Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Civilian Deaths Continue Unabated in Afghanistan
NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Civilians in Afghanistan
NATO forces in southern Afghanistan bombed a civilian convoy, killing 27 people including women and children and injuring many more, Afghan officials said.
Afghans walks behind US Marines during an operation in Marjah, Helmand province Photo: REUTERS The airstrike in a remote part of Oruzgan province yesterday capped a bloody week for Afghan civilians that has seen some 60 innocent people killed by NATO weapons.
Afghanistan's cabinet called the attack "unjustifiable" and condemned the raid "in the strongest terms possible".
Officials said three vehicles were bombed, killing at least 27 people, including four women and one child, while at least 12 others were injured. The death toll had earlier been put at 33.
The cars were traveling between Kandahar and Daikundi, in Afghanistan's central highlands, when NATO and Afghan forces mistook them for insurgents.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said troops on the ground thought the civilians were militants "en route to attack a joint Afghan-Isaf unit" but they later confirmed that there were women and children at the scene and launched an investigation.
The local governor and the interior minister said all of the victims were civilians.
US General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said he was "extremely saddened".
"I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission," he said in a statement yesterday. "We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust."
NATO has been criticized in the past for relying on shoddy intelligence and calling in airstrikes when there is no immediate need.
General McChrystal has urged troops to refrain from using heavy weapons, by showing what he calls "courageous restraint". On Saturday President Karzai repeated calls for the coalition to eliminate civilian casualties.
"We need to reach the point where there are no civilian casualties," Mr Karzai said. "Our effort and our criticism will continue until we reach that goal."
But the last seven days have been anything but peaceful. Last Sunday at least nine civilians were killed when troops involved in Helmand hit a compound with a volley of rockets, during Operation Moshtarak.
On Monday NATO and Afghan forces mistakenly killed five men and injured two others in Kandahar province after deciding that they had been planting a roadside bomb. "The joint patrol called for an airstrike," Isaf said in a statement. "Following the strike, the Afghan-ISAF patrol approached the scene and determined the individuals had not been emplacing an IED."
On Thursday, an airstrike in northern Kunduz province missed insurgents and killed seven policemen while on Friday a man carrying a box was shot and killed in Nad-e Ali. "The man dropped the box, turned and ran away from the patrol, and then for an unknown reason turned and ran toward the patrol at which time they shot and killed him," NATO said in a statement. "After a search of the individual it was determined the box, which appeared to be filled with IED-making materials, was not an IED."
In December NATO was accused of killing 10 civilians, including eight schoolchildren, in Narang district in Kunar. NATO claimed they were part of a bomb-making cell.
Yesterday's civilian deaths come as a further blow to the Western effort in Afghanistan after the Dutch Prime Minister conceded that he could not prevent his forces being pulled out this year due to the collapse of his Government.
Jan Peter Balkenende lost the argument over extending the deployment at a 16-hour Cabinet session, in the first big reversal for the recently appointed NATO leader, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who had publicly requested a continued Dutch commitment.
"Our task as the lead nation [in Uruzgan province] ends in August," Mr Balkenende said. After a three-month draw-down, the Dutch will be completely out of Afghanistan by the end of the year.
There are concerns that other countries where public opinion is turning against the Afghan campaign could follow, notably Canada, which has had the biggest proportional casualty rate and is committed to withdrawing its 2,800 troops by the end of next year.
Another concern is the continued presence of 1,000 Australian troops. The Canberra Government has repeatedly refused to take over the lead role in Uruzgan if Holland leaves, demanding that a big NATO power provide the main share of troop numbers.
Just as important is the impression that European countries are struggling to find their share of the 10,000 extra troops requested by General McChrystal to join 30,000 extra US troops in Afghanistan, with France ruling out more forces and a fierce debate in Germany.
The Times understands that the Dutch forces in Uruzgan will be replaced by US troops, diverting them from the surge operation against the Taliban.
- Posted in
61 Comments so far
Show AllThe US has become very skilled at apologizing for slaughtering masses of innocent civilian men, women and children. Secretary of War, Robert Gates, must have piles of these 'sorry' notices printed up far in advance. How can Generals MacSlaughter and Betrayus read these things with a streight face?
The blood on Obama's hands keeps creeping further up his wrists...
In a way these idiots are hastening the end. When you take the easy way out tactically by using air strikes you guarantee 2 things; 1) you will kill lots of innocent civilians and 2) you will radicalize those left standing and ALL their relatives against you. 1 air strike like this probably create a thousand militants that align with the Taliban. Why? because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Add to that all the Europeans pulling out and the Chinese backing off on buying our debt the end game is probably in sight. About time. When the US finally collapses the rest of the world can breath a sigh of relief.
Although "air superiority" has proven to be important on many battlefields, it seems that our current administration/military planners cannot conduct operations without the paradigm of air support.
I wonder what would happen if this operation was conducted solely with ground troops (together with the "invisible support" of satellites, high-flying AWACs, etc)? Certainly it would reduce the number of civilian casualties. Certainly it would do better at winning "hearts and minds" of the locals. Certainly it would be better training for Afghan troops who will have no air support once we leave.
Certainly this kind of thinking appears to be beyond our administration/military planners. Certainly it demonstrates that "military intelligence" is a contradiction of terms.
Innocent Afghans continue to be slaughtered yet the antiwar movement continues to remain mute. Afghan children and grandmothers are torn to pieces by American 500 lb. bombs and yet the Democrats issue nary a protest against their fellow Democrat named Barack Obama. It would seem that to the average American, as long as this carnage is occurring thousands of miles away against people who are not Americans, then they do not have to be too concerned about this loss of life, especially since the corporate media is doing their best to make sure the American people and the politicians will be spared the sight of seeing those dead and mangled bodies. It would seem that the last thing that the mainstream media would wish to do would be to roil the consciences of the American people. Assuming, that is, that they have any consciences and any guilt to actually roil.
Thankfully there are other NATO countries that seem to be having, unlike the United States, second thoughts about sending their soldiers into that quagmire in Afghanistan where they can be used as cannon fodder for a most unjust cause.
"I don't believe in harming people. I don't believe in bombing children. I don't believe in making misery when it's totally unnecessary. And misery is not necessary."-Alice Walker [1944-], American writer
Erroll: your comment about the anti-war movement being "muted" about this continuing carnage really hits home. I'm reminded of the situation in the FBI during dictator (I mean director) J. Edgar Hoover's reign: his dictum to his agents: never, never do anything to "embarass the Bureau" (him) and he gave one-way tickets to Bureau Siberia (posts in rural Idaho) for agents who screwed up on their "investigation" of the JFK assassination when their delinquencies were being exposed to public scrutiny. Just so, one can't utter a word of criticism of Obama administration policy, no matter how benighted it may be, lest it "embarass Barack" and remove the transgressor from the charmed circle of his/her "liberal" friends.
Erroll, you have touched on a couple issues here. From your wording, it seems you are not a part of the anti-war movement yet you complain about them not doing enough. What are you doing about it? At least your post doesn't indicate anything of that sort. Typical "blame somebody else for not fixing it" mentality. If you are so concerned about civilian deaths, why aren't you a part of the peace movement or familiar with what they are doing? Which brings me to my second point. The anti-war movement is not mute, they are muted by the media. I've been in over 20 peace marches since October '02, mostly here in Los Angeles. I've seen with my own eyes thousands of people in the streets only to go home and turn on the news (national & local) to see the march ignored. And when local news does cover it, they show up in the final hour and interview the the most outrageous looking person they can find. Millions have marched around the world many times yet have gotten a fraction of the press of a handful of nutcase teabaggers. There have been protests every March on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and there is one next month in many major cities. They're easy to find out about if you look. If you only watch mainsteam media you won't hear about them of course. But if you are here, there is hope.
cactuspie: You make a good point that the anti-war movement may be more muted than mute. Certainly the news media have much to be condemned for in their coverage (non-coverge) of anti-war and other protest movements.
I do take exception, however, to your criticism of errol for, as you surmise, not being personally involved as have you in peace marches. In the house of a movement there are many rooms and places for marchers and writers and check-writers and petition signers and insurgent candidates for office, etc. To march is beautiful and to be celebrated by our movement, even if it is ignored by the public at large. But at times the pen is as mighty as the sword and we need to honor those among us as well who sit at their computers and write their comments on the travesties of the day.
So I'm not too tolerant of the "get off your butt" school of criticism of writers. Reminds me of being a member of a housing co-op in New York City at one of whose meetings, if a dissident individual complained too much about management's errors, he/she would be told "don't kvetch (complain), join a committee!" Committees and marchers are important, but so are some of the crusty old (and young) kvetchers who inhabit the pages of CD comments boards.
But it's also true that all this protesting, writing letters, signing petitions has done very little if anything to stop the war machine. While sentiment and sympathy is nice, it has been easy to marginalize.
So has anything else been tried? The "get off your butt" school is particularly guilty of doing the same thing over and over again, going through the motions to demonstrate one's own righteousness as opposed to actually changing anything.
I'm saying this strongly because I've seen enough vile bullshit arguments advanced against anyone who deviates from the smug self-satisfied pacifist line, as if Americans are shrinking violets too dainty to be shocked out of their complacency by stronger action. Then again, repression is also at an all time high in America. Strange how peaceful change is made impossible...
Cactuspie
I would be very wary about making assumptions as they can often lead to erroneous conclusions. You complain that I am not "a part of the antiwar movement..." I did not realize that you are omniscient. You live in one of the largest cities in the country-Los Angeles. I live in a very small, very conservative town in the Pacific Northwest where I have been told by one person that "You don't belong here" and by another that "You should go back to Russia" because of my antiwar and universal health care bumper stickers. Despite these less than intelligent observations, I have a "STOP THE WARS" sign in our front window. Thankfully, our home has not been firebombed because of my beliefs which you regard with such skepticism. Perhaps if you are willing to pay for the services of a bodyguard then I might consider becoming a little more active in the antiwar movement in my super patriotic town. There are also some days in which it all become too overwhelming as what is happening today is all too reminiscent to me of what I went through in a place called Vietnam.
As I implied earlier, those who are so quick to make assumptions always end up in danger of having the first three letters of that name [assumptions] being applied to them.
Erroll
Besides you, how many in your hometown oppose the war? I'm betting on 1 from your prior posts. Really curious, how many?
cactuspie
Lighten up on poor ole Erroll there. I can assure you that Erroll as a combat veteran is probably more anti-war than you are. And I know he has done his share of marching back in the day.
Aside from that marching doesn't guarantee any results. The marches in the sixties didn't apply half the pressure that contacting our legislators, local, state and federal did. Going to Washington and seeing them in their offices, showing up at meetings when they spoke. Talking to people that did not agree about Viet Nam or didn't know what was happening there.
The Internet makes quite a difference and I know Erroll works at it. So perhaps you were just hasty in chiding him as not being involved.
He's a good guy.
Veritas: thanks for the "lighten up" admonition; it's what I was trying to say above about the anti-war movement as a house with many rooms. Besides that, I get pretty tired of the "woe is us" resignation that there isn't really anything we the people can do about things because, you know, the government is just so powerful and repressive. Better to light a candle (literally or symbolically) than to curse the darkness, a saying apparently derived from:
Romans 13: 11,12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
My point is that you can put on that armour whether you are off your butt or on it.
phoenix20
"the anti-war movement as a house with many rooms"
That is a great analogy! I was just trying to point out that there are many ways to be involved in and help the anti-war movement. You nailed it in far fewer words, thanks.
Members of Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, World Can't Wait and Peace Action NY will vigil tomorrow (2/23/10) across from St. Patrick's Cathedral, then walk in a procession to the Times Square military recruiting station, commemorating the 1,000 coalition death as well as the uncounted thousands of Afghani deaths in our imperial war on Afghanistan.
Demonstrations will be occurring next week and later in March against these wars and slaughter.
We have been visiting our Congress members every month since October to demand an end to this insanity. We will stop by their offices in Queens, Nassau & Suffolk Counties again next Monday, March 1.
Just because the media doesn't cover any demonstrations any more (unless windows are smashed), don't think we have been "mute." We also speak out, write, call, and try to get others to do so.
But Congress won't listen, and the Warmongering Corporate Media will not cover any of these actions.
ED
I hope that there is a large turnout tomorrow in New York. I also hope that there will be a million Americans demonstrating at the big antiwar rally in Washington DC on March 20, I believe. As I attempted to imply before irrationally being jumped on by a few people, I will be surprised if even half that number show up as so many Americans could care less that Obama, that [alleged] agent of hope [but not for the Afghans and the Pakistanis] and change, has murdered, and continues to murder, so many innocent Afghan civilians. As I also stated earlier, one also has to wonder [as you do] if the corporate media will cover the events [both the one in New York and in DC] and if they do, will they severely undercut the number of people who will be in attendance at those rallies.
So General Stanley McChrystal is "extremely saddened." Well big whoop! Why does he then go ahead with the clumsy air-strikes? Why the attacks on civilian populations?
Because we aren't there to "nation-build;" no, we WANT a disorganized and corrupt regime to forestall any attempts to control their resources, for Afghanistan has great potential wealth. But a real government might want to use it on the people or some such nonsense.
We are an occupying force and plan on keeping it that way -- perhaps forever.
Gary
"Beware of a misfit occupation.... Consider carefully your natural bent, whether for business or a profession.~
-- Marshall Field
"Canada, which has had the biggest proportional casualty rate," had damned well better follow in accordance with the commitment to withdraw by 2011. If it doesn't, the reaction will make the Dutch parliamentary defeat look like a minor spat.
Canada never had any legitmate right or reason to be there in the first place, except that it felt compelled to honor its NATO commitment when that organization succumbed to U.S. pressure to venture outside its proper North Atlantic area of operations.
United Nations "Emergency International Assistance for the Reconstruction of War-Stricken Afghanistan" my arse!
There is now a ridiculous unanimous agreement within the united states that we must not criticize our wonderful heroes in the armed services. This is total BS and we have always killed civilians enthusiastically in every war we have started and Iraq and Afghanistan are no exceptions. We have a soviet type mentality that does not allow critical thinking when it comes to our slaughters.
The USA is taking its cue here from Israel when they slaughter Civilians. Israel is quick to have spokespeople indicate how "Tragic" civilian deaths are , how there will be an investigation, how it could not be helped and how saddened they are that such occurred.
Israel usually uses a female spokesperson to give it the feeling of being more "Compassionate" to the suffering.
Never mind that they very next day they slaughter more, and the day after that still more, war is all about Public relations. The killing and murders are really not that significant in Warworld.
I'm sure McChrystal will go there to apologize to the families (sarcasm). More likely, is each family will get $1,000 for the loss.
Terrorism pure and simple, with our tax dollars to boot.
Either Amy Goodman or MSNBC reported this morning that US/NATO forces had received intelligence informing them that these buses would contain insurgents, so of course we had "no choice" but to attack them and find out later than the intel was -- again -- false and probably planted for the purpose of embarrassing us yet again when we killed a bunch of innocent people. Certainly interferes with winning hearts and minds, I'd say.
What in the world are we doing there? The military says this operation is only "the beginning" of clearing all of Afghanistan of bad guys. So how many more civilians will have to die before we announce we have "succeeded?"
Why in the world do the Afghans and Pakistanis not tell us to get out of their countries so they can make peace with the Taliban themselves?
If peace were to come to this world, all meaning would drain from the minds of this world's High Military Commanders. Their wills would wilt, their bodies would shrivel, they would be unable to speak, their groans as they were dying would be unbearable to hear.
Not unbearable. For world peace I'd be willing to listen to them groan. (Not a very peaceful sentiment, I know.)
I'm Dutch and glad that in a short time we won't be involved in Afghanistan any more. There was no reason to go there, no reason to occupy it and definitely no reason to kill there. The country has been a mess, thanks mainly to the USSR and the USA, and there's no way outsiders can solve the problemes there.
As for all those supporters of this farce of a war: do a tour of duty there and try to understand the country and it's history. Maybe you'll learn something, if you're not killed beforehand.
Nice post!
"There was no reason to go there, no reason to occupy it and definitely no reason to kill there."
Well said!
"there's no way outsiders can solve the problemes there"
Even better.
Ah, yes, another lesson by the US of A on how to win friends and influence people. Of course, the real purpose of killing innocent folks is enemy enhancement. We have to make sure we've got plenty of "bad guys" to fight and killing someone's family and friends can get a survivor thinking about joining up with the "terrorists".
RJW
General McKristallnacht is doing a heckofajob, wouldn't you say? Support our baby-killer, I mean troops.
WAR & Collateral Damage go hand in hand.
end the wars.
peace. love. anarchy
It's not a "war" it is an invasion.
Killing, maiming and hurting, that's all we seem to know how to do. While the corporate media whores continue to spin and sanitize this abhorrent, deadly and illegal Middle East war of agression. Assuaging the sheople with their feckless tripe. Everyone! Look! It's Tiger Woods! He's apologizing to the country for his infidelity and lust for hoeing around. Who gives a rat's arse! He's laughin all of the way to the bank.
Meantime, the widening gap of wealth across what's left of our crumbling America increases.
Serf’s up!
If the President withdrew our troops as he should do, should have done, how many civilian causalties would there be this week?
Would a kid from Austin be coming home in a bodybag?
Who is responsible and who is to blame is obvious.
This is not the first time that NATO, a word that means almost all U.S. forces, is being taken to task for killing civilians. The tactic of using the media to shout loudly about women and children dying (as though a man's death was not equally egregious) has been used in Iraq and every time Israel has had to defend itself by attacking Arabs. They also show grannies crying near dead bodies and men pumping their fists, rifles and shouting like lunatics.
The political imperative of Karzai (who cares if I spell his name right?) to belly ache about Afghan civilian deaths as though he thinks we can win against cowards who hide in schools and in civilian's homes, without some collateral damage.
Let's kick the Taliban out of that area. Let's only publicize Taliban deaths. Let's publicize Taliban captures and deaths in Mosques and other of their hiding place and control the information that comes into the U.S. about a few Afghan civilians dying. Sorry to see it, but my own countrymen are dying to protect the people there.
The civilians should have gotten the hell out of that provence.
HarveyY
I assume you ARE joking?
Veritas, nah, he ain't joking, dear heart, what you hear is Amurika singing!
HarveyY 5:42 ----- Please read Zinn's " A Peoples History of the USA"
If bin Laden apologizes for 9/11, and claims killing those civilians was was just a mistake...he just wanted to kill the American Terrorists...can we stop this madness?
It seems that General Stanley MacDeathsquad's own Death Squads ordered this slaughter of innocents.
KABUL—U.S. Special Operations Forces ordered an airstrike that killed at least 27 civilians in southern Afghanistan and the soldiers may not have satisfied rules of engagement designed to avoid the killing of innocents, Afghan and coalition officials said Monday. (wsj)
the fall of American bombs is unabated, so why would the civilian deaths not be unabated?
Which parties voted to start the war on Afghanistan? Which political parties support for it is "unabated"? I'll tell you a little anti-war trick we use in democratic countries around the world...we vote for anti-war parties. Clever huh?
jlocke123
"we vote for anti-war parties. Clever huh?"
We don't have one at the moment. We are working on it I believe.
Bush is still swimming in the blood from the wars he caused, and Obama is following what Bush started. It seems that for a Christain country, we have been in one war after another since we deposed of Queen Liliuokalani,- by an American coup in Hawaii in 1893, and still going strong. The axis of evil are now Israel, Britain and the United States. After Bush took over our country seemed to take on a 1930 Germany kind of feeling with the tactics he, and Chaney started.
The genocide against Native Americans was called the Indian Wars fought from 1575 to now.
Civilian deaths. Who cares?
The only people in this world who are important are those in the military hierachy, those involved with politics, those who work for the Public Service and those who have extra-large bank accounts.
The rest of us simply don't count at all!
"US General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said he was "extremely saddened".
"I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission," he said in a statement yesterday. "We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust."
'Protect'? As in, we had to kill the villagers to protect them?
The best way to protect them would be for our troops to leave.
I am ashamed of those who support this war-including myself and those around me. We support it when we don't lay down what we are doing to show that government the we want to stop it.
How would that be done?
1. Massive strikes-hundreds of thousands of workers going into the streets of America to protest, week in week out instead of going to work.
2. Sign off your dependents to twelve to keep the government from getting your taxes.
3. Mass Sit ins in the halls of Congress and state legislatures-the states are approving the National Guard deployments.
Until millions of Americans take to the streets for as many weeks or months as it takes to bring this insanity to and end, we will continue to passively show our support for the war.
I fear you are correct. The One War Party with its Two Wings and Ministry of Propaganda (a.k.a. Corporate Media) engineers consent, as Edward Bernays taught them all, by keeping so many people preoccupied with job, housing, and health care concerns as well as with pretty distractions such as the Olympics and other infotainment, so that an overt police state is not necessary here to control the masses.
Stanley McChrystal is very sorry that the newest 27 innocents died, but if he and many others had never put their butts in Afghanistan, it might not have happened, and if they would now get their butts out of the place, that might help, too.
All you need to realise about the US leadership of NATO is every Administrations support for Israel's illegal and barbarous behaviour. What a bunch of unadulterated hypocrisy from the military and its alliance of political masters !
Bad guys are all over, in the U.S. government, the Afghanistan government, the Taliban religion, the Christen and Jewish religions, the people of Afghanistan and the people of America. Nobody can rid the world of all the bad guys. Like weeds , you kill one and ten more sprout up. It's a never ending process that cannot be stopped by doing bad things like killing suspected bad guys and innocent civilians. Sometimes I think that this is so absurd, that we are the good guys and can kill all the bad guys and Afghanistan will prosper in peace, that I believe we have no intellect or free will. No human being with an intellect and free will would support the U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan or in Iraq. We lost 3,000 American civilians from a terrorist attack and have killed, injured, displaced, orphaned,and terrified millions of victims in U.S. retaliation and we won't stop the violence. How can anybody justify that?
There is no reason to call in air strikes. some troops on the ground it says thought the convoy might be somebody up to no good. no further questions were asked, as usual. just go ahead an let the bombs fly. this has got to be the most cowardly "war" ever fought.
if that president and those generals were ever serious about limiting civilian casualties they would keep their airplanes on the ground.
these scripts they have been reading from for ten years are getting tiresome. Just as are puppet Karzai's scripted protests.