Nato apologises for killing nine Afghan civilians

[sandinista]

Some times "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it...fuckers.

Gen Petraeus said Tuesday's fatalities had occurred due to a miscommunication error about the location of militants.

"We are deeply sorry for this tragedy and apologise to the members of the Afghan government, the people of Afghanistan and most importantly, the surviving family members of those killed by our actions," he said in a statement.

"These deaths should have never happened and I will personally apologise to President Karzai when he returns from his trip to London this week," he added.

Gen Petraeus said he had ordered all helicopter crews to be re-briefed on the need to keep civilian casualties "to the absolute minimum" and said that troops could face disciplinary action.

Over the weekend, an Afghan presidential team accused Nato forces of killing 65 civilians, including 40 children, in a separate incident in Kunar province, but Nato has disputed the claim.

The Nato-led International Security Assistant Force (Isaf) says most of those killed were insurgents and there were only a few civilian casualties.

Earlier this year, a human rights watchdog released a report saying 2010 was the deadliest year for Afghans since the war began in 2001.

Afghanistan Rights Monitor said the Taliban were responsible for about 60% of the 2,400 civilians killed, while US-led forces were accountable for 21%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12624332

[Atheist-Lite]

Drones are topping themselves in despair these days.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/milita ... ote,19231/

[egbert]

"We are deeply sorry for this tragedy and apologise

There you go - an apology from a GENERAL hisself! What more could you want? That makes everything OK, doesn't it?
Sheesh, all this fuss over a little collateral damage....

[JimC]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

[Atheist-Lite]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

I don't know. The levels of sociopathy in tight knit tribal societies is quite low I read somewhere. They wouldn't find it easy to draw fire to a rival tribe by being embedded - although grassing up probably happens. It is wrong to assume the 20-25% levels of sociopathy found in advanced socially fragmented industrial societies.

[JimC]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

I don't know. The levels of sociopathy in tight knit tribal societies is quite low I read somewhere. They wouldn't find it easy to draw fire to a rival tribe by being embedded - although grassing up probably happens. It is wrong to assume the 20-25% levels of sociopathy found in advanced socially fragmented industrial societies.

Perhaps Islamic fanaticism trumps their finer feelings...

However, I'm sure that much of the problem involves air strikes on groups of people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are dressed just like the real group of insurgents 2 km away... The war-fighting technology of the west inevitably leads to that sort of mistake, in anti-insurgent operations. Personally, I think its time to go, for many reasons...

[Atheist-Lite]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

I don't know. The levels of sociopathy in tight knit tribal societies is quite low I read somewhere. They wouldn't find it easy to draw fire to a rival tribe by being embedded - although grassing up probably happens. It is wrong to assume the 20-25% levels of sociopathy found in advanced socially fragmented industrial societies.

Perhaps Islamic fanaticism trumps their finer feelings...

However, I'm sure that much of the problem involves air strikes on groups of people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are dressed just like the real group of insurgents 2 km away... The war-fighting technology of the west inevitably leads to that sort of mistake, in anti-insurgent operations. Personally, I think its time to go, for many reasons...

Cowardice. There's ground troops but why risk it? Why go ask them what their doing, and risk something, when you can blow them away from the air?

[Gawd]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Jim, you are being obtuse. The "insurgents" ARE civilians. They have families and homes just like everyone else. They are a grass roots movement that try to defend their country from foreign invaders. You only see them as "insurgents" because you believe the propaganda of the West (Americans). From the perspective of the "insurgents" and the Afghans, they ARE one of them. What do you call the Libyan civilians fighting against Gaddafi? "Terrorists"?

[JimC]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Jim, you are being obtuse. The "insurgents" ARE civilians. They have families and homes just like everyone else. They are a grass roots movement that try to defend their country from foreign invaders. You only see them as "insurgents" because you believe the propaganda of the West (Americans). From the perspective of the "insurgents" and the Afghans, they ARE one of them. What do you call the Libyan civilians fighting against Gaddafi? "Terrorists"?

Except for the minor detail that the fundamentalist program they wish to inflict on all Afghans, with its horrendous treatment of women and it's medieval values, is rejected by much of the population...

However, perhaps it is time for the west to simply withdraw, and let them fight their own battles...

If the Taliban comes out on top, and wants to export terror, let them look to the skies...

[Gawd]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Jim, you are being obtuse. The "insurgents" ARE civilians. They have families and homes just like everyone else. They are a grass roots movement that try to defend their country from foreign invaders. You only see them as "insurgents" because you believe the propaganda of the West (Americans). From the perspective of the "insurgents" and the Afghans, they ARE one of them. What do you call the Libyan civilians fighting against Gaddafi? "Terrorists"?

Except for the minor detail that the fundamentalist program they wish to inflict on all Afghans, with its horrendous treatment of women and it's medieval values, is rejected by much of the population...

However, perhaps it is time for the west to simply withdraw, and let them fight their own battles...

If the Taliban comes out on top, and wants to export terror, let them look to the skies...

If you are so sure that the "rest" of the population don't share those same values, then just give them all guns and see what happens.

[JimC]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Jim, you are being obtuse. The "insurgents" ARE civilians. They have families and homes just like everyone else. They are a grass roots movement that try to defend their country from foreign invaders. You only see them as "insurgents" because you believe the propaganda of the West (Americans). From the perspective of the "insurgents" and the Afghans, they ARE one of them. What do you call the Libyan civilians fighting against Gaddafi? "Terrorists"?

Except for the minor detail that the fundamentalist program they wish to inflict on all Afghans, with its horrendous treatment of women and it's medieval values, is rejected by much of the population...

However, perhaps it is time for the west to simply withdraw, and let them fight their own battles...

If the Taliban comes out on top, and wants to export terror, let them look to the skies...

If you are so sure that the "rest" of the population don't share those same values, then just give them all guns and see what happens.

Well, the current corrupt government would certainly be lined up and shot (no loss, either), but that doesn't mean that the Islamic insurgents will be welcomed with open arms, either...

[Clinton Huxley]

Time for the West to skulk away, I'm afraid. The campaign in Afghanistan seems about as effective as the campaign against the Somali pirates.
Besides, the UK can't afford such luxuries any more.

[egbert]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Yup. Those cunning insurgents, posing as children collecting firewood, or wedding parties - what we really need is good squadron of Lt. Calley's, who can see through the disguises employed, and "fragment" the fake grandparents and "children" who are nothing less than enemies of capitalism and democracy. Slay them all - God knows his own!

[sandinista]

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

I don't know. The levels of sociopathy in tight knit tribal societies is quite low I read somewhere. They wouldn't find it easy to draw fire to a rival tribe by being embedded - although grassing up probably happens. It is wrong to assume the 20-25% levels of sociopathy found in advanced socially fragmented industrial societies.

Perhaps Islamic fanaticism trumps their finer feelings...

However, I'm sure that much of the problem involves air strikes on groups of people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are dressed just like the real group of insurgents 2 km away... The war-fighting technology of the west inevitably leads to that sort of mistake, in anti-insurgent operations. Personally, I think its time to go, for many reasons...

Cowardice. There's ground troops but why risk it? Why go ask them what their doing, and risk something, when you can blow them away from the air?

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Jim, you are being obtuse. The "insurgents" ARE civilians. They have families and homes just like everyone else. They are a grass roots movement that try to defend their country from foreign invaders. You only see them as "insurgents" because you believe the propaganda of the West (Americans). From the perspective of the "insurgents" and the Afghans, they ARE one of them. What do you call the Libyan civilians fighting against Gaddafi? "Terrorists"?

Not saying that it was the case here, and not disputing that the whole war has involved many tragedies, but it also remains true that insurgents do try to operate buried within the civilian community, partly hoping to avoid detection, partly hoping to avoid being fired upon if western forces see the civilians and/or are feeling scrupulous, but if that fails, so that they will attract fire, let their civilian compatriots die, and chalk up another PR win...

Quite logical, from their POV...

Yup. Those cunning insurgents, posing as children collecting firewood, or wedding parties - what we really need is good squadron of Lt. Calley's, who can see through the disguises employed, and "fragment" the fake grandparents and "children" who are nothing less than enemies of capitalism and democracy. Slay them all - God knows his own!

Never agreed with so many posts in one thread before, feels like ratskep!

[JimC]

Don't get me wrong - I think it is time to go, staying there seems increasingly pointless, leading to simply more and more deaths of fine young soldiers, as well as too many civilians, given the nature of the war.

However, my earlier point was not moralising, simply being objective. In a war of this nature, it is logical for the insurgents to remain embedded in the civilian population as much as they can. It is also perfectly logical that a certain level of civilian casualties inflicted by the west (particularly by air power) provides very good PR for the insurgent cause...

I reject the "Lt Calley" scenario, though. It is greatly not in the interest of the western forces to have large numbers of civilian casualties, they would prefer them to be zero. It is simply that the nature of the forces deployed (plus a certain amount of careless, but not wilful, application of force) makes civilian casualties very likely.

Pull out, let them sort it out themselves. If the Taliban come out on top, and if they are clearly and actively supporting terrorist attacks on the west in the future, then respond in an appropriate way...

And by appropriate, I mean something Seth would approve of...

Yes, that extreme.