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
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular