Western airstrikes and civilian casualties due to them in Afghanistan-Statistics

[S-2]

"I'd recommend you focus your energy for more productive dialogue."

Thank you. Point taken. I'd like to find some productive dialogue but the most base issues require constant reinforcement that it proves impossible to move forward.

I'm not so certain that our respective governments don't deal with much the same among one another.

"Air-strikes all willy-nilly in Afghanistan, and previously in Pakistan, without proper prerequisites is a major no-no if the US really wants to win this "war of hearts".

I believe that you draw an offensive and grossly exaggerated picture. To be accurate you'd have to assess ALL airstrikes and their intended effect along with the results- good and bad.

You haven't and, instead, presume that the use of airpower in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been egregiously managed. It hasn't in my view.

August 9, 2009 Airpower Summary- USAF

This site details the nature and amount of sorties flown over Afghanistan and Iraq, to include combat, logistics, and intelligence. Of seventy one close support missions flown on this day in AFGHANISTAN, only six of those missions (requiring 12 sorties by my estimate) used munitions or were characterized as a "show of force (simulated weapons run without releasing munitions)".

That's not much and in every case appears to involved troops in contact. Nobody's slingin' hardware around nor has their ever likely been that degree of callousness.

Oddly, nobody here seems to much care that the taliban kill nearly 60% of afghan civilians and often by intent. Or that they've been recorded to use human shields. Doesn't raise a stink here.

Ever.

You've got my site to monitor if you wish. You know our concerns about airstrikes. You also know the military necessity and complications arising from matters such as "human shields". You know that this war, despite its travails, has cost about 20,000-30,000- many to most killed by the taliban compared to around 200,000 during the Afghan civil war and 900,000-3,000,000 during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Those are profoundly differing estimates.

What would they be had the afghan taliban no sanctuary in late 2001?

Which raises the real question of any "war of hearts". Pakistan is hardly winning such with the afghan people.

So long as Pakistanis believe that a taliban whom are rejected as too barbaric for Pakistan are perfectly acceptable to Afghanistan you'll be lying to yourselves. The taliban are hated in Afghanistan and the only reason your public justifies such is because your military for so long has sold the "necessity" of strategic depth.

Thus "good" and "bad" and acceptable and unacceptable from the two sides of the same coin. This "war of hearts" must be fought first in Islamabad and then among the Pakistani people. The afghan people already know better and deeply resent what you peddle.

 

[Vassnti]

Thanks for the figures, one thing that is not clear, at least to me and is perhaps difficult to determine is if the number of casualties is directly due to the airstrikes or the number of civilians killed in an engament where air stikes were called?

 

[PAFAce]

"Air-strikes all willy-nilly in Afghanistan, and previously in Pakistan, without proper prerequisites is a major no-no if the US really wants to win this "war of hearts".

I believe that you draw an offensive and grossly exaggerated picture. To be accurate you'd have to assess ALL airstrikes and their intended effect along with the results- good and bad.

You haven't and, instead, presume that the use of airpower in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been egregiously managed. It hasn't in my view.

It was never my intention to suggest that the Americans have fought the Afghan war without consideration for the civilian population. That, I believe, was one of the main lessons learnt from the Vietnam War. I was merely speaking with regards to the claim that Pakistani intelligence was not a factor in the Baitullah Mehsud strike. This, of course, may not be a view that you share, but it is still a misconception widespread in this (Western) part of the world, promoted by the media.

Oddly, nobody here seems to much care that the taliban kill nearly 60% of afghan civilians and often by intent. Or that they've been recorded to use human shields. Doesn't raise a stink here.
Ever.

I disagree. I think that the majority of the people here are against these acts of terrorism by the Taleban, particularly when done in the name of the dominant religion on this forum, Islam.

You know that this war, despite its travails, has cost about 20,000-30,000- many to most killed by the taliban compared to around 200,000 during the Afghan civil war and 900,000-3,000,000 during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Those are profoundly differing estimates.

Well, that's not a fair comparison now. This war is very different from the Soviet-Afghan war, and you probably know this far better than I do. All I have are books and hearsay about the Soviet-Afghan war, you probably know people who played major roles in that conflict. This is not a fair comparison at all. This is an entire new generation of warfare. [I believe I heard one US Naval Pilot from the Black Aces squadron call it the Fourth Generation of Warfare, making Naval Aircraft Carriers more of a diplomatic tool than a weapon of war.]

What would they be had the afghan taliban no sanctuary in late 2001?

Which raises the real question of any "war of hearts". Pakistan is hardly winning such with the afghan people.

So long as Pakistanis believe that a taliban whom are rejected as too barbaric for Pakistan are perfectly acceptable to Afghanistan you'll be lying to yourselves. The taliban are hated in Afghanistan and the only reason your public justifies such is because your military for so long has sold the "necessity" of strategic depth.

Thus "good" and "bad" and acceptable and unacceptable from the two sides of the same coin. This "war of hearts" must be fought first in Islamabad and then among the Pakistani people. The afghan people already know better and deeply resent what you peddle.

Well, now we get into a different debate entirely. You see, the US will at some point have the luxury of packing up their bags and leave this region and its mess behind. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be left with a whole lot of sh*t to handle. On the one hand, we'll have India, our traditional enemy. And on the other, we'll have a pro-India pro-Russia pro-West puppet of a country calling itself Afghanistan, under the false impression that it is a democracy. For Pakistan, the situation will go back to being what it was before the 1970s, the threat of a two-front war ever looming. Therefore, to protect ourselves from that eventuality, we have full rights to talk about "strategic depth" and "strategic balance". Of course, I don't support the view that Taleban is a necessity, especially by putting the lives of Afghans in misery, but it is our duty to make sure we do not end up in a handicap wrestling match with one conventionally superior and another unconventionally troublesome enemy. We have this right and the determination to achieve our interests, just like the Americans are doing all they can to achieve their interests within the region.

Of course, I think we have hijacked this thread, and so must not discuss this matter here anymore.

 

[Righteous_Fire]

It was never my intention to suggest that the Americans have fought the Afghan war without consideration for the civilian population. That, I believe, was one of the main lessons learnt from the Vietnam War. I was merely speaking with regards to the claim that Pakistani intelligence was not a factor in the Baitullah Mehsud strike. This, of course, may not be a view that you share, but it is still a misconception widespread in this (Western) part of the world, promoted by the media.

S-2 any replies to this will be really appreciated

 

[TruthSeeker]

I was merely speaking with regards to the claim that Pakistani intelligence was not a factor in the Baitullah Mehsud strike. This, of course, may not be a view that you share, but it is still a misconception widespread in this (Western) part of the world, promoted by the media.

PAFAce, could you provide a link that asserts non-involvement of Pakistani inteilligence in the Mehsub strike? I have not seen such an assertion in the US press. Is it just some blogger saying that or a reporter/editor in bonafide US newspaper? Or just your inference or interpretation?

And, after all, heretofore, the PA/ISI has denied any co-operation with the drone strikes. Maybe some unsophisticated reporters in the western press actually believed them?

 

[S-2]

"It was never my intention to suggest that the Americans have fought the Afghan war without consideration for the civilian population."

Many, many here do. Xeric has an editorial up by Shabbir Uddin Ahmed accusing western forces of gang-raping afghan women.

Pretty sick stuff. Either he didn't read his editorial or he's fine with that assertion. Why would he, a serving officer, be so unobjective? Hatred?

Likely.

"I was merely speaking with regards to the claim that Pakistani intelligence was not a factor in the Baitullah Mehsud strike. This, of course, may not be a view that you share, but it is still a misconception widespread in this (Western) part of the world, promoted by the media."

I don't agree. First, I don't know the involvement, one way or the other, of your intelligence services with THIS strike. Could be total, peripheral, or uninvolved. Second, I haven't seen any particular emphasis by western media sources about our killing B.M. at the exclusion of Pakistani participation.

I gather most in the west generally presume your involvement as we have for much of the last twelve months. Again, nobody KNOWS, though. Everything here is speculative.

Do you wish to claim that B.M. couldn't have been killed without your help? Fine. Do so. I don't believe we care one way or the other.

"This is not a fair comparison at all. This is an entire new generation of warfare."

And so the diminished numbers of reported dead from this conflict reflect that new generation of warfare, do they not? One-eighth to one-tenth of the dead from the Afghan civil war over a comparable period of time matters, no?

I think we've been immensely careful by the prior standards of the Red Army and contending armies of Afghanistan during its civil war. We are trying to be even more so daily.

It's constantly on our minds.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"What would they be had the afghan taliban no sanctuary in late 2001?"

No Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan to obtain sanctuary. The Afghan Taliban (perhaps excluding some of the leadership) vanished into the Afghan countryside.

There was no or very little coordination from the US side with Pakistan in terms of US operations in Afghanistan and sealing off areas on the Pakistan side affected by such operations, and there were very little US troops deployed to begin with.

The accounts from the US failures at Tora Bora and how the local militias/warlords/tribes cared little for US interests and played both sides even then also suggests that the US was responsible for losing the initiative to prevent the Taliban from staging a comeback, not Pakistan.

Back to your original question, a better one IMO is 'Where would we be had the US not been gung ho about waging war against a sovereign nation and continued negotiations with the Taliban regime along with the international community (with a mix of incentives ranging form possible international recognition to greater aid for social programs) provided some agreement on OBL and associates trial in a mutually acceptable third nation could be obtained?'

That is a far better question to ponder than this blame deflection, onto Pakistan, of your failures in Afghanistan resulting in a reemergence of the Taliban.

 

[PAFAce]

PAFAce, could you provide a link that asserts non-involvement of Pakistani inteilligence in the Mehsub strike? I have not seen such an assertion in the US press. Is it just some blogger saying that or a reporter/editor in bonafide US newspaper? Or just your inference or interpretation?

And, after all, heretofore, the PA/ISI has denied any co-operation with the drone strikes. Maybe some unsophisticated reporters in the western press actually believed them?

I was referring to the viewpoint of the common man, who is unaware of any cooperation. Most here don't know that Pakistan has lot more soldiers and civilians than any other country in this War on Terror. And the media promotes this by exactly not mentioning it anytime the issue comes up. When was the last time you heard anything close to credit being given to the Pakistan Army or its intelligence services on CNN, like they do so often for their American soldiers? They would rather lead one to believe that the Americans are the only people fighting there.

Also, there were members of the military that came out in the open about cooperating with the Americans recently. Though this may not be the official stand of the ISPR (I am not sure), you would expect even the the most "unsophisticated journalists" to realize that intelligence operations are not exactly transparent.

"It was never my intention to suggest that the Americans have fought the Afghan war without consideration for the civilian population."

Many, many here do. Xeric has an editorial up by Shabbir Uddin Ahmed accusing western forces of gang-raping afghan women.

Well, there is evidence of that happening in Iraq. What makes you so sure it didn't happen in Afghanistan? I know for a fact that the 1st Canadian Parachute Regiment was disbanded in the early 90s after its tour in Somalia because its soldiers were found guilty of raping young local women. There must have been other reasons as well, but that was the most obvious one. There have also been cases of American soldiers returning from their tour of duty and telling tales of exchanging food rations for sex with local girls. Of course, that is not US policy, but there is no saying that it didn't happen.

Do you wish to claim that B.M. couldn't have been killed without your help? Fine. Do so. I don't believe we care one way or the other.

Maybe you could have had him without our help, but not this cleanly. The problem arises when some just don't want fathom this blasphemy.

It's constantly on our minds.

Yes, at the top levels of political and military organizations, I don't doubt it for a second. On the ground, the reality might be different. Soldiers are trained to kill, not be humanitarians.

 

[S-2]

"No Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan to obtain sanctuary."

I disagree. An afghan taliban government and it's military leadership crossed into Pakistan. Why wouldn't you have interest in them?

Afghan wounded and combatants did too. Many returned home. For some, home was the refugee camps surrounding Quetta.

A.M. you have an immense desire to diminish the importance of sanctuary. The taliban knew where they could be supported and reconstituted. Only three countries recognized them. Only one shared a border. You.

Actually, they had no choice. Reconstitution and resupply wasn't going to happen in Afghanistan so it was FATA or bust.

Yeah, many footsoldiers returned home within Afghanistan. Not all and certainly not the most important. Nothing has changed since late 2001 either. The support remains and the Quetta shura is very much on the minds of Gates, Holbrooke, and Mullen.

When they quit caring so shall I.

You don't really know. They do.

I trust them. I don't trust you.

"a better one IMO is 'Where would we be had the US not been gung ho about waging war against a sovereign nation and continued negotiations with the Taliban regime along with the international community'..."

Rhetorical. It can't be changed. Sanctuaries that exist today can and should be eliminated.

Your question is not better. It begs the obvious.

 

[tallman]

You dont have to be real bright to figure out that Pakistans goverment is as involved in these strikes as the USA.....the targeting is being done on the ground by the Pakistan Goverment,,, a drone dont simply fly over and spot a Taliban Leader.

 

[S-2]

The issue of rape in the military is long. My ex-girlfriend's sister was raped on a train in W. Germany in the 70s.

The Pakistani army has it's own history and accusations to include Bangladesh and, more recently, in Baluchistan and with the U.N. overseas-

U.N Sexual Abuse Alleged In Congo- WAPO

The incidents of charges of civilian rape in Iraq are miniscule if you seriously examine the numbers. More so if involving our own women soldiers and that is a command concern of some significant level and visibility.

Should you address these allegations by Xeric's opinion writer in light of anything but the facts? Those soldiers would deserve such, as would any civilians involved.

Truth is, though, no allegation exists in Afghanistan. Just hasn't happened. Just a non-specific editorial smear without context. Acceptable, evidently, to a serving officer of the P.A. to snidely suggest such though?

I'd personally be careful of tossing bricks when living in glass houses but that's just me.

 

[PAFAce]

The issue of rape in the military is long. My ex-girlfriend's sister was raped on a train in W. Germany in the 70s.

The Pakistani army has it's own history and accusations to include Bangladesh and, more recently, in Baluchistan and with the U.N. overseas

You pulled Balochistan out of thin air simply to enrage. It was unnecessary, unverified and, frankly, downright dirty. If we start slining mud like this, we won't get anywhere.

The incidents of charges of civilian rape in Iraq are miniscule if you seriously examine the numbers. More so if involving our own women soldiers and that is a command concern of some significant level and visibility.

Why get so bothered about what some journalist writes? Journalists live on speculation and hearsay, everywhere in the world, but we're not going to start punishing the soldiers based on these speculations. The simple question was, how can you be so sure it hasn't happened, when even you agree, historically it has always been so?

Let's not sling any more bricks.

 

[Xeric]

don't think his followers are listening. take for example the 21 people they just killed with a roadside bomb.

here is a nice video of insurgents trying to set a roadside bomb but getting caught.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Sir, what exactly are you up to here? Let's talk thread!

 

[Xeric]

Thanks for the figures, one thing that is not clear, at least to me and is perhaps difficult to determine is if the number of casualties is directly due to the airstrikes or the number of civilians killed in an engament where air stikes were called?

Guud and valid point, i tried to dig it up but couldnt find an answer to it. Did you find any?

On the other hand does it matter whether these people were killed by deliberate drones/AF attacks or 'indirect' ones.

 

[Xeric]

PAFAce, could you provide a link that asserts non-involvement of Pakistani inteilligence in the Mehsub strike? I have not seen such an assertion in the US press. Is it just some blogger saying that or a reporter/editor in bonafide US newspaper? Or just your inference or interpretation?

And, after all, heretofore, the PA/ISI has denied any co-operation with the drone strikes. Maybe some unsophisticated reporters in the western press actually believed them?

What's wrong with you man?

The Pakistani intelligence has been 'cooperaing' with the US, that's no secret, but could you provide a link that asserts involvement of Pakistani inteilligence in the Mehsub strike? I have not seen such an assertion in the Pakistani press. Is it just some blogger saying that or a reporter/editor in bonafide Pakistani newspaper? Or just your inference or interpretation?

And, after all, heretofore, the PA/ISI has never accepted any co-operation with the drone strikes. Maybe some unsophisticated reporters in the eastern press actually believed them?

(i have just added the underlined words in your reply and copied the rest)