Airstrikes kill fewer Afghans, but more dying on ground

[laststeamtrain]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

Airstrikes kill fewer Afghans, but more dying on ground
By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers 1 hr 26 mins ago

KABUL, Afghanistan — Even as U.S. forces take steps to reduce the number of Afghan civilians killed by aerial attacks, other civilian casualties remain stubbornly high — deaths in so-called escalation of force incidents in which edgy American troops fire on civilians who've come too close to their convoys or roadblocks.

The number of Afghans killed in such incidents rose 43 percent in 2009 to 113, from 79 in 2008, while the total number of NATO coalition-caused civilian deaths and injuries declined 16.4 percent, to 535 from 633.

How to avoid killing civilians has been a persistent problem for American troops since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when several well publicized incidents of U.S. soldiers killing friendly civilians soured many Iraqis on the American presence. It also fueled the insurgency, U.S officials came to believe. "I would argue in many instances we are our own worst enemy,'' Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli said of civilian casualties in 2006, when he was the No. 2 commander in Iraq .

Shortly after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal assumed command of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan in June, he ordered U.S. troops to back off some fights if civilian casualties couldn't be avoided. In the months since, the use of U.S. air power has dropped, even during the recent offensive in Marjah, where errant air strikes killed at least 35 civilians in incidents that Afghan President Hamid Karzai called "unjustifiable."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100302/wl_mcclatchy/3440991

[Solly Mack]

1. "civilian casualties remain stubbornly high ..."

stubbornly???

Damn

[bemildred]

3. Willful, stubborn civilian casualties refuse to decline despite best efforts of military.

Coming soon: "civilian casualties declared terrorist plot to discredit well-meaning NATO forces."

[Solly Mack]

5. more asymmetrical warfare, I guess

[bemildred]

6. Seems very asymmetrical to me.

I do wonder why we are struggling so hard to conquer a small 3rd world country like this, but if it gives the Pentagon something to do, I guess it's worth it. I mean Raygun did conquer Grenada and Panama, we can still handle things at that level. I'm sure we could take complete control of Rhode Island if we needed to too ...

[Solly Mack]

8. Well, RI does have a lot of water

but I'm thinking those folks would jump in front of bullets to stop them too. PR nightmare.

[bemildred]

9. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[Vattel]

10. Bush Senior did Panama.

Reagan did Grenada and bombed Libya.

[bemildred]

11. Yeah, you are right, I get them all mixed up in my mind now.

And who can forget Somalia and the Balkans? So many little countries over the years.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. "How to avoid killing civilians has been a persistent problem...since the invasion of Iraq in 2003"

Ooo, ooo!

I know how; I know how!

[bemildred]

4. Don't invade and occupy?

Did I get it right?

[FiveGoodMen]

7. YES!

We got a winner on the first try!

:toast:

[Supersedeas]

12. a label used to marginalize and desensitize this issue: "collateral damage"