‘US raids left 2,000 Afghans homeless’

[Neo]

May 20, 2007

‘US raids left 2,000 Afghans homeless’

KABUL, May 19: Bombing by US forces in western Afghanistan last month wrecked 173 houses and left 2,000 people homeless, the Red Cross said on Saturday, announcing findings of its assessment of the damage.

Preliminary UN and Afghan investigations have found that around 50 civilians were killed in the April 27 and 29 assaults, which involved US Special Forces, with final reports due this week.

The International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed in a statement that the clashes “killed dozens of civilians” and reprimanded foreign forces over civilian casualties caused in operations against Taliban militants.

The assault also “left 230 families, almost 2,000 people, in four villages homeless,” it said.

A delegation from the Red Cross and the Afghan Red Crescent Society also found that “173 houses had been destroyed or were so badly damaged as to be uninhabitable.”

The groups are distributing relief to the displaced families, including food, tarpaulins, pressure cookers, blankets and jerry cans.

The US-led coalition has said 136 Taliban fighters were killed in the clashes.

It is investigating claims of civilian deaths, with the reported toll one of the highest in the campaign against the militants, which has lasted nearly six years. The US military has said an “appropriate level of force” was used.

The head of the Red Cross in Afghanistan, Reto Stocker, said all sides involved in the conflict were “legally obliged to distinguish at all times between legitimate military objectives and the civilian population and civilian objects.”—APP/AFP

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/20/top14.htm

 

[A.Rahman]

what a way to win "hearts & minds" of local people

 

[KashifAsrar]

They will win suffereing for these coalition stupids, only.
Democracy and freedom dancing a (naked) balley.
Kashif

 

[PakSniper]

What I find funny is what Putin told Bush who said Russia needs democracy:

Full transcript:

BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

BUSH: Just wait.

(Oh, and note it's not just any meeting this was during the G8 summit below is the audio, I never in my life seen an idiot who keeps ranting on about democracy after being blasted by an Ex-KGB head and other world leaders).

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/putinbush.320.240.mov

I always ask myself is it worth fighting for a man-made govt. The answer I get looking at international events is "NO". Why should I kill for an ideology, that would be the cause of more killing to be implemented on other people in the future.

And democracy itself is the biggest killer post-WWII.

 

[Neo]

What is Karzai doing for these victoms? Shouldn't there be a fund or atleast refugee camps to shelter these innocent homeless?

 

[PakSniper]

What is Karzai doing for these victoms? Shouldn't there be a fund or atleast refugee camps to shelter these innocent homeless?

The man can't even shelter his own A$$ himself, how will he do it for others?

 

[Neo]

Monday, May 21, 2007

Civilian casualties mount as US, NATO turn to airpower in Afghanistan

* Analysts believe NATO countries’ hesitation to take troop casualties and lack of adequate ground forces have made airpower an irresistible option

WASHINGTON: With reinforcements often a long helicopter ride away, US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are turning to air power when they get into trouble. A disturbing result, analysts say, has been mounting civilian casualties.

Over the past month, Afghan officials reported 50 civilians killed in US air strikes in fighting in the western province in Herat, and another 21 in south central Helmand province. They followed a string of similar incidents last year as fighting intensified between NATO and Taliban forces, many of them involving air strikes called in by troops in the heat of battle. “Every time that happens someone walks away .. with a bad feeling either to NATO or the United States or its coalition members. That’s what we don’t want to happen,” General Bantz Craddock, NATO’s supreme allied commander, told reporters Friday.

The deaths have sparked public outrage at a time when NATO is facing a major challenge from the Taliban, creating a dilemma for commanders over whether the gains offered by air strikes are worth the loss in public support. Some analysts say too few troops on the ground, coupled with allied sensitivities about using ground forces and taking casualties, have made air power an irresistible option. “The problem is when you don’t have enough forces on the ground, and when those forces - especially with the variety of NATO countries - are restricted and there are deep concerns about casualties, air power is all you have left,” said Seth Jones, an analyst at the Rand Corporation, a think tank with ties to the US Air Force.

“This is the paradox I think that NATO is in. It has to in many cases resort to air power in a major way,” he said. Craddock told reporters that the lack of helicopters and troops promised by NATO allies last year at a summit in Riga also contributes to the problem. “It’s not so much the lack of ground troops,” he said. “It’s the ability to get from point A to point B to alleviate a problem in extremis.” “You’ve got a patrol out there in Afghanistan, you bump into something and come under fire. I don’t care how many battalions you’ve got, the question is do you have these rotary helicopter assets to move a reaction force quickly to bail out forces under fire,” he said.

“Other than that there is close air support,” he said. Close air support missions averaged 44 a day this month with an assortment of US, British and French fighter aircraft watching over convoys, dropping flares and occasionally dipping into strafe or bomb insurgent positions, according to air force reports. US special forces called in unusually heavy aerial support in fighting April 27 through April 30 in the remote Zerkoh Valley of Afghanistan’s western Herat province.

Air force B-1B bombers and F-15E fighters dropped 2,000 pound and 500 pound satellite-guided bombs on Taliban positions and on at least one compound that had been used as a firing position, according to air force summaries. A US military press release said an AC-130 gunship also was used to kill a large number of fighters. It put the total Taliban dead in two days of fighting at 136. Later, though, Afghan and UN officials said the bodies of 50 civilians were recovered, and differing accounts have emerged over whether US forces engaged Taliban fighters or armed villagers fighting off foreign intruders.

The US military has provided no explanation of what happened, or acknowledged any civilians were killed in the fighting. Officials said the commander on the scene used “appropriate level of force” to protect his unit. The rules under which a commander is required to operate are classified, so it is not known what restrictions are placed on them. Military officials say they go to great lengths, using surveillance aircraft and “eyes on the ground” to positively identify their targets, and hold back if they cannot.

But, said Craddock, “this is imperfect science.” “At the end of the day, the decision to launch the ordnance is a human decision,” he said. “The technology only gets you closer to the intended point of view, that you see what it is you’re shooting at and hit what you see. The decision to do that is a human decision. That is what we’re up against.” He said General Dan McNeil, the American general who commands ISAF, has conducted a preliminary review of civilian deaths incidents and found that the rules were followed in most cases.

“Then it becomes a decision that we have to go out and look at as to gains and loss,” Craddock said. “Loss of popular support versus gains of taking out one, two, three of the bad guys.” “That’s where we’re going to have to put our focus here. And it won’t be changing ROEs (rules of engagement), it will be changing tactics, techniques and procedures.” afp

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\05\21\story_21-5-2007_pg4_15