Asia Times or in Escobar's book Globalistan) and that would lead to energy-independent rising major, major superpowers on the world-stage. China and India are historical enemies and could relatively easy be played out against eachother, but who now then have a vested interest in cooperation. That would diminish US influence in the region drastically.
The other target is to contain post-Jeltsin Russia with Afghanistan, added to Pakistan as a base, US covert operations prepared color-revolutions, followed up by European eastward expansion is one lever, organized anti-Russian nationalists another.
Russia is returning to it's historical role, empowered further by rising oil and gas prices and is of increasing interest to energy-guzzling Europe. The interests of the European partners of NATO are conflicting accordingly. Together with a public who do not seem to care much to let their governments participate in wars wherever and talk shit about it, as long as they are not personally affected and reality does not return in the form of body-bags. All this makes they are not all that eager to please the US for very much longer and the taliban could probably wait that out. However if NATO carries on the way it does the taliban will increase in strength so rapidly that it probably doesn't need to.
Dux said: The US and NATO should not leave Afghanistan. The Afghan people do not want to suffer under Taliban rule again. The NATO forces must find a better strategy for dealing with the Taliban that does not involve air strikes on civilian homes. This is difficult and dangerous but not impossible. They must find a way. Afghanistan is a wonderful country with good, decent people who have suffered much and need our help. We should not abandon them — again.
DUX You are absolutly right!!! Afghans are a good, honorable people who do not deserve to live under the Pakistani and Saudi backed Taliban ever again. Hamid Karzai is also a good man and cares deeply about his people. However, he has little power outside Kabul where the warlords rule. America must empower Karzai to do his job and stop backing the warlords. These warlords killed 50,000 people in Kabul under their rule during the Afghan civil war after the Soviet withdrawal. Afghans also suffered enormously under the Soviets. The BBC reported that they just found mass graves of Soviet era political prisoners and 15 rooms of Afghan bodies http://tinyurl.com/248sbl
. Horrible. We must stand behind the Afghans people. They need our help and they want our help and they are begging us not to abandon them again. We must not kill civilians in doing so and we must keep our promises to them.
Stupid Russians thought they could win the war in Afghanistan, while Americans are training and supplying the resistance.
Stupid Americans thought they could win the war in Afghanistan, while Russians are training and supplying the resistance.
Hmmmm, I have no evidence to support the second statement, but I would not be surprised if it were true.
The people of Afghanistan are canon fodder for the imperialists. Keep them in conflict, repressed so they can grow opium for the Heroin trade. At least the Taliban did not allow the the drug to be grown. Is that why they moved against the Taliban? No, it was for the human rights violations and terrorism, right? The patriot act allows for drug dealers to be classified as terrorists, so are we going to start fighting ourselves?
Human rights violations. Starting preemptive wars on bad intelligence and killing thousands of people and calling them "collateral damage" or "expected civilian casualties". Word games plane and simple semantics.
Actually wdmax3, as you might remember the Russians helped arm the NA already back in 2001, primarily because the taliban is their common enemy. Russia gained doubly in this move, diplomatically (and Bush looked him in the eye.. and went to his barbeque) and militarily in the short term. And who knows what they might have perceived to gain in the long term, but it's not completely unthinkable they foresaw this disaster. They have very clever strategists, not nearly such an appetite for Pyrrhic victories like Western powers and seem to have this great advantage over most EU powers and the US: it is almost as if they try to learn something from past mistakes.
In any case they would not be foolish enough to repeat the Brezinski-strategy with some "stirred up muslims" of their own, because firstly the US and NATO can lose this war all by themselves and so they won't have to and secondly because in both cases the outcomes would most likely be against Russia's interests.
NATO, seen from a geopolitical point of view, has no option but to stay and provide itself with reasons to stay. It can't afford to "win" and it can't afford to "lose."
If it would "win" and then under their own domestic political pressure (partly) retreat, maybe leaving behind some downsized bases scattered across the country, it would drive (due to Paki-Afghan animosities) Afghanistan right back into the Russian sphere of political influence. Add to this a notoriuously unstable Pakistan, which might now more easily than ever fall prone to desintegration. If that not entirely unthinkable scenario would unfold then that would geopolitically be but a few moves from checkmate.
Perhaps it helps to provide a more credible explanation why NATO would be ostensibly that "stupid" to mass-murder civilians all the time, like for example:
[New York Times, 7 july 2007.]
"NATO soldiers, along with the Afghan National Army and people from the national police, came to Shewan Village and told us they needed to search three or four houses," the tribal chief, Hajji Khudai Rahm, said in a telephone interview. "As we talked, a firefight began and 20 houses were destroyed when the planes dropped bombs.
"We counted 108 bodies, including women and children," he said. "Fourteen local policemen were among the dead. Right now, things are calm, but people are digging through the rubble to find more bodies."
Also, Reuters reported that residents and officials in Kunar Province said 36 civilians had been killed in recent airstrikes, 11 of them on Thursday during a bombardment, and 25 more on Friday as they attended a funeral for the deceased. [..]
I do not think it is errant behaviour or reckless stupidity, but well calculated (mass-) murder of civilians on the part of NATO for what they perceive higher political and military purposes. They are not "collateral damage," they are human sacrifices on the altar of world domination.
The USA created the Taliban in starting a proxy war with Moscow when the Afghan government friendly to Moscow was reforming the country and making life better for everybody, and most especially the women. Now the USA is getting a little boomerang. What's goes around comes around.