It's not the first time, according to a 2007 report: U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces
Who wrote that 'report'?
Did you see? Lemmie see...
U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year — surpassing the 178 civilians killed in militant attacks, according to an Associated Press tally.
Nice headline. So it' s not even a report. It's a 'tally' by the Associated Press. Mmm'k.
Well lets see what the rest of the article says...
Separate figures from the UN, and from an umbrella organization of Afghan and international aid groups, each show that the numbers of civilians killed by international forces is approximately equal to those killed by insurgents.
...
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has counted 213 civilians killed by insurgents in the first five months of this year, compared to 207 killed by Afghan and international forces.
...
The number of civilians killed in militant attacks was approximately the same as those killed by foreign forces according to ACBAR's latest figures from about a month ago, said Anja de Beer, director of ACBAR.
Hmm. Ok.
At any rate it is a horrible loss and this dependence on fast air is the root cause. I agree with Karzai in spirit.
After a seething speech by Karzai on Saturday, in which he accused NATO and U.S. forces of viewing Afghan lives as "cheap," NATO conceded that it had to "do better." U.S. military spokesman Maj. Chris Belcher suggested that some civilians reportedly killed by foreign forces may in fact have been killed by insurgents.
..but it's not true that NATO sees them as cheap, they know this hurts them. This is represented by their ground ROE. However often I believe the push for this reliance on fast air ignores the predictable cause and effect at play when command is trying to lessen the other end of the candle, coalition losses, by making the channels to call CAP's more open. Coalition losses also affect the mission in much the same way. In this round about fashion the Afghan lives are being “viewed” as cheap in a ‘subconscious manner’ if you will. The effect remains the same however.
IMO, more creative and concerted use of modern artillery would greatly lessen the civilian losses when applicable in cases like this. Artillery is still much 'smarter' than the smart bombs.
Ahk
