Yesterday a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan’s Herat Province killed an insurgent leader named Ghulam Yahya Akbari. Today the U.S. military command in Afghanistan sends out a press release about the steps that U.S. and Afghan officials are taking to respond to reports of Afghan civilian casualties. U.S. troops are inspecting the site where the airstrike hit while Afghan troops hold a sit-down with local potentates. It’s a goodwill gesture. But does it go far enough?
Explains a coalition spokesman:
"We take all reports of non-combatant casualties very seriously and investigate these claims with the assistance of our Afghan forces counterparts," said Lt. Col. Rick Helmer, U.S. Forces Afghanistan spokesperson.
"If, during the course of investigation, it is discovered that any non-combatants were killed or injured in the strike we will take responsibility and make amends. However, it has been a past practice of the insurgents to surround themselves with women and children knowingly placing them in danger," said Helmer.
On the one hand, it sound as if the U.S. is conducting a thorough and respectful process to head off a potential problem. But on the other, Defense Secretary Bob Gates recently proposed a different formula for handling reports of possible civilian casualties from U.S. military actions in Afghanistan: apologize first and investigate later.
Gates didn’t say that because he wants to humiliate U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He said it because he recognizes the delicate situation the U.S. is in with regard to Afghan public opinion. Positivity toward the U.S. is on the way down while civilian casualties are on the way up. And now 17,000 additional U.S. troops are on the way to Afghanistan. In the struggle between the U.S.-supported Kabul government and the Taliban-led and Al Qaeda-tied insurgency, the perspective of the Afghan people isn’t an aspect of the war. It’s the entire war. Anything that jeopardizes Afghan receptivity to the U.S. is a strategic setback. Viewed from that perspective, it’s understandable why Gates would want any dialogue on civilian casualties — even potential civilian casualties — to begin with an apology.
None of which is to say that U.S. Forces-Afghanistan is doing anything wrong in Herat. A dialogue between Gates and Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, on the issue is only natural, and at a briefing McKiernan gave in the fall that I attended, he appeared very attuned to the damage that civilian casualties inflict on his effort. But perhaps it’s taking a while to absorb Gates’ perspective.
Crossposted to The Streak.



1 Comment
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
This of course means the commanders on the ground meeting face to face with tribal/village leaders to hear all manner of complaints from deaths to delivery of services and projects, repairs, security concerns etc etc.
Which brings up a question I can’t get my head around.
Is there any way to address the problem that the type of rapport this develops with locals has to start again from square 1 when their relatively short tours end and they are replaced with different troops ?
I get the feeling there’s no way to address this unless you overlapped deployments so that replacements are introduced in tandem and ensuring that the new guys are working off the same page as the old guys.
Sort of like mini-extensions to each tour so that each overlaps.
The problem being that I’ve repeated read about this problem being a serious issue in Iraq. If that was a solution, or there was one at all, why the hell wouldn’t it have been done already.