A February 2009 UN report noted that the number of civilians killed in armed conflict in Afghanistan rose 40 percent last year (2008), to a record 2,118. CNN adds that Afghan security forces, and "U.S. and NATO troops killed 828 civilians.
Airstrikes -- many at night -- were responsible for the largest percentage of these fatalities." http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/afghanistan.civilian.casualties/index.html: The full accounting of this horrible war is not available for 2009, but the recent Kunduz fuel-truck bombings and its bizzare and bloody aftermath will certainly balloon the fatality numbers for the present year, beyond what they were in the past.
The Septermber 4th bombing of the two fuel trucks in Kunduz, may have caused the horrible incineration deaths of as many as 125 civilians if recent estimates are correct. The numbers are staggering and cause one to question our nations motives and actions in that nation--and wonder---why we are there?. Why do we do it? (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/afghan-village-devastated-nato-missiles).
The self-serving response of German PM, Angela Merkel (one of her nationals, a German NATO officer, Colonel Klein, called in the bomb-request) to this tragedy as reported in the world media, and her insistence, in the face of facts to the contrary, that “all of the dead were insurgents” just angered me further. (See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090907/wl_time/08599192089000). If I could easily imagine the circumstances in a rural mountain community where, when poor farmers learned there was “free fuel” for the taking just down the road---valuable commodity that would be needed for the coming winter—they rushed en mass to the site, so could a much-better informed Ms Merkel.
Furthermore, regarding the number of "insurgents" killed: it would be hard to imagine more than a small contingent of Taliban arriving with the two fuel trucks. The trucks cabs could probably accommodate no more than three or four men each. No other vehicles were pictured at the bomb-site. Possibly, with men hanging on the outside, there were at most ten "insurgents", maybe less. While the number of locals responding to such a “fire sale” could easily be in the many scores.
The fact that many AK47 rifle parts were found scattered at the blast site was offered as "proof" by the Germans that only insurgents were killed. But it is well known that most of these local civilians carry AK 47s. Ammo and parts of these weapons would be normally scattered on the ground where they died. In regard to the carrying of the AK47 by villagers, See: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1921633,00.html.
The awful pictures of the site showing the burnt and twisted remains of the trucks also revealed scattered of gerry-cans, barrels and containers, just what locals would have brought with them to fill with free fuel.
The responses of the media simply did not ring true. Civilian casualty reports ranged from only 5(!) to as many as 130, depending on who was reporting. Such wild variations are surely a sign of lack of information or even deception somewhere along the line of information.
Furthermore, the fuel-truck-bombing was only the last one in a long series of distressing attacks all with similar outcomes. Recall the UN report of over 800 civilians killed by NATO and US bombardment. These reports tell of innocent Afghan civilians, mothers, infants, children, young women, old people, all dying horrible deaths as they huddle together for safety indoors, or are caught in the open as they mass for a family gathering, a meeting or a wedding celebration. (See also an earlier blog of this author concerning NATO attacks on Afghan hospitals. (http://rjkspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/09/transfer-of-bad-behavior-iraq-to.html)
Reading these distressing reports, one is struck with the casual way bombing decisions are finalized, particularly where innocent civilians are know to be located. I found the following incident--one of scores-- in data provided by Human Rights Watch. This incident occurred in the Nijrab Distric: Kapisa Province, on March 4, 2007. (See Human Rights Watch, "Troops in Contact", downloaded September 11, 2009: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0908webwcover_0.pdf. Page 13)
The Human Rights Watch (HRW) report reveals that two insurgents were observed by American spotters firing a hand-held rocket at a US outpost. The spotters watched as the men retreated and then were seen to enter a near-by house. Soon after that, US planes dropped two, 2000 pound bombs on the house. Inside nine innocent civilians died in the blast, five women, three children and an elderly man. The two men were not among the dead.
A subsequent investigation revealed that the American troops had actually been in that house prior to the attack. They had seen the civilians and knew of their presence before planning to bomb the place. Yet they proceeded anyway. According to a witness: “US forces conceded their troops had been at the village the day before," said a relative of the family. “The Americans came here the day before they bombed, they searched the whole house and saw women and children in the house. Then the bombs fell."
What could have gone wrong? Was it an error? Perhaps nothing went wrong. To my mind, the large number of “accidental” attacks on civilians seems too difficult to explain as simple happenstance or error, one must assume that these are not accidents. They are just part of the regular military plan of an occupier--this is what is called "counter insurgency". Yes it is ugly. But that's what we are doing in Afghanistan.
This last fuel tanker incident was no different. Why were the trucks hit? Since they were wheel-rim deep in river sand, they were not going anywhere. Thus they were no threat to the German NATO troops--who were safely bivouacked two to three miles away. Reports have revealed that it was known to military observers--using high-tech (unmanned drone) reconnaissance that “large numbers of people were in the vicinity of the trucks.” The answer came to me in a flash. They knew local villagers were there but they bombed them anyway! It was not an accident!
The over-all strategy of any occupier from Caesar in Gaul to the Russians in Afghanistan, and the US in Iraq (or Vietnam) was and remains the same-- deny the “native warriors”, the “insurgents”, or “revolutionaries” what ever you want to call them--access to resources. The British did it to colonials right here on Long Island, when they attacked residents who might provide sustenance to the local Revolutionary militia.
Only a stone's throw from where I write, a colonial's hay rack was burned and his cattle killed by British occupation forces in 1778 in retaliation for the fact that the man's son had joined the local militia. Later the next day, a squad of British troops came marching down the road and arrested the lad's father and were marching the man off when a local Tory (the man's neighbor) begged them to let him go. Happily they did. In that situation, the US colonists were the insurgents—while the British Red Coats were the occupiers, who burned our hay stacks, shot our cattle, and used local residences as stables for their horses. In effect, to take what they wanted, deny any resources to the colonial insurgents, and punish those that would go over to the other side.
Our policy in Afghanistan remains the same--to deny resources to the enemy and to separate the insurgents (Taliban) from the civilian population. Furthermore that harsh strategy includes a form of "lethal instruction". In the case of US forces in Afghanistan, part of their operational goal is to "teach" the local Afghans that it is dangerous to either aid or support the insurgents.
Thus our recent actions in Afghanistan, and I expect General McChrystal’s "new plan" must have this element in it somewhere. Since it is obvious that “punitive” bombing raids and attacks have not stopped. If an Afghan villager gives aid or shelter to the Taliban, he (and his family) may be targeted. According to US military strategy, (as I interpret the facts) that is the important message for villagers to learn. Our unmanned drones, which attack stealthily in seemingly isolated Afghanistan mountian villages are another way to teach this tough lesson. A form of terrorism yes. It is “terror from the skies” designed to generate fear and respect for the US and NATO forces. To encourage the locals to abandon their ties to the Taliban, and come over to our side. The raw display of force says to them “we are stronger and can protect you better”.
So why the attack on the house with the resident family, and on the two tanker trucks? Those two cases were one way the US and NATO can "teach a lesson" to the rest of the population.
In regard to the fuel trucks, the contraband was a valuable resource, military planners could not let fall into the hands of the Taliban. The US command was convinced it must deny them the use of the fuel and prevent them its use as a "valuable commodity" to bargain away, or even simply give away. Fuel could be used to win friends. Thus the tankers trucks had to be destroyed.
If we killed those villagers who were “sympathetic” or leaning toward to the Taliban—as we destroyed the fuel…well that was too bad. There is my view of our strategy. It is an hypothesis that explains all of the accidents, mess ups, poor targeting and "mistakes".
That is why Afghan civilians continue to die.
Get the picture?
rjk
WHAT ABOUT THE RESCUE OF STEVE FARREll?
After this fuel-truck disaster one would think that Kunduz had enough "learning" at the hands of its occupiers--already. So why was Gordon Brown encouraged (or ordered or cajoled) to send in the Biritsh Paratroopers to rescue Steve Farrell the NY Times reporter taken hostage by local Taliban as he investigated the fuel-truck story? Recall that while the Taliban were closing the deal for a release of Farrell and his interpreter the British troops stormed the compound guns blazing. The wife and infant child of the house's owner, a Taliban who remained in the house (the others fled), a British paratrooper, and Sultan Munadi, Farrell's Afghan interpreter were all killed. Only Farrell made it out. Why did they persist in this unnecessary and bloody attack--when both men were likely to be released unharmed?
For similar reasons as catalogued above. The US and its allies must be the arbiters of power. We can not "bargain" with the enemy. To do so would indicate to the locals that they--the Taliban-have some legitimacy--that would be handing over a powerful psychological tool to them. We must deny the "enemy" all power and respect--if we are to win over the minds of the local citizenry. Again, to be seen as the powerful military to whom the Afghans must render respect and who will eventually protect them. Those are the goals
This US military strategy has a long history, a logic and a coherence to it. We cannot deny its probable efficacy-- as inhumane and cruel as it is. The real question remains, why are we there in Afghanistan implementing this cruel strategy? What do we gain? What threats are we facing from the Taliban or from Afghanistan for us to demean our nation in this way? There are no apparent benefits to write down here. What advantages does our continued occupation and control of Afghanistan offer us? There may be some reason to hold that ground, but they have not been enunciated and what we have learned over these last eight years is that the costs are so very high---to us--and to the Afghans that one must ask...can it be worth it?Get the picture?
rjk
No comments:
Post a Comment