I think I might be seeing a reason to abandon my guarded pessimism over Afghanistan. The Army has officially apologized for killing 19 people outside Jalalabad, which is a good start. The Afghans, however, are used to westerners slaughtering them and offering empty apologies afterward; the real test will be whether those soldiers will be held accountable for the massacre. But it is a good step.
And even better is yet more news of local Afghans turning on the Taliban to drive them out. In Helmand, of all places, villagers fended off a Taliban attack, killing three of them in the process. Though the Taliban remain in control of Musa Qala (and the insouciance of the Brits over retaking it is annoying, to say the least), it is wonderful to see the Afghans stepping out and joining the fight.
There remain deep challenges, not least of which is the weird and frustrating increase in civilian casualties in ISAF and U.S. operations. Hamid Karzai recently declared their patience for them had run out, and I agree—something is seriously wrong when in the last several weeks, close to 100 civilians have been killed, including another 30 just last night. I don’t know if this is indicative of simply increased fighting, a shift in fighting to more populated areas, or sloppiness on the part of the West (most of the deaths are from air strikes, though I don’t know if it’s bad targeting or the use of 2000 lb. ordinance on a small pocket of fighters). But it is a bad sign, just as it seems support might once again be swelling.
Regardless, there is reason to be optimistic, as the Allied forces seem to have gotten much more right than wrong since the new year.
Update: Eighty? We killed 80 civilians in a village raid? That is beyond unacceptable. I refuse to believe we are that sloppy, especially if the village elders were themselves trying to keep the Taliban out. Unbelievable.
{ 4 comments }
For ‘insouciance’ read ‘oil-spot’ theory of counter-insurgency. The idea is not to physically dominate as much territory as possible / annihilate the enemy military. Instead, the intention is to consolidate acceptance of central government rule in the strongest areas, encourage the rejection of insurgents and then spread out once a good example has been set. Prudent no?
It seems like a good idea, doesn’t it? And it allowed the French to consolidate a lot of their power in North Africa… but then it also failed during the Algerian independence. I don’t think NATO has adopted oil spot theory, though, at least officially. I think they just don’t have the resources to do all the missions they want, and they’d rather focus on ones with a higher chance of long-term success.
You don’t make a good case for optimism. This “fighting off the insurgents” is somewhat short lived. The Taliban just move back in when they get a chance.
As for the mounting civilian casualties, I rather doubt that this means much to most Afghans — If I were them, I would feel it’s quite a cynical gesture, indicating only how little the US values Afghan lives ($3000 a person).
I can only imagine that ordinary (or organized) Afghans are only seething, and I wonder when the next accident will happen that will trigger some kind of public outrage as seen by the riots in Kabul last May — which took everyone by surprise. Imagine all that had precipitated that outburst pales in comparison to what has been going on recently.
Indeed I think this post may have been premature. The taking of civilian lives is one of the most serious defects of a military-based approach to the problems in Afghanistan. And it’s important not to forget casualties of such bombings. If there were 80 dead, there will have been many more wounded.
AfghanWire has a new podcast this week with Vanni Cappelli commenting on civilian casualties. I think it’s well worth a listen.
Comments on this entry are closed.