EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
British Criticize US Air Attacks in Afghan Region
SANGIN, Afghanistan - A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people.
Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans' extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence as British forces were trying to solidify recent gains against the Taliban.
An American military spokesman denied that the request for American forces to leave was ever made, either formally or otherwise, or that they had caused most of the casualties. But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents, and concerns among soldiers about the consequences of the high level of civilians being killed in fighting.
A precise tally of civilian deaths is difficult to pin down, but one reliable count puts the number killed in Helmand this year at close to 300 civilians, the vast majority of them caused by foreign and Afghan forces, rather than the Taliban.
"Everyone is concerned about civilian casualties," the senior British commander said. "Of course it is counterproductive if civilians get injured, but we've got to pick up the pack of cards that we have got. Other people have been operating in our area before us."
After months of heavy fighting that began in early 2006, the British commanders say they are finally making headway in securing important areas such as this town, and are now in the difficult position of trying to win back support among local people whose lives have been devastated by aerial bombing.
American Special Forces have been active in Helmand since United States forces first entered Afghanistan in late 2001, and for several years they maintained a small base outside the town of Gereshk. But the foreign troop presence was never more than a few hundred men.
British forces arrived in the spring of 2006 and now have command of the province with some 6,000 troops deployed, with small units of Estonians and Danish troops. American Special Forces have continued to assist in fighting insurgents, operating as advisers to Afghan national security forces.
It is these American teams that are coming under criticism. They tend to work in small units that rely heavily on air cover because they are vulnerable to large groups of insurgents. Such Special Forces teams have often called in airstrikes in Helmand and other places where civilians have subsequently been found to have suffered casualties.
In just two cases, airstrikes killed 31 nomads west of Kandahar in November last year and another 57 villagers, half of them women and children, in western Afghanistan in April. In both cases, United States Special Forces were responsible for calling in the airstrikes.
The chief British press officer in Helmand, Col. Charles Mayo, defended the American Special Forces and said they were essential to NATO's efforts to clear out heavily entrenched Taliban insurgents.
An American military spokesman said United States Special Forces would continue to operate in Helmand for the foreseeable future. He denied that their tactics had caused greater civilian deaths and blamed the Taliban for fighting from civilian compounds.
"U.S. Special Forces have a tremendous reputation not only in combat operations but also in training and advising the Afghan National Security Forces," Lt. Col. David Accetta, a spokesman for American forces in Afghanistan, said in an e-mail response from Bagram air base.
United States Special Forces had also provided development and medical assistance, which, with the combat missions, "can be said to have 'turned the tide' in Helmand," he said.
But the senior British commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity during an interview in July, said that in Sangin, which has been calm recently, there was no longer a need for United States Special Forces. "There aren't large bodies of Taliban to fight anymore; we are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development," he said.
Orders had just come down from the NATO force's headquarters in Kabul, which is led by Gen. Dan K. McNeill of the United States, re-emphasizing the need to avoid civilian deaths, he said.
"The phrase is: 'It may be legal but is it appropriate?' No one is saying it is illegal to use air power, but is there any other way of doing it if there is a risk of collateral damage?" he said.
For months, frequent reports of civilian casualties have trickled out of Helmand, scene of some of the fiercest battles of the recent war. But there has rarely been independent confirmation of the reports because the province has been too dangerous for journalists to visit.
Yet there is no doubt there have been civilian casualties, and British and Afghan officials acknowledged that they had seen some of them.
Villagers brought the bodies of 21 civilians killed in airstrikes May 8 on the village of Sarwan Qala to show the authorities in Sangin, they said. United States Special Forces were battling the Taliban on that occasion and called in the strikes, the United States military said in a statement at the time.
Three days later the nearby village of Sra Ghar was hit. British soldiers at a base called Robinson just south of Sangin said they had received 18 civilians around that time who were wounded in an American operation and flew them out to NATO hospitals for treatment.
On a rare visit to Helmand in mid-July, a journalist encountered children who were still suffering wounds sustained in that bombing raid or another around that time. Their father, Mohammadullah, brought them to the gate of the British Army base seeking help.
His son, Bashir Ahmed, 2, listless and stick thin, seemed close to death. The boy and his sister Muzlifa, 7, bore terrible shrapnel scars. NATO doctors had removed shrapnel from the boy's abdomen at the time of the raid and had warned his father that he might not survive, but two months later he was still hanging on.
The father said the bombing raid killed six members of the family and wounded five. His wife lost an arm, and the children's grandmother was killed, he said.
Altogether, he said, 20 people were killed in the airstrikes after Taliban fighters came through the village. He figured that the planes had bombed them mistakenly, because the Taliban were fighting United States forces well below the village at the time.
He said that he opposed the Taliban, but that after the bombing raid the villagers were so angered that most of the men who survived went off to join the insurgents. Whether people would support the foreign troops "depends on the behavior of ISAF," Mohammadullah said, referring to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. "If they treat the civilians well, they will win."
It is in fact the possibility of the population turning against them, or the unpopularity of the campaign back home, that most concerns the military, one NATO military official said. "We know we can beat the Taliban on the ground," the official said. "The issue is the population."
A civilian NATO from Kabul added, "The problem is Afghans are waking up and thinking: 'Why are they doing this?' "
Maj. Dominic Biddick, commander of a company of British soldiers in Sangin, is making a big effort to ease the anger and pain as his men patrol the villages. He has a $5,000 good-will fund and hands out cash to victims he comes across, like the farmer whose two sons were shot in the fields during a recent operation. And he has $10,000 a month to spend on community assistance programs. "If you are genuinely caring, you can win friends," he said.
Capt. Catherine Fisher, a civil affairs officer in Sangin, said that over six weeks ending in July she had received requests from 75 families who had lost relatives or property in recent fighting.
But while some of the victims and local people blame the Taliban for bringing violence to Helmand, hostility and bitterness toward the foreign forces remains.
"The Americans are killing and destroying a village just in pursuit of one person," said Mahmadullah, 24, referring to Osama bin Laden. "So now we have understood that the Americans are a curse on us, and they are here just to destroy Afghanistan. They can tell the difference between men and women, children and animals, but they are just killing everyone."
A trained mullah from the village of Kutaizi, half an hour from Sangin, Mahmadullah reacted with sarcasm to the idea that reconstruction and assistance could change the minds of the people.
"First they kill me, and then they rebuild my house?" he said. "What is the point when I am dead and my son is dead? This is not of any worth to us."
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
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...

24 Comments so far
Show AllThe disgusting pro-war scumbags in charge of the world's superpower sold their souls for a dollar long ago. Peace is not profitable enough for these bottom-feeders. May they rot in Hell.
Pretty bad when the British lap dog pees on Uncle Sam's leg.
When Tony was there they were oh so loyal. Maybe the new guy hasn't been to obedience class yet.
u.s. attitude...kill them all and let god sort them out. we have lost this invasion.
Cowards waging war for money, hiding behind technology and killing children.
Let history record that from 'The Greatest Nation on Earth'.
I recommend a few things to be passed by the UN security council to prevent future wars. This would involve the UN having its own forces, independent of any nation.
1) Make prosecuting a war illegal if anything more than sharp or blunt hand weapons is used.
-look the people that you're killing in the face and live with the risk of being killed yourself.
2) Make it against international law to produce, store or use fully automatic (saturation fire) or explosive (area effect) weapons.
-kill who you mean to kill and no one else.
3) Make it against international law for any war to be prosecuted without the instigator nation's political leadership within 500 meters of the front lines.
-lead by example, right from the top.
4) Impose the death sentence on any leader who chooses to prosecute a war against another nation regardless of the outcome.
-war is the ultimate crime and should be punished with the ultimate sentence.
Prosecute all American war criminals.
Fight war not wars.
Peace to you and yours.
Screw those Brits. We'll do whatever we want no matter how vulgar it is. Heaven forbid should someone say they saw Osama at Macy's.
A good analogy is "would you bayonett a baby"?
Of course not. But dropping bombs from 10k ft
is really no different. 'Smart bombs' is an oxy-moron. As are the leaders of this country. To the Hague with the lot of them. Including Congress !!
american heros
You KNOW that grandfathers across THIS country could be pushed to react to such a thing as is depicted in the photo, with violence?
In St. Augustine's "City of God" Augustine recalls a conversation between Alexander the Great and a pirate, where the pirate states, "Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor." Even back then the barbarism of "the state" was clear.
Ahh, if only things were as black and white as the current fake-Christian administration believes.
Alright...I can't stay quiet anymore...I've registered!
Anyway...with a little digging we can find through Yahoo UK that our allies are not lying when they say "A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations..." Note the following article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2145710,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
Why would our allies lie? What could they possibly gain? The British are busy lamenting their losses in Iraq whilst doing an admirable job in Afghanistan. You'll note in a previous article in CommonDreams in which you find that most Americans in their ignorance think that there is no difference in the situation in Iraq and that of Afghanistan. That's like thinking there's no difference between the US and Mexico simply because they share a border.
Military spokespeople do not fight or serve, they read off a teleprompter or read what they're told to read. They're talking heads that make no decisions. They look good on camera and can "deliver a line".
You'll find no mention of Afghanistan on CNN.com tonight...but it's all over British news. It's simply a non-issue to America and Americans and it's sickening.
When on my 2nd year in VN as an advisor to VN army my boss and I argued against the presense of the navy seals in our AO for the very same reason. By and large they only created problems and trouble for us as we lived, ate slept etc;etc with the local people. Army aviation was included in the same bag, flying around at night and asking us if they could "fire up some "movers" on this or that stream or river" . We routinely answered NO. They had no F-----g idea who or what they were shooting at and we would have to see the victims next AM asking us WHY and will you help patch us up (or bury the dead). WAR and those who choose it eat shit and bark at the moon, one of the lowest things we would say about a guy in the outfit who was a lazy, no-good worthless piece of shit.
I have a grandson about that age. The look in that man's eyes speaks volumes.
I know how he must feel.
I am ashamed of my country.
I'm a Vet, and if I was called today to do the what our troops are doing in Iraq,I would shoot the men who sent me there.
A British commander comlains that killing civilians makes it harder to enlist them as slaves and collaborators.
Gee, what happened to GI Joe and the Hershey bars for the kiddies?
Anyone I have talked to who has served with the US troops in any war say they "fight dumb".
Uh, yeah. Can we all say "pussy" simultaneously. Anyone who wants 2 defend the honor of this $hit any longer is so full of it or naive to the point of brain hemorrhage. It's over Fans. When your best closer is throwing mid-80s fastballs u r fu#$&*! good luck all. i'll see u on the Road (cormac mccarthy).
bombing is the most pusillanimous way to fight a war, which may be the origins of the word "pussy". no...yeah? Happiness is a warm gun.
"An American military spokesman said United States Special Forces would continue to operate in Helmand for the foreseeable future. He denied that their tactics had caused greater civilian deaths and blamed the Taliban for fighting from civilian compounds."
Do I have this straight? The Taliban are responsible for all the unnecessary civilian deaths, which are not actually occurring.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pakistani+support+of+Taliban
If NATO would stop killing Afghan villagers and start holding Pakistan accountable for their support of the Taliban the problem would be solved! But when is that going to happen????
Oh yes, let's blame NATO or Pakistan or Iran or Syria, et al, but never the USA.
Just a few observations. All this shame and anger is righteous but must be converted into action especially in the USA. The lapdog GB is no better as closest allies in all this mayhem.
When Karzi said the other day in the US that the Taliban don't really exist anymore as any threat to his government Bush was having none of it. A couple of days ago his foreign minister asked the British to leave Afghanistan. No chance of that by golly! And this is the proud democracy for Afghani's.
A recent report made it abundantly clear that most civilians in Afghanistan are being killed slaughtered and blown to bits by the NATO forces. What the hell are NATO forces doing there? Big business high tech industry and all highly subsidised by taxpayers. Well paid western consultants consume up to 90% of the foreign aid spent in Afghanistan. Most civilians are killed from the air. The same is now occuring in Iraq where there has been a 600% increase in sorties in the busiest airfield in the world north of Bhagdad. I heard this report and know it is a last fling of the surge for Petraus to to report to Bush. They are bombing in cities and towns all over the show. I don't see that reported anywhere. Duh? Nobody has a clue how many are being killed as the figures are all over the place. But the best estimates are horrific as the weapons being used are so awful Napalm, Phosphorous, cluster bombs, bunkerbusters, daisy cutters, depleted uranium and so on and on...
Armaments industry has to be closed down to very modest levels throughout the world. Israel alone is now the 5th biggest arms producer. All these high paid jobs have to go to produce something useful to manking. Nuclear bombs should be banned. They are going to use them again soon.
When these guys get back home there will be a price to pay. And it is the duty of all to oppose the military. In order to understand we have to attempt to put ourselves in the shoes of others. We do this just because we can. We have all this weaponry and technology. We go to the poorest countries on earth and blow the living daylights out of the non- existent Taliban. In the process we are not like them because we do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Our boys are doing a great job. We have control of the airspace. Our massive navy is poised off the gulf with four aircraft carriers because those Iranians are interfering in foreign lands. We support the State of Israel and demand their right to exist is recognised by a government (with no country) we call terrorists. We support our puppet Abass in there with the plucky little King of Jordan. Has there ever been a demand in the history of mankind that a country's right to exist must be recognised by a people whose land has been occupied stolen and whose democraticly elected representitives are imprisoned and deemed to be terrorists? Has it ever been demanded of any other government? Never, it is totally ridiculous. And how would your counrty feel if some force installed the Shah of Iran after your elected representitives were overthrown by that power? How would you like say the Chinese imposing their way of life on you and chasing terrorists who put up resistance. If your cities towns and vilages were being bombed from the air, while your infrastructure especially water plants. elecrtical power stations, bases, bridges, factories, and of course hospitals, schools, churches, and so on. Would you fight back? If 30 million Americans were out as refugees and another 20 million internally displaced. If 13 million bodies were dotted around and there was no power or drinking water, medecines, and a group of collaborater Americans were in the newly formed military were with the Chinese hunting you down. Would you give up and surrender your resources to this force? When rape, torture, murde,r and pillage was par for the course under newly state of emergency laws and where massive permanent bases were under construction. And the Chinese were insisting your newly installed leaders living in their security base pass laws giving them your resources? Would you give up for the pain? Would you be pissed off? Would you fight back in any way you could getting help from any body willing to help you? If your father was tortured, your mother blown away, or your daughter raped and your brother butchered by newly formed private contractor foreigners from the east? T'will never happen. Why? Because we have the weapons. Those with the best weapons win the war right? But Vietnam has to be erased in the military mind set. We could have won if we'd used all our arsenal is the attitude. Next time we'll finish the job. How? We'll use mini nukes and fry those terrible Iranians till they burn like Hiroshima. So what if we overthrew their wonderful elected prime minister and instaled the Shah? He didn't nationalise all that oil and spent all the dosh on our new toy palnes and we even helped him with his nuclear power. Then that devil Khomani screwed everything up and we set Sadaam off his leash. Blair claims He was resbonsible for a million deaths in that eight year war. And how the British helped him as did the Americans, and two countries were largely destroyed. Then we hit Sadaam in Kuwait blasting a half a million bomblets at his poor front line troops largely Shiites in th edesert in half an hour as an opening salvo. Great tv. We buldozed their pathetic trenches and buried countless thousands of raw recruits alive as the coalition set forth into the burning desert and burned miles of motor ways from the air as every tom Dick and Harry headed for safety out of Kuwait to the north. Every vehicle on two roads for miles in gridlock was burned. We then claimed it was all Iraqi troops stealing vehicles to get out. That was a despicible lie. The pilots themselves called off the turky shoot or the 'Like shooting fish in a barrel' scene. Those pics were all quickly censored but I saw the bulldozing and it will remain with me for life. So reminiscent of the dreadful Jewish holocaust scenes at the end of the second world war.
Then the prime movers in the sanctions to keep Sadaam in his box were the British and Americans. We killed over a million more including 500,000 and blamed Sadaam. Another lie. It was the most cruel thing ever done to a nation and went on for over ten years. We also created no-fly zones and ended up bombing relentlessly for years before the latest invasion. Aggression is the Supreme Crime under the UN and international law. Leaders should face the same as the Nazi leadership faced. We created and applied the law. We must abide by it and face the consequences. We deliberately left out of the war crimes list the bombing of cities in Nuremburg otherwise some of our guys would have been in the dock too. And after sanctions and uptempo bombing we invaded and committed "The Supreme Crime". Like Israel we claim self defense. That Iraq an impoverished nation under sanctions was a threat to the world? Like Reagan with the hoards of communists in Nicaragua pouring across th border into Texas to destroy the US of A? And Clinton was just as bad. The Democrats are possibly worse. I mean it. They might want to show just how tough they really are. That's the real problem. There you have it. God Bless! I feel like tears are coming now.
US Forces murdering women & children well there's a shocker, remember My Lai in Vietnam
kucinich will stop the bloodshed..