Airstrikes and Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
By Matt Zeitlin - Oct 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pmThe New York Times reported yesterday that the military has concluded that 30 civilians were killed in an August 22nd airstrike, which was a higher number than the military had previously reported. This isn’t just a major human rights concern–it’s a tactical one, too.
It’s universally accepted among counterinsurgency experts, including General David Petraeus, that air strikes don’t only increase the risk of civilian casualities, but are also counter-productive strategically. This is a direct quote from FM 3-24, the Army’s famed counter-insurgency manual written by Petraeus himself:
[A]n air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefits… For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully.
To put it lightly, we haven’t been listening to Petraeus in Afghanistan.
Because of the relatively low number of troops in such a large and rugged country, commanders are resorting to airstrikes in attempts to kill Taliban fighters without having to actally commit ground troops to these remote areas. Unfortunately, it’s not at all uncommon for these airstrikes to kill innocent Afghanis. (While the Times reported 30 civilians were killed, both the UN and Afghan authorities put the number at closer to 90 , while “fewer than 20 militants” were killed in the raid.)
It’s hardly like these airstrikes, which by their very nature are more likely to kill civilians, are new to Afghanistan. British troops complained back in August 2007 about American airstrikes making their on-the-ground efforts to coax the local population into assisting them less effective. And since then, it’s only gotten worse. From July 2007 to July 2008, airstrikes nearly doubled, according to Air Force data. In 2007, there were an average of 35 airstrikes a day, and by July 2008, that number ballooned to 68.
Although I think there are good arguments for and against increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan, I think it’s clear that our current strategy is failing. Either we should significantly decrease the scope of the mission there, and stop ordering so many airstrikes to make up for the lack of ground troops, or we should amp up the troop presence and actually attack militants on the ground. As things currently stand, we’re likely to see more civilian deaths and not a whole lot of sucess in rooting out the Taliban.
Post a Comment