Air strikes on populated areas scrutinized in Afghanistan
September 8, 2008
By AT
Further investigation of the Azizabad aerial bombardment lends support to the Cities Are Not Targets! stance that the use of explosive force in populated areas is inherently inhumane and, more often than not, counterproductive.
Continued US Army denials of slaughter from the air in the face of mounting evidence compiled by reporters and Afghan officials is only further undermining confidence in US rules of engagement in populated areas. A New York Times investigative report concludes:
"The operation in Azizabad once again raises questions for the military about whether it is worth pursuing members of the Taliban with airstrikes inside a densely populated village where civilian casualties and property damage can be so high. A similar raid in the same district by American Special Forces in April 2007, which killed 57 people, led American and NATO commanders to tighten rules on calling in airstrikes on village houses.
"'This is not fair to kill 90 people for one Mullah Sadiq,' said Mr. Umarzai, the district chief. 'If they continue like this, they will lose the people's confidence in the government and the coalition forces.'" (The report cites evidence that Mullah Sadiq is still alive and at large.)
There are two very significant points in this article:
-- Despite the tightening of air-strike rules after a previous incident, heavy non-combatant casualties occurred again. It is doubtful that any further modification of the rules, short of banning such attacks altogether, will prevent further reoccurences.
-- The anger stirred by such massive casualties means that even if Taliban leaders are killed, the net outcome is counterproductive.
The 2020 Vision Campaign maintains that this is the case whenever and wherever explosive force is inflicted upon populated areas.
Click here for the entire NYT story.
"The operation in Azizabad once again raises questions for the military about whether it is worth pursuing members of the Taliban with airstrikes inside a densely populated village where civilian casualties and property damage can be so high. A similar raid in the same district by American Special Forces in April 2007, which killed 57 people, led American and NATO commanders to tighten rules on calling in airstrikes on village houses.
"'This is not fair to kill 90 people for one Mullah Sadiq,' said Mr. Umarzai, the district chief. 'If they continue like this, they will lose the people's confidence in the government and the coalition forces.'" (The report cites evidence that Mullah Sadiq is still alive and at large.)
There are two very significant points in this article:
-- Despite the tightening of air-strike rules after a previous incident, heavy non-combatant casualties occurred again. It is doubtful that any further modification of the rules, short of banning such attacks altogether, will prevent further reoccurences.
-- The anger stirred by such massive casualties means that even if Taliban leaders are killed, the net outcome is counterproductive.
The 2020 Vision Campaign maintains that this is the case whenever and wherever explosive force is inflicted upon populated areas.
Click here for the entire NYT story.
