U.S. can’t win hearts and minds of Afghans while killing civilians
As President Obama studies his next move in Afghanistan, he would do well to consider a United Nations report released Saturday that described 2009 as the worst year for civilian deaths since the war started in 2001.
The report, the Mid-Year Bulletin on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Afghanistan, said 1,500 civilians had been killed in attacks by both the Taliban insurgents and Afghan and international forces up to the month of August.
The report also showed that the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has been increasing each month since 2005. Although, for the first time, Taliban forces were blamed for the majority of the deaths – about 68 percent – U.S. and allied forces were blamed for the rest. Airstrikes, for example, killed 200 civilians between January and June of this year.
Previously Taliban attacks had been more precise, limiting civilian deaths, but in the past year, more of their actions have been indiscriminate and the civilian death toll has been rising.
But it is the U.S. – and allied-caused civilian deaths that have sparked the most anger from the Afghan people and from within the Afghan government. No one expects much from the Taliban. On the other hand, the United States and its allies are supposed to be there to help and protect the people. Orwellian excuses about “collateral damage” do little to ease the situation.
Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, spoke of winning hearts and minds in the country when he recently unveiled his report calling for more troops to fight the Taliban and help stabilize the Afghan government. But the rising death toll among civilians will do just the opposite.
Obama is currently weighing two major options on Afghanistan: increase the number of troops, which likely will increase the number of civilians killed in the conflict; or to narrow the focus of the war by targeting Al-Qaida, which would shift most of the combat to mountainous regions bordering Pakistan and into Pakistan itself.
The latter move might actually start winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan won’t do that.
Tags: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, Taliban, War on Terror
Afghanistan | admin October 2, 2009
2 Comments to “U.S. can’t win hearts and minds of Afghans while killing civilians”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Rich Littleton, October 5, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Larry Johnson has been doing a good job of keeping an eye on the Middle East and now Afghanistan. We need more reporters like him who look at facts, not political spin.
Mr. Johnson is completely correct to point to the (1) tragic and (2) counterproductive result of civilian deaths. McCrystal did promise to avoid civilian casualties, even to the point of not firing if civilians might be in danger. However, that promise has not been fulfilled.
I do worry, however, that simply shifting the theater of action to the mountainlous regions will not avoid civilian casualties as long as the U.S. uses aerial drones to kill people. Also, civilians live in the mountainous regions, as well as combatants. Perhaps it is time to simply stop the war in Afghanistan.
By Jack Smith, October 5, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Not only will killing Afghan Civilians prevent Obama from winning hearts and minds in the rest of the world, his continued effort to pursue this horrid war, and kill our children/soldiers too, is costing him his former allies in Seattle, many of whom will march against this war, now clearly the Obama Administration war, on Oct 17. I remember when Bush ignored us marchers. One cannot help but wonder if the Obama Administration will offer any more respect to American civilians marching against his efforts.
Peace,