Risking Civilians is curbing air strikes in Afghan War

[GAP]

Civilian risks curbing strikes in Afghan war
By Thom Shanker Published: July 23, 2008
Article Link

Dawn was breaking over Afghanistan about a week ago as Air Force surveillance planes locked in on a top-ranking insurgent commander as he traveled in secret around Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban.

But as attack aircraft were summoned overhead to strike, according to a recounting of the mission by Air Force commanders, the Taliban leader entered a building. Intelligence specialists scrambled to determine whether civilians were inside. Weapons experts calculated what bomb could destroy the structure with the least damage.

It had taken the American military many days to identify, track and target the senior Taliban officer. But the risk of civilian deaths was deemed too high. Air Force commanders, working with military lawyers, aborted the mission. The Taliban leader escaped.

"We miss the opportunity, but the beauty of what we do is we will get them eventually," said Lieutenant General Gary North, commander of American and allied air forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. "We will continue to track them. Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve — within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under — and we will get them."

In interviews at the air operations headquarters in Southwest Asia, American and allied commanders said that even as orders for air attacks in Afghanistan had increased significantly this year, their ability to strike top insurgent leaders from the air was severely restricted by rules intended to minimize civilian casualties.
More on link

 

[OldSolduer]

That is unfortunate that he was missed, but far better than killing innocent civilians in the long run.

This is a favorite tactic of the insurgent.....run into a crowd of civilians to avoid being killed.

 

[The Bread Guy]

What jumped out @ me in this piece is a human rights official saying the Air Force is generally getting it right:

“In their deliberate targeting, the Air Force has all but eliminated civilian casualties in Afghanistan,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch. “They have very effective collateral damage mitigation procedures.”

The greater risk of civilian casualties, Mr. Garlasco said, comes in unplanned targeting, when American and allied troops come under attack unexpectedly and call for airstrikes for urgent help.

“When this immediate targeting needs to be done, an aircraft may not have the correct weapon for that target,” Mr. Garlasco said. “The aircraft may be rerouted to assist troops in a hard fight, and there is not time to do the collateral damage modeling they would want to do. In an attempt to help troops on the ground caught up in the fight, there have been situations where they have killed civilians.”

 

[stegner]

I once watched a documentary on the USAF in the 2003 Iraq war and it was pretty amazing the steps that they go through to make sure that innocent civilians are not hurt.    It's much harder to do this in Afghanistan given the enemies propensity to use civilians as shields-though Iraq is not exactly either. 

 

[OldSolduer]

Here's a thought:

Do the human rights organizations have "Terrorist Analysts" that scold the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, like the "Military Analysts" scold the USAF et al?

 

[FastEddy]

Here's a thought:

Do the human rights organizations have "Terrorist Analysts" that scold the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, like the "Military Analysts" scold the USAF et al?

Good Point.

Here's another, letting him escape, to plan the death of our Troops and Suicide Bomber attacks in Kandahar killing God knows how many civilians.  I'd like to know how the Human Rights Groups figure things out.

As for our Military Analysts, I know my math is bad !, Kill him now, maybe 50 innocent die (collateral damage), Let him Live, maybe a Thousand innocents will die, calculated risks and good PR.

 

[OldSolduer]

Human Rights groups only chastize democracies like the US, Canada, United Kingdom etc.

Have they ever gone after Saudi Arabia? or Iran? or Libya?

 

[FastEddy]

Human Rights groups only chastize democracies like the US, Canada, United Kingdom etc.

Have they ever gone after Saudi Arabia? or Iran? or Libya?

Words of wisdom once again, you always come through loud and clear.

Cheers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

OK, so you couldn't use a bomb to get him. Big deal.

You're in Kandahar; so is he. There are a bejillion troops in Kandahar. Was there not some kind of strike force on stand by to go and get the b*stard as a backup plan in case a bomb could not be used? In the (not so) good old days in other conflicts, before the fancy bombs were available, good ol' infantry/police teams would throw in a cordon and do this job without collateral damage - except to a few doors and bad guys' egos.

From the comfort of my distant armchair, unfortunately, I see this as a failure of our ability to get these guys, not a successful use of restraint on the part of the security forces.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Generally, many such groups focus predominantly on western democracies (and I'm just as cranky about that as many here), but to be fair, I've also found that Human Rights Watch (at least SOMETIMES) does poke the other side as well - some examples from AFG:

1 Aug 07 - "Taliban Should Immediately Free Hostages:  Hostage-Taking is a War Crime"

16 Apr 07 - "Afghanistan: Civilians Bear Cost of Escalating Insurgent Attacks:  Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes"

21 Sept 06 - "The Taliban's War on Education: Schoolgirls are still under fire in Afghanistan"

I'm still looking for ANY other human rights group rep who's gone as far as the HRW spokesperson in this piece - happy to see it, even if I'd like to see more.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

OK, so you couldn't use a bomb to get him. Big deal.

You're in Kandahar; so is he. There are a bejillion troops in Kandahar. Was there not some kind of strike force on stand by to go and get the b*stard as a backup plan in case a bomb could not be used? In the (not so) good old days in other conflicts, before the fancy bombs were available, good ol' infantry/police teams would throw in a cordon and do this job without collateral damage - except to a few doors and bad guys' egos.

From the comfort of my distant armchair, unfortunately, I see this as a failure of our ability to get these guys, not a successful use of restraint on the part of the security forces.

Not knowing the details of where this guy was, it may not have been a simple matter of "throwing a cordon" around it even if they had wanted to.  Taking down a couple of terrorists in an apartment in a city that you control is one thing, but going after a guy who may have dozens of fighters with him in a village is another.

 

[2 Cdo]

OK, so you couldn't use a bomb to get him. Big deal.

You're in Kandahar; so is he. There are a bejillion troops in Kandahar. Was there not some kind of strike force on stand by to go and get the b*stard as a backup plan in case a bomb could not be used? In the (not so) good old days in other conflicts, before the fancy bombs were available, good ol' infantry/police teams would throw in a cordon and do this job without collateral damage - except to a few doors and bad guys' egos.

From the comfort of my distant armchair, unfortunately, I see this as a failure of our ability to get these guys, not a successful use of restraint on the part of the security forces.

I was wondering the same thing! Where was the QRF?(or whatever acronym we use today)

Not knowing the details of where this guy was, it may not have been a simple matter of "throwing a cordon" around it even if they had wanted to.  Taking down a couple of terrorists in an apartment in a city that you control is one thing, but going after a guy who may have dozens of fighters with him in a village is another.

If this dirtbag is that high in the Taliban chain, it's worth the effort.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I was wondering the same thing! Where was the QRF?(or whatever acronym we use today)

If this dirtbag is that high in the Taliban chain, it's worth the effort.

This may make me sound risk-averse, but throwing something like that together on the fly can cross the line from "calculated risk" into "gamble".  Biding your time until more favourable circumstances are present may be frustrating, but in a long war it may be the best course of action availalble to those in the hot seat.  That being said, I recognize that risks must be taken.

We are dealing with incomplete information here far removed from a position of real knowledge about the scenario. 

 

[twistedcables]

NO matter what those animals do, Canadians and most other Western nations should never sink to their level.  Moral superiority is paramount in this war of ideologies...

The point is not whether the civi toll is worth it numerically, it most certainly IS, but it is the propaganda that comes from it, that with its ability to be quickly exploited by the enemy, it hurts us WAY more.

 

[FastEddy]

NO matter what those animals do, Canadians and most other Western nations should never sink to their level.  Moral superiority is paramount in this war of ideologies...

The point is not whether the civi toll is worth it numerically, it most certainly IS, but it is the propaganda that comes from it, that with its ability to be quickly exploited by the enemy, it hurts us WAY more.

I don't know why I get sucked into to these things, I guess its because I want to PUKE everytime I read something like this.

I wonder if the Marine lying in a DVAH, minus both legs and a arm often thinks about "Moral Superiority".

I guess in the Crusades the War of Wars of Ideologies we didn't do so well either.

I don't think there was much concern about propaganda or collateral damage concerning those two Cities in Janpan. But we sure won that War damn fast.

I also wonder why there is so much local fuss and concern about a Stupid boy who barrels towards a Check Point on a bike and refuses to halt when ordered and gets shot. But the locals hardly raise a eyebrow when a suicide bomber kills God knows how many at a Public Market. Wheres all that outrage now ? why aren't the scum torn from their hiding places and at lease given up to the authorities ?. What are we doing, worrying about bad press.

Oh ! I forgot we're out demonstrating and demanding we rescue and bring home that piece of S..t Khadr.

My heart goes out to those Brave young Men and Women who are fighting in those p... holes.

Well thats enough ammo for now, go ahead, tear away.

 

[twistedcables]

I also wonder why there is so much local fuss and concern about a Stupid boy who barrels towards a Check Point on a bike and refuses to halt when ordered and gets shot. But the locals hardly raise a eyebrow when a suicide bomber kills God knows how many at a Public Market. Wheres all that outrage now ? why aren't the scum torn from their hiding places and at lease given up to the authorities ?. What are we doing, worrying about bad press.



That was RAW - very nice.

 

[Greymatters]

Its not bad press, but public reaction that is important - lack of public support means an end to support for the mission...

 

[twistedcables]

What I dont get is why the military is not more active in rebutting enemy propaganda.  maybe a new tactic we will see emerge?  hope so.

 

[2 Cdo]

We are dealing with incomplete information here far removed from a position of real knowledge about the scenario. 

Now that I can agree with. ;D

 

[Greymatters]

What I dont get is why the military is not more active in rebutting enemy propaganda.  maybe a new tactic we will see emerge?  hope so. 

Its not the military's job to counter foreign propoganda (in our military anyway), and the departments that should be doing it cant be bothered...