Civilian deaths: Afghan parliament want to control ISAF operations and deployment

AFP report that the Upper House (Meshrano Jirga) appears to have debated on Tuesday the idea that "...the presence of foreign forces must be legalised under law", including a timetable for withdrawal.  The debate reportedly follows more Afghan accusations that ISAF forces killed civilians in an air strike against Taliban positions over the weekend.  "They must be brought under laws and their activities must be controlled" another Upper House member was reported to have said.

We are of course a long way away from anything close to ISAF being asked to leave or having to seek approval from Parliament and the Afghan Defence Ministry to launch air strikes in response to a Taliban ambush.  But at the risk of stretching a point, unfocused and most definitely "knee jerk" legal reactions from an inexperienced Parliament are potentially more dangerous to the country than the Taliban.  Civilian casualties are understandably a very raw nerve for both Karzai, his government and, increasingly, the parliament.  There is a high likelihood that an over-emotional Parliament will: make ill-informed decisions, make unrealistic or unachievable demands, alienate key members of the international community and hamper counter-insurgency operations that are already struggling.

Afghanistan cannot yet afford emotive over-reactions from its Parliament, although, given its relative immaturity, such things are likely and even understandable at this stage of its existence.  Fortunately, there is also a high risk that this announced initiative will either go away or be reduced in impact, after cooler heads - probably including Karzai, ISAF and the international community - step in to provide assurances.  If any legislation is forthcoming, it will probably be fairly innocuous - and there probably is a case for formalising ISAFs presence in the country in Afghan law.   

But it is important to watch Parliament's response to provocative and emotive incidents (such as civilian casualties, perceived Western insults to Islam and relations with Pakistan) - it may try to run before it can walk, and this could be dangerous and destabilising.

*****************************

While I think about it, there seems to be a pretty limp academic debate on this crucial subject of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.  I was a little disappoined by a July USIP paper: "Killing friends, making enemies".  Most texts I have read don't seem to make it beyond helpful recommendations like "it should stop", or "the military should be really careful" (I got the feeling the military took that on board a few years back) or "maybe we should send tens of thousands more NATO soldiers instead".  There probably won't be much of an actual "solution" as such to avoidance of civilian casualties on the battlefield, but I would suggest that if it is a problem for the international community and the Afghan government it could also be a problem for the Taliban.  In fact I know it is .  I'll try and write a bit more on this later, in the meantime I would welcome any guidance or thoughts on the subject...