South Asia News
Afghanistan's civilian deaths by military action up 40 per cent
Feb 18, 2009, 16:40 GMT

Afghan police inspect the site of a bomb blast in Kandahar, Afghanistan on 17 February 2009. A bomb planted on a bicycle allegedly by Taliban militants, near the provincial governor\'s office, exploded on 17 February, injuring two civilians. EPA/HUMAYOUN SHIAB
Brussels - If civilian casualties were the yardstick used to assess NATO's operations in Afghanistan, few would be able to argue that the alliance is winning its war against the Taliban insurgency.
According to United Nations estimates published in Kabul on Tuesday, the toll of Afghanistan's civilian death by military action rose by 40 per cent last year, to 2,118, the highest figure since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001.
The UN blamed just over half of the killings on insurgent groups. A further 39 per cent were blamed on Afghan or international forces.
NATO has put the number of Afghan civilians killed by its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) at just 97. It accuses the Taliban of causing bloodshed by using civilians as human shields.
However, despite these arguments, there is little doubt that the deaths of so many innocent people is a major obstacle to NATO's conquering of Afghan hearts and minds.
Alarm bells have also been ringing at NATO's headquarters in Brussels over an agreement between Muslim hardliners and Pakistan's provincial government. It would allow the enforcement of Islamic laws in the restive Swat Valley, a lawless tribal area next to the Afghan border.
'Without doubting the good faith and efforts of the Pakistani government,' said NATO spokesman James Appathurai, 'we would all be concerned by a situation in which extremists were to have safe haven.'
It is against this worrying 'AfPak' backdrop that NATO defence ministers meet in the Polish city of Krakow on Thursday and Friday.
The informal talks precede NATO's 60th birthday bash summit in early April. No hard decisions are expected to come out of Krakow.
But ministers nevertheless face a heavy workload.
These range from a review of NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo to the possible extension of anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, closer ties with Georgia and Ukraine and cooling relations with Russia, which the meetings' hosts view as a growing threat to Eastern Europe.
The Afghan talks will be attended by officials from ISAF's 41 contributing nations, as well as by Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak and the UN's special envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide of Norway.
Both guests will want to hear what NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has to say about the worryingly high number of civilian casualties.
'Reducing civilian casualties is a clear priority for NATO,' Appathurai told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, this time working for President Barack Obama rather than George W Bush, will likely reiterate US calls for allies to boost troop levels, so that ISAF can improve its 'take, hold, build' success rate in Taliban-infested areas.
Obama has already signalled he wants to double US efforts by sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
And while European ministers will keenly want to learn details of Obama's planned review of his country's overall Afghan strategy, discussions will likely focus on the need to provide more trainers to the local army and police and on ways of helping the country stage its presidential elections on August 20, diplomats said.
Germany, which is ISAF's third-largest contributor with about 3,000 troops, has already announced the temporary deployment of an additional battalion, consisting of 600 soldiers, to help provide security during the vote.
A similar announcement from Britain is expected 'very soon,' one diplomat said.
Thursday and Friday's talks take place in Poland - a founding member of NATO's Cold War-era foe, the Warsaw Pact - which is now solidly in the Western camp.
In fact, the meeting marks the 10th anniversary of Poland's entry into NATO and comes amid growing concern in Central and Eastern Europe about a resurgent Russia following its war against Georgia.
The event's organization has been scaled down due to the economic and financial crisis. Nonetheless, police are to be tested by planned anti-NATO protests by some 1,000 anarchists.
Though officials insist talks on the next NATO chief are not on the agenda, the hosts will likely seize on the occasion to promote the candidacy of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
Sikorski faces competition from former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Tuesday he was not interested in the job, despite being considered by many as the favourite to replace Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a Dutchman.

COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in South Asia
- 1. Sri Lanka leftist party says leader, activist are abducted
- 2. US agrees to let Afghan forces take lead in night raids
- 3. India, Pakistan leaders want better ties
- 4. Pilot killed in crash of Bangladesh Air Force jet
- 5. Pakistani president visits India for lunch meeting, prayers
Older Talkback
page: 1
The war against occupiers.
...no antiwar outrage here...I guess if it is a libnazi in charge, killing innocent civilians in a useless war is OK.
libnazi or repnazi is no difference for the dead
And, as long as a body bags do not arrive in droves and, even more importantly there still enough Chinese money to spend in Uber Ales USA, its OK with any of the above
last year it was chirp chirp chirp and now it's 'Afghanistan???...what war?'
The neocons and the Buch administration were not concerned that naco-terrorists have taken over large parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The neocons did not want to find osama bin laden and the al qaeda terrorists by following them to their safe havens in Pakistan, in the months after 9/11. The neocons did not want to kick ass with the terrorist band responsible for 9/11, because they were obsessed with regime change in Iraq instead. They actually paid off the military dictator in Pakistan over 10 billion dollars to protect the terrorists. Not only was Pakistan a military dictatorship, not a democracy, but it was a nation with real WMD, including nuclear bombs, and missle delivery systems. A nation that provided North Korea with nuclear bomb technology. A nation with a large lawless region where the terrorists operated freely. But the neocons claimed that we dare not violate the sanctity of a sovereign nation, Pakistan, while they advocated destroying Iraq.
Now, it could be said that whatever is done next is too little, too late.
If a democrat commander in chief had given up the chase for osama bin laden after 9/11, not gone after al qaeda in their safe havens in Pakistan, paid a dictator to hide the terrorists, and sent the troops to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, the neocons would be calling it treason.
As it will be recorded in history, the neocons could never even admit that they made huge blunders, gave their commader in chief bad advice, caused the mission to be not accomplished, and then let their puppet president walk away from the mess with no accountability, as they all slithered into dark corners with no balls to take responsibility for the failure they created.
page: 1


juhaFeb 19th, 2009 - 00:59:13
there would be near zero deaths if the insurgence didnt keep blowing things up, but some cant clue on that, so they lump in civilians in a fighting zone as something that can be prevented. if somehow the UN can wave their magic wand and wrap the civilians in a geneva convention blanket, then all will be well.....yeesh. more civilians are getting killed by that idiot Mugabe, and theirs no insurgence there.
Report this comment