Forgot your password?
Document Actions
Airstrikes and civilian casualties in Afghanistan
A New Human Rights Watch report highlights the increasingly difficult and emotive subject of civilian casualties caused during the conflict between insurgents and counter-insurgents - the implications of "drop less bombs" would appear to be "send more troops"...
US F-15E over Afghanistan (US DOD)
The report unsurprisingly but rightly highlights the increasing problem of the numbers of civilian casualties caused by international military air operations across Afghanistan. The report particularly focuses on US-led activities in southern and eastern Afghanistan and the apparently prolific use of airstrikes to target insurgent groups (and individuals). An Associated Press report also highlights this story with a wider piece about how this and many other perceived failings of the international community are causing frustration and resentment amongst the Afghan populace.
Workable solutions are going to be hard to find. These recent reports and the issues raised have wider implications. No considered analysis just yet, but some thoughts spring to mind:
1.The implications of this and other similar reports (USIP) are a mixture of “more care is necessary” and “less airstrikes should take place”. It would be really good to see some military analysis of the implications of both of these ideas...
2.It would be even better to see some reporting on the military effectiveness of the use of airpower, for example Predator strikes in Pakistan – maybe air strikes are in fact a very successful means of killing insurgents? Does the issue ultimately boil down to a crude military equation of balancing loss of popular support versus neutralising an insurgency? IS ISAF/OEF killing the insurgency quicker than it is losing support?
3.It seems that the opposite of “less airstrikes” is “more troops”, and yet NATO seems to spectacularly fail to address this, given the increasing unpopularity of sending soldiers to Afghanistan in all European national capitals - US commanders seem to have been calling for another 12,000 or so for some while now.
4.This report, others like it, and the media debate that surrounds it, although very necessary, will likely provide a significant boost to Taliban credibility, morale and media activities. Conversely, a HRW report from April 2007 which pointed at the Taliban's increasing use of suicide bombers and the civilian deaths they were inflicting was probably damaging to the Taliban – they certainly attacked it in their statements and have remained sensitive to the issue since.
5.The Associated Press report is a useful reminder about the debate of the mood of the Afghan populace – a weariness with the lack of progress, continual disruption, disturbances and violence from international forces who are still, after 7 years, from the Afghan perspective, lacking in cultural awareness, sensitivity and respect.
6.Finally, as mentioned earlier in this blog, the Afghan parliament's Upper House has called for legislation to cover ISAF/NATO operations against the Taliban and the length of time of their deployment following increasing concern over the number of civilian casualties caused during the fighting. Emotive reactions from an inexperienced parliament could be damaging to Afghanistan, its government, the international community and itself.
airstrikes...
NATO could try three things more forcefully - explain, apologise and proactively target the Taliban:
- Everyone expects the international community, US, ISAF, NATO to be virtually perfect, so NATO might make efforts to better explain to the Afghan population (and its government) just how difficult air operations are (this "Man on the Moon" syndrome idea that if the US can put a man on the moon surely they can accurately target a few insurgents - if the bombs go astray, its because they don't really care or have some other motive);
- explain the implications of not using airpower - more casualties and more foreign troops needed
- admit and explain failings, weaknesses and areas of uncertainty
- make a lot more efforts to highlight all the things the Taliban do (hiding in buildings, human shields...) that are illegal and causing Afghan suffering
- explain the need for accurate intelligence reporting - and even the responsibilities of the Afghan pop to assist and the value if they do
- pre-emptive visits to districts, towns and villages to educate, inform, explain, advise on ISAF procedures, operations, likely developments. (I know this suggestion may seem slightly tasteless...)
These are really off the top of my head and I'd welcome any comments - this is an important (verging on vital) debate that ISAF is losing, with the Taliban, the media and NGOs doing all the running...
What are the alternatives and solutions, if any?
Media access to information and SOFAs
NATO/ISAF has certainly made changes in its engagement procedures which has probably led to a reduction on civilian casulaties when compared to 2007 (excluding the most recent Shindand incident where investigations are still ongoing). Comparing the first 6 months of 2007 and 2008 there is a drop in civilian casualties caused by international military forces. However whatever changes are made at a tactical or operational level are lost when coverage of civilian causlaties tends to focus on international military forces. By way of example the piece I first saw covering the HRW report started with the title "Rights group condemns U.S., NATO air strikes in Afghanistan." This is what most people hear but the second line says... and HRW "blamed some of the civilian deaths on Taliban and al Qaida insurgents who create "human shields" by blending into populated areas." This article was by James Rosen from McClatchy Newspapers if you want to read the rest.
This is hardly a fair representation of what HRW has said and not an accurate reflection of the levels of casualties being caused. Yes it is an outrage that civilians die in conflict - but just because it is harder to get information about what the resistence groups are causing because international journalists and their stringers can't get complete access it is not fair to then allow the reporting to be skewed.
However international military forces hardly make the job of explaining what they are doing in Afghanistan easy for themselves with multiple chains of command and the lack of a SOFA for Coalition Forces which gives the impression (and much of this issue is about impression) that the US particularly is a conqueror and invader and not a supporter of an independent Afghan state. So when it inevitably does go wrong and civilians die is it Coalition air support that causes the casualties, or NATO/ISAF who called in the strike (there are many permutations of how that could run) and what about the South East where US forces can re-hat themselves as Coalition or ISAF when it suits them? So if a member of your family gets killed or injured who are you going to complain to - the local FOB or PRT who may not be aware of the strike in the first place or a UAV hovering over your district?
There is much more that can be said on this but that is enough for now.
US/NATO Airstrikes
the report in question rightly points out that the airstrikes in Afghanistan are carried out by two different entities. Firstly (and the report is a bit unprecise here I think) the US, which carries out airstrikes under the mandate Operation Enduring Freedom. This mandate aims at the active combat of terrorism. Secondly the NATO/ISAF troops, who have another mandate, which mainly aims at support of the new Afghan security forces. The NATO/ISAF troops are only allowed to use violence in self defence or in direct support of their mission.
Be that as it may, in the end there is no difference in the negative consequences of civilian losses. But the possible solutions discussed here (which are very good and for sure helpful if adopted) are only adressed at NATO/ISAF. The same code of conduct had to be adopted by the OEF troops and all the measures (like infoOps/mediaOps and so on) had to be closely coordinated between OEF and NATO/ISAF. Which I see as kind of problematic.
A solution here could be to abandon the different mandates, which is sometimes discussed...
airstrikes -- a no-win situation?
As always, you have some good perspectives on an emotive issue that won't go away. You rightly point out that "be more careful" doesn't really cut it as an effective critique. ISAF/NATO seems to be trapped in a no-win, no-alternatives situation.
-There will always be human or technical errors, bad intelligence, and bad luck that cause unintended civilian casualties. One bit of genuine bad luck can cost international forces dearly.
-There is a sense that the most effective way to defeat the insurgency is to use a small footprint, special operations forces-led, intelligence-driven campaign. Precision strikes are essential to target insurgent leadership. But this will almost inevitably mean unintended civilian casualties.
-Putting a greater Afghan face on the counterinsurgency effort, while essential, is also very problematic from this perspective. What pilot would trust coordinates given by a Afghan National Army observer?
-A larger footprint of international forces -- which you rightly point out is unlikely to happen -- will result in more TICs (Troops in Contact), which will result in more unplanned, short-notice close air support missions. (The HRW report points out that the large majority of collateral damage incidents occur in such unplanned, short-notice CAS missions.)
-The media operations of ISAF/NATO -- rightly or wrongly -- focus on gathering all the facts before issuing conclusive statements. Of course, the Afghan rumor mill and Taliban propaganda are much quicker. The perception of collateral damage is more powerful (and damaging) than the truth. ISAF/NATO is always on the back foot.
-The HRW report points out that civilian deaths caused by insurgent attacks are much higher than those caused by the Coalition, but Kabul and ISAF/NATO continually fail at pushing this effectively.
-You rightly point out the growing impatience of the Afghan government at civilian casualties. This is a very emotive issue for Karzai. As he faces re-election next year, with apparently waning support, could he pick this up as a surefire way to gain popular support? "A chicken in every pot and no bombings in your backyard?"