September, 08 2008, 12:20pm EDT

Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes on the Rise
Airstrikes Cause Public Backlash, Undermine Protection Efforts
NEW YORK
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban's use of "human shields" in violation of the laws of war.
Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, "'Troops in Contact': Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,"
analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting
civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of
ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found
few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all
deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
"Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian
casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the
chance of a mistake," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. "Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public
support for the Afghan government and the presence of international
forces providing security to Afghans."
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed
to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in
populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their
forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war.
Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces
purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in
fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died
during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings
unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO
attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In
2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related
to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the
various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least
321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US
and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan
civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of
those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces
and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US
or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human
Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian
deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes
causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny
responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban.
US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and
lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations
with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence
payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to
assist civilians harmed by US actions.
"The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many
civilians," said Adams. "The US must also take responsibility,
including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill
Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian
deaths, the US shouldn't use this as an excuse when it could have taken
better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the
killing."
Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties
occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban
targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes
occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in
support of "troops in contact" - ground troops who are under insurgent
attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special
forces units - normally small in number and lightly armed - came under
insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who
had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US
"anticipatory self-defense" rules of engagement applied.
The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For
example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two
battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand
district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case
investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many
civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and
fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also
sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has
led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.
To respond to public concern and complaints from President
Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics.
These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks
where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house
searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence
suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant
drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007,
even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.
Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but
remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes,
particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and
the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.
Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address
the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix
continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the
inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.
"The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear
that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the
ultimate price," said Adams. "Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a
recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the
international effort to provide basic security to the people of
Afghanistan."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


