US And Afghanistan sign pact to lower civilian casaulties

[Farnan]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/as...283479467.html

A good move...

The less civilians killed the less insurgents generated.

As this report shows this is definitely needed.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/as...111443391.html

[Thanatos]

I find it sad we even need to sign a pact to limit collateral damage.

[Zephyrus]

I find it sad we even need to sign a pact to limit collateral damage.

I find it hilarious that it took this long for them to realize how much more problems they created by simply bombing the out of people.

How much precision-tech do you need before you aquire the right targets??

[GuineaPig]

Civilian casualties are caused because there aren't enough troops on the ground. Because of the lack of troops, NATO commanders need to rely on airstrikes to fight the Taliban. This results in collateral damage and civilian casualties. With another 50,000 troops, civilian casualties could be greatly reduced; probably to a tenth of what they currently are.

[Thanatos]

I find it hilarious that it took this long for them to realize how much more problems they created by simply bombing the out of people.

How much precision-tech do you need before you aquire the right targets??

That's not a precision-tech issue, that's a faulty intelligence issue.

[Zephyrus]

That's not a precision-tech issue, that's a faulty intelligence issue.

And you'd think they'd care about their "credibility ratings" by now...

[Azog 150]

Great post and I agree for the most part. I can certainly understand the frustration of not being properly mentioned. Although tbh, I can't even remember the Battle of Musa Qala being in the news (Like I said, most of the time our victories pass by unnoticed). I think the reason the US was not mentioned as much is becuase we suffered the same number of dead- and that would obviously take precendence over US dead (Although I don't agree with it). Anyway, I agree it was completely idiotic to get ourselves in that situation in the first place.

But watching programmes like Ross Kemp or Commando on the Front line (Basically programmes following our soldiers)- they pay full respect to our allies as well. You also forget the Danes and Estonians who have sizable forces in Helmand.

[mongrel]

I find it sad we even need to sign a pact to limit collateral damage.

True. I would have thought the usual conventions and laws of war would suffice.

[mrmouth]

And people on the ground actually fighting the war are meant to think what of this?

Lets take the 24th MEU's deployment late last year to Helmand.

Our greatest ally, the Brits, and I mean this in all due respect, sat on their hands and let Garmsir becoming a festering sore. For whatever reason, even though they had a sizeable force in the immediate area, did nothiing more than reactionary fighting, and let elite units of AQ and the Taliban, dig in hard.

So when the Marines showed up, they decided to finally take back the city, which was entirely deserted. In the end we destroyed a good amount of the city. Couldnt really have been done any other way.

What followed was condemnation from the Brits, and Karzai, for doing so. And for putting civilian lives at jeopardy. When they know damn well, that the enemy forced out the entire population months before. The Brits sat there and watched them do just that.

So in USMC fashion, we exploited the success we had in Garmsir, and pushed further south into Helmand, into areas that ISAF forces had not ever operated in. Areas where the enemy had free reign, and a major transportation network into Pakistan. Which also had not been dealt with. So we did some hard fighting down there, and shut down that line into Pakistan.

Once again, we were condemned over civilian casualties that didn't even number 20, over a multi week push into areas nobody had ever fought in before.

So you know what, Im tired of this . Im so ing tired of this nonsensical BS coming out of Karzai's mouth about civilian casualties when in all reality, they are insanely low.

So which is it? There are two ways to go. We can set up FOB's, and sit there on our hands, only patrolling up to a certain point because beyond that the enemy is dug in, and people might die. Or, we can actually go on the offensive, and kill the enemy.

The USMC has made up its mind as to the type of fighting we are going to undertake. And the results are solid. We are employing what we learned in Iraq, most notably in Anbar province. Its called CERP. And essentially it embraces the notion that we will bring all our tools to the fight, get the job done definitively, and have an answer for humanitairian and reconstruction assitance immediatley after the fighting ends. Or sometimes even before the fighting ends.

And British commanders on the ground, not back home, and not politicains, are seeing the results of CERP, and are arguing for the adoption of the USMC tactics.

[Central Asian Qaghan]

yes, barnaby, lets all give little kids guns and teach them to hate when an American soldier kills their parents at checkpoints. Or how about bombing weddings? Would you like to see their houses burned down too?

Why not finally control your allies and yourselfs who are conveiently raping Afghan woman like your Indian "allies" are doing?

Sure, you know what? just genocide the people barnaby cause thats what your doing. You're losing the war and making a mess of things.

[danzig]

Clean up your own side of the border before having the nerve to comment what happens on the opposite side....a situation your country's secret service did its best to encourage and bring about.

[s.rwitt]

And people on the ground actually fighting the war are meant to think what of this?

Nothing.

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't have said it better myself (+rep). The way the USMC fights insurgents is totally different than the "Sit on the FOB" mentality that many NATO members (and even some of our own Army units) utilize although it is totally ineffective. The whole "we leave them alone, they leave us alone" approach is ridiculous when fighting a COIN war.


But Marines will, as they have always done, do the fighting and dying that should have been done years ago. In order to destroy the Taliban instead of ignoring them.
--------------------------------

yes, barnaby, lets all give little kids guns and teach them to hate when an American soldier kills their parents at checkpoints. Or how about bombing weddings? Would you like to see their houses burned down too?

Why not finally control your allies and yourselfs who are conveiently raping Afghan woman like your Indian "allies" are doing?

Sure, you know what? just genocide the people barnaby cause thats what your doing. You're losing the war and making a mess of things.

That's one of the most incoherent and nonsensicale posts I've ever seen.

Furthermore, were I a Turk I'd be careful to avoid using the word genocide. What if an Armenian happened to be around?

[hellheaven1987]

Well, a few questions:

1. So why sign a pact?? Is the current Afghanistan government not working with US Armed Force before signing the pact??

2. Does the signing of this pact suggests that US force was bombing civilians regardless consequence before the pact??

3. Now, it is obviously that first two questions are not existed, since current Afghanistan government does work with US/NATO and we all know that NATO force did not anyhow bomb civilians. Therefore, the main question is, would that paper lower the civilian casualty when Afghanistan government already work with US??

Conclusion: That pact is nonsense, since Afghanistan government already work with US before the pact; I don't believe that a thin paper would magically increase the accuracy of missle.

[Gumpfendorfer]

It is strange that the US gets the blame for all the casualties, my country killed somewhere between 300 and 350 civilians in 2006/2007, only killing around 60 to 70 Taliban. Not a word was heard.

Casulties are indeed relativey low, but given the situation it is becoming a severe strain in the relation between the Afghans and NATO. Anything to lower the amount of casulties is welcome and curb this almost unstoppable spiral downwards. 2009 will see much more combat, also in the more populated and relatively quite area's and given the developements in neighbouring Pakistan, where all possible scenario's are doom and gloom. Pakistan will not survive without outside military help the way it looks now. They just caved in into the Taliban. Makes Afghanistan an almost futile event.

[danzig]

It is strange that the US gets the blame for all the casualties, my country killed somewhere between 300 and 350 civilians in 2006/2007, only killing around 60 to 70 Taliban. Not a word was heard.

Casulties are indeed relativey low, but given the situation it is becoming a severe strain in the relation between the Afghans and NATO. Anything to lower the amount of casulties is welcome and curb this almost unstoppable spiral downwards. 2009 will see much more combat, also in the more populated and relatively quite area's and given the developements in neighbouring Pakistan, where all possible scenario's are doom and gloom. Pakistan will not survive without outside military help the way it looks now. They just caved in into the Taliban. Makes Afghanistan an almost futile event.

Yeah I never understand that either, there was an incident what a year plus ago when NATO lead engagement killed like 20 or 30 civilians and not much was made about it but yet an air strike gone wrong that kills 10 from US lead ends up on front pages. I mean dont get me wrong civilian deaths are tragic and should be avoided as much as humanly possible but I dont get the news exposure thing. I guess cuase there are more total incidents involving US troops but there are also a great many more american troops then there are any other country and many airstrikes etc are carried about by US as well.

[Admiral Piett]

In my opinion, there should be pressure by the press on the military to minimize civilian casualties. I think that the kind of conflict of interest between the press and the military is ultimately what kind of leads to the balance and some of the more proprietary aspects of the military. Getting bad press pushes commanders to be more sensitive about hitting civilian targets. It works for everyone's favor.

[danzig]

Problem is the press in large part has no concept of warfare, its why during Iraq invasion you had morons running around like it was a day at an amusement park. If the media cant even get right that there is a huge difference between a cold war era unexploded artillery shell and a 21st century air to ground missile (talking about the amusing photo a few years back about the Afgan villagers standing next to a "piece" of a missile that killed civilizans) how can it be trusted to get the important thing right?

That isnt to say *all* journalist are incapable some have vast experience but many have a case of the "me too" just to get the big headlines.

[Azog 150]

Our greatest ally, the Brits, and I mean this in all due respect, sat on their hands and let Garmsir becoming a festering sore. For whatever reason, even though they had a sizeable force in the immediate area, did nothiing more than reactionary fighting, and let elite units of AQ and the Taliban, dig in hard.

Thats hardly fair. By that time, that area had dissolved into a bloody stalemate- the Taliban in the area out-numbered our forces. We didn't have the men and equipment to launch a full-scale attack at the time.

I understand what you are saying though- we could have done more. But we were definitely not sitting on our hands. And when the USMC came along, we also contributed to the offensive.

But still, it was a great job by the USMC

So which is it? There are two ways to go. We can set up FOB's, and sit there on our hands, only patrolling up to a certain point because beyond that the enemy is dug in, and people might die. Or, we can actually go on the offensive, and kill the enemy.

The USMC has made up its mind as to the type of fighting we are going to undertake. And the results are solid. We are employing what we learned in Iraq, most notably in Anbar province. Its called CERP. And essentially it embraces the notion that we will bring all our tools to the fight, get the job done definitively, and have an answer for humanitairian and reconstruction assitance immediatley after the fighting ends. Or sometimes even before the fighting ends.

In most areas we have been going on the offensive the last 2 years. Just look at the number of Operations we have carried out. There was one Operation a few days ago in which we seized £50million worth of Heroin, 400kg of Opium, several weapon and IED stockpiles, we also killed 20 Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...h-troops-drugs


Another Operation involving 1,500 British Marines, and a few Danes. Fierce trench battles were fought, in one case '360-degree hand-to-hand battles'. We killed 100 including a senior leader, at a loss of 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sond_Chara


There are plenty of other similar (And in many cases larger) Operations.

Yes, a lot of our forces are sitting in FOB's, but they will go out and make daily patrols into Taliban territory.

[mrmouth]

Thats hardly fair. By that time, that area had dissolved into a bloody stalemate- the Taliban in the area out-numbered our forces. We didn't have the men and equipment to launch a full-scale attack at the time.

I understand what you are saying though- we could have done more. But we were definitely not sitting on our hands. And when the USMC came along, we also contributed to the offensive.

My post is not directed at the British forces on the ground so much as the thought process of certain commanders. When they are allowed to fight, the results are obvious, and overwhelming. Nothing but respect.

The simple fact is, it should have never gotten to that point. And from everything I have seen, I would question whether you boys were ever outnumbered. I could be wrong though. The actual FOB was small, but the force in the area was around battalion level, I believe.

And god knows, you guys, along with the Canucks, and a token force from the Netherlands, have been the only thing holding back the tide down in Helmand for a long while. And yes, you guys operate at a fairly high tempo overall, but seem to get bogged down when it comes to assaulting large urban areas. And it appears to be due to nothing more than worries over civilian casualties. Even when, in the case of Garmsir, the huge majority fled months earlier.

And as my original post indicated, overall, civilian casualties are very low. It shouldn't play a part in the thought process.

As far as the fighting to retake the city, your boys led the ANA, and essentially encircled the city. The USMC cleared the city itself. However if you picked up a paper in the UK or visited a UK based internet news site, you come away with a much different view of what happened. There is barely any mention of the USMC. Part of it is because wherever the ANA fights, facts will be skewed to show that the ANA did the majority of the fighting in order to show Afghans that their Army is strong. That is understandable, and they do deserve credit overall. But there is no reason to skew the facts here at home.

Possibly the greatest instance of this was Musa Qala in late '07 and early '08. Another city that had fallen to AQ and the Taliban. The 82nd arbrn air assaulted Musa Qala from the North while British and ANA forces provided a blocking force to the south. The paratroopers cleared the town after 3-4 days of very intense fighting, and the ANA rushed in for the victory parade. Again, understandable. But in the UK, it was hailed as a huge success for the British Army, with no mention of the US paratroopers. And that time it actually pissed them off pretty good.

The greater problem is this; there is a mentality that is well entrenched within the UK, that the US is trigger happy, and its existed for god knows how long. And a byproduct of that false belief, is a overall disdain in the media for the US Mil that leads to moronic reporters very likely, intentionally leaving out US successes. Successes that come right alongside your boys, and would do nothing but improve relations if they were truly known.

And it is easily adopted by other countries and leaders, like Karzai. Now yes, he has an obligation to speak out, but he also has an obligation to preach understanding of the difficulties involved. Never once has he gone on record to help educate his people as to things they can do to keep themselves and their families alive under these circumstances.

Of course the goal is to prevent civilian casualties, and even more so when dealing with an insurgency at any level. But the numbers don't reinforce a sit on your hands, purely reactionary war fighting mentality that has been allowed to grow unmolested.

We have got to get on the same page. And CERP is something that can do just that.

[s.rwitt]

Problem is the press in large part has no concept of warfare, its why during Iraq invasion you had morons running around like it was a day at an amusement park. If the media cant even get right that there is a huge difference between a cold war era unexploded artillery shell and a 21st century air to ground missile (talking about the amusing photo a few years back about the Afgan villagers standing next to a "piece" of a missile that killed civilizans) how can it be trusted to get the important thing right?

That isnt to say *all* journalist are incapable some have vast experience but many have a case of the "me too" just to get the big headlines.

Or the story featuring an Iraqi woman holding an unfired .50 round and claiming it was one that hit her house. Don't forget the embedded reporter that tried to get that Marine in trouble after shooting that wounded insurgent after it reached for him (of course leaving out the part about two of the Marines' friends being blown to pieces days earlier by an insurgent doing the same thing.) These reporters make marines/soldiers take extra risks by embedding themselves with them and then throw them under the bus at the first opportunity to try and make their careers.

------------------------

Yes, a lot of our forces are sitting in FOB's, but they will go out and make daily patrols into Taliban territory.

That's what lead to the Taliban's resurgence. We saw it in Iraq and even Vietnam, you can't spend the night on the FOB because as soon as you finish patrolling for the day all of those villagers know that you will be gone that night and anyone who helped you in any way will get a visit from the Taliban.

Fighting COIN operations sucessfully means you have to either do constant night patrolling or actually move into the cities/villages themselves. It's what we did in Fallujah and look at the turn around that city made.