Winning hearts and minds the Harper/Iggy way:

"Aircraft targeted Taleban fighters who had been preying on reconstruction efforts in the province, Isaf said. But a spokesman conceded that "credible reports" suggested "a number of civilian casualties including women and children arising from one or more of these incidents".
....
"Bismallah Afghanmal, a member of the Kandahar provincial council, said that 80 to 85 civilians had been killed in Tuesday's raids, which villagers said lasted between four and five hours. Nato forces claimed a "significant success" in Panjwayi district last month after a major offensive against the Taleban.

"These kinds of things have happened several times, and they only say ’Sorry.’ How can you compensate people who have lost their sons and daughters?" Said Mr Afghanmal.

quote:

---

Today, the original Taliban regime no longer exists. According to the Senlis Council,

A significant number of the original Taliban militants were killed during Operation Enduring Freedom’s initial phases, and the Taliban defeat was guaranteed by the defection of the many warlords to the US-sponsored Northern Alliance. Since late 2001, the remnants of the Taliban have been based mainly in Pakistan, and have been supported by a loose coalition.

This new coalition includes “Afghans loyal to the former Taliban regime, disenchanted and nationalist Pashtuns [the largest Afghan ethnic group], religious conservatives, criminal gangs, opium traffickers, and a new generation of Pakistani and Afghan scholars educated in the madrassas along the Pakistan-Afghan border.” Senlis calls the new coalition, “the neo-Taliban.” Finally, according to Senlis, “The remnants of the Taliban, related groups and new insurgent actors currently operating in Afghanistan no longer have any clear ties to Al Qaeda or an unambiguous relationship with those that carried out the September 11 attacks.”

---

James Ingalls

The "Taliban" noted by press releases are more or less locals,not foreign fighters.As such,tribal customs dictate revenge upon the invaders.

Together with a natural inclination to rid foreigner from their land,this revenge component of tribal custom insures a self-fulfilling prophesy of failure by NATO.

Another interesting observation by Mr.Ingalls has to do with the nature of the ISAF mission under NATO. Rather than the "peace-keeping welfare of Afghans" scenario presented by the western media,Mr. Ingalls explains the role from a more realistic perspective:

quote:

---

The impression given in most NATO statements and news coverage is that the NATO troops are there for "peacekeeping" as opposed to the US’s Operation Enduring Freedom, but that is disingenuous. While it is true that some troops are limited by so-called “national caveats” as to how aggressively they can kill Afghans, the majority of troops, are continuing the US’s Operation Enduring Freedom...

... To ensure that the US approach is kept intact, a special command structure has been imposed. While nominally the NATO mission is being run by the UK, the “deputy commander of security” is a “dual-hatted” US/NATO officer, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who answers to John Abizaid, responsible for Operation Enduring Freedom on one side and answers to James Jones, the NATO supreme commander on the other side (both US generals). In other words, the aggressive military activities that have become hallmarks of Operation Enduring Freedom (breaking down doors, air strikes, terrorizing villages, indefinite detention and torture) will continue under NATO, with more troops, contributed by Canada, Britain, and a few other countries, and are still ultimately controlled by the United States.

---

"We hit civilians!"
"Oh well, their bodies are Taliban now"

Is it becoming harder to conceal?

_______________________

quote:

---

"The government and the coalition told the families that there are no Taliban in the area anymore," he added. "If there are no Taleban, then why are they bombing the area?""

---

Besides the obvious "We're fighting more than Taliban" response this quote beckons... I wonder how the Afghani people feel. Nato forces where our entire nation cringes at the loss of 40+ soldiers over the mission but couldn't care less about another 80 or so of them Afghanis being slain in one bombing run ^^

Though I guess we're doing a pretty good job of making the average Afghani citizen fear the Taliban... Mostly because being near Taliban means you're home becomes a primary target for collateral damage.

So I wonder how many of the 85 dead civilians have relatives that just signed up to fight back against those who bombed and killed their family?

Jason Kenney, replying for Harper, scolded Layton for downplaying the amount of aid that was going to Afghanistan, pointing out that, at $100 million/yr, it represented Canada's largest single foreign assistance commitment.

I don't think Kenney realized he had publicly disgraced the government of a G8 country by underlining its well-deserved reputation for stinginess, but there you have it.

[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Jason Kenney, replying for Harper, scolded Layton for downplaying the amount of aid that was going to Afghanistan, pointing out that, at $100 million/yr, it represented Canada's largest single foreign assistance commitment.

---

The NATO Nazis claim it is only 11 civilian casualties and the rest were Taliban fighters. Yet it offers no evidence to back up that claims. They do admit, however, that villages were bombed.

Obviously, if you bomb villages, you're going to kill civilians. So NATO's claim is obviously bunk.

Of course, Prime Minister Steven Harpuke has resolved it all, claiming that the Taliban often uses civilians as target shields. I guess he thinks the Taliban put those villages in the way of NATO artillery.

But there also was a brief mention that some of the supposed Taliban fighters are actually "local insurgents," and not the foreign guerrilla teams we keep hearing about.

Would this not sow seeds of discontent in the foreign land ? Or would it augment harmony with the invasive Orphanizer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I hope every babbler will participate in the rallies, marches and events over the next few days. Let's turn this tide of death around!

---

quote:

---

"Everyone is very angry at the government and the coalition. There was no Taliban," Abdul Aye, a villager, told the Associated Press. He said 22 members of his extended family were killed. Another villager, Taj Mohammad, said 10 members of his family were killed.

"There were no militants," he said.

A Kandahar provincial council member, Bismallah Afghanmal, said as many as 85 civilians died. He told the Associated Press that Taliban fighters ran into homes, which were then targeted by NATO forces.
….

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper lamented the civilian casualties. "I don't think these incidents help anybody, not NATO forces, not the Taliban," the Prime Minister said.

---

quote:

---

A NATO spokesman says 12 civilian bodies have been seen so far and it's likely that many of the other casualties were Taliban fighters.

---

to repeat myself:

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

NATO forces operating under the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force to Afghanistan (ISAF) need to take greater precautions to protect civilians and establish a program to compensate Afghans who have lost family members, are injured or suffer property damage due to their actions, Human Rights Watch said today. Recent ISAF operations have resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians across the country. Although an ISAF statement expressed regrets about civilian casualties, it denied any wrongdoing.

"While NATO forces try to minimize harm to civilians, they obviously are not doing enough," said Sam Zarifi, Human Rights Watch's Asia research director. "NATO's tactics are increasingly endangering the civilians that they are supposed to be protecting, and turning the local population against them."

[snip]

NATO has relied extensively on "close air support" to attack insurgent positions. Although details are not publicized, an indication of the intensity of the fighting is that in June 2006, the United States Central Command reported that it had flown 340 air strikes in Afghanistan, more than twice the 160 carried out in Iraq.

NATO forces have reported using B-1 bombers, fighter jets such as F-16s, French-made Mirages, and British-made Harriers, as well as anti-tank aircraft like the A-10 "Warthog." Human Rights Watch expressed particular concern over repeated reports about the use of A-10s in civilian areas. Warthogs are primarily designed to serve as anti-tank attack planes, but also use high-speed machine guns and exploding shells to strafe infantry.

"NATO should reconsider the use of highly destructive but hard-to-target weaponry in areas where there is clear risk of considerable civilian casualties," Zarifi said.

[snip]

NATO can't simply state that it didn't know civilians were present, or that they assumed all civilians had fled the area," said Zarifi. "NATO must improve how it collects information, because even a cursory inquiry could have alerted NATO forces to the civilian presence in areas they've attacked."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has appointed a high-level committee to investigate the recent attacks. Human Rights Watch supports this effort but called on NATO to either conduct its own investigation or to allow independent, international experts to investigate. The investigation's findings should be made public.

[snip]

The United States already runs a compensation program in Afghanistan, which does not assign blame but provides condolence payments to families who suffered losses in U.S. operations. In addition, the US Congress has set aside $3 million for humanitarian aid to be administered by USAID and its partner, the International Office of Migration. Human Rights Watch called on other NATO members to follow suit.

"Compensating injured civilians is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do," Zarifi said. "This has been US policy, and there's no reason it shouldn't be NATO policy as well."

---

I wonder if Canada has any policy on compensating injured or otherwise harmed civilians?

ETA: According to this story, it looks like there is such a policy:

quote:

---

Sgt. John Courtney says his team recently held a meeting with village elders, to discuss compensation. The Canadians offered to supply bricks and mortar and pay hourly cash wages to residents whose homes or crops had been damaged during recent fighting.

---

[ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

The ISAF ground unit involved early on assessed 57 insurgents killed as a result of the action and still believes that to be the case, with a large amount of weapons and ammunition discovered in and around the compound. The various investigations launched are making progress but investigators have had difficulty gaining full access to the area due to the residual insurgent threat. ISAF is actively investigating along with the Afghan MoD to cooperate fully with the multi-body and concurrent investigations ongoing. In so doing ISAF has each day developed and shared additional information related to the civilian victims. We acknowledge our deep regret is not enough—remedial action is required and we are taking it.

ISAF on Thursday the 26th of October distributed more than 6,000 pounds of food, clothes and shelter items to the stricken site and sat down with local village elders in multiple Shura meetings. ISAF also that day payed Solatia, in other words, compensation, to families in the stricken area. Since then the logistics and attention involved in supporting the enquiry has complicated direct assistance, but it is far from over. It is important to understand that ISAF has remained in Sperwan Ghar and worked nonstop since the offensive phase of Operation MEDUSA ended in mid-September. ISAF troops designed and are helping build the ANA and ANP Forward Security Base co-located at Sperwan Ghar. ISAF troops designed and are helping with the construction of a school and clinic along the North-South road in Sperwan Ghar. And ISAF engineers early this month finalized plans for the building of a new mosque, for soldier and civilian use. Let me be clear, none of this can replace the lives and human potential lost in the midst of ISAF combating insurgent infiltration in Panjwayi on that fateful Tuesday. But these actions and the security effort established in Panjwayi, Zhari, and Sperwan Ghar districts to support the commitment of more than an $8 million in aid and development projects do represent a future hard to imagine just two months ago.

---

quote:

---

All eyes on 'little Napoleon' in NATO command switch

DOUG SAUNDERS
.....................

"The Dutch in general very much favour winning hearts and minds, which suggests an immediate contrast with the Americans, who are said to favour the heavy-handed fighting approach," Mr. Honig said. "But I'd say that context tends to get the better of . . . peaceful inclinations rather easily."

However, many NATO observers say that Gen. Van Loon is likely to make a deliberate effort to differentiate the NATO mission, known as the International Stabilization and Assistance Force, from the earlier U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadian leaders have been criticized for following the military-oriented U.S. approach too closely.

Gen. Van Loon is a little-known figure in the Netherlands. He briefly rose to national attention for a distinctive act of inventiveness and courage seven years ago during the NATO campaign against Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces in the Balkans.

...................

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
There is a change of command in NATO's ISAF force. Moving from the Canadians to the Dutch. I wonder if this general will be able to get the focus off fighting and on to other things.

---

Of course the Dutch will fail miserably, as has everyone else in the last few hundred years.

But I heard Van Loon in a radio interview, and what a difference between this cultured, humanitarian-sounding officer and the jingoistic, lying, brain-dead, and generally embarrassing Fraser.

In the short term it would be nice to think that a change in command might result in an abatement of the air and ground assaults on Afghan civilians. Oh, and I remember Hans Blix very well -- a little truth telling from a NATO General would be most welcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:

Was the interview on CBC radio?

---

It had to be - that's all I listen to. It was within the last few days, probably on the day of the formal handover of command. Don't know how to find those things or if they're even still available.

ETA: I'm 99% sure it was on "As It Happens", and he was being interviewed by Gillian Findley.

ETA again: I think I found it! It wasn't Van Loon, it was the Dutch Chief of Staff:

As It Happens

quote:

---

The Dutch love their tulips. And some of the rarest bulbs first evolved to survive in the harsh soils of Afghanistan. But horticulture wasn't the reason for one well-guarded flight between Amsterdam and Kandahar today. The Dutch force was taking over from the Canadians -- at the head of NATO's mission in the south of the country.

General Dick Berlijn is Holland's Chief of Defence Staff. We reached him during a refueling stop in Cyprus.

---

And it looks as if the full audio is there too.

[ 03 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Thanks for finding that unionist. (I hope it wasn't Carol Off who interviewed him...)

Must get to bed now, but I will listen to that tomorrow afternoon.

---

God, now that you mention it, I think it was Carol Off. Sorry about that. Wait, why am I apologizing for the CBC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
God, now that you mention it, I think it was Carol Off. Sorry about that. Wait, why am I apologizing for the CBC?

---

Because somebody has to?
Actually Off wasn't too bad on this interview at all.

General Dick Berlijn was interesting. He seems to think there are 2 types of "Taliban" one hard line about which little can be done and a softer core of dissafected with whom negotiation is possible.