Why Galloway is right on Afghanistan and the three main parties’ leaders are wrong

The BBC and Channel 4 News seemed to have exactly the same questions for George Galloway after his victory in the Bradford West by election, including whether he would condemn attacks on British troops by Afghan insurgents.

Galloway’s response was that since British troops are occupying Afghanistan they are bound to be targeted by Afghans, just as if foreign forces were occupying Britain, some British people would be attacking them.

This view is backed up by US intelligence analysis which found that over 90% of the people NATO forces are fighting in Afghanistan are neither Taliban nor even religiously motivated, but fighting for control of territory or mining or smuggling routes, or angry at foreign forces occupying their country or valley. (1)

A study by the US Bureau of Economic Research also found that the number of insurgent attacks on NATO forces is directly related to the number of Afghan civilians killed by NATO forces - with many insurgents having joined the insurgents after civilians in their village were killed (2)

So condemning the attacks on British troops makes no difference whatsoever - it's an empty gesture. Bringing them home might actually save some of their lives though.

This BBC and Channel 4 both seem to believe that this view is beyond the pale because it’s a different one from the leaders of the three main UK political parties, but in fact it’s entirely rational and based on the facts as established by even US intelligence and the US government.

A few weeks before that David Cameron was with President Obama claiming that the war in Afghanistan is about preventing another September 11^th and protecting people back in Britain and the US from terrorism (3).

This ignores the fact that the September 11^th attackers trained in Germany and the US, not in Afghanistan – and that at no point in a ten year long war have NATO or the Karzai government’s forces controlled all of the territory of Afghanistan. There will always be areas in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan where terrorist groups could train. So there is no reason to think that the war in Afghanistan could ever reduce the terrorist threat and plenty of reason to think it will increase it by having non-Muslim forces ending up killing Muslims, including civilians, in a predominantly Muslim country.

Since 90% of the people NATO are fighting in Afghanistan aren’t Taliban either, the war can’t be mainly about stopping the Taliban either. The fact that our governments have no problem with continuing to arm and fund dictatorships or military regimes in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi and Egypt as they kill and torture unarmed protesters shows how much they really care about promoting democracy or human rights.

Since 90% of the people NATO are fighting in Afghanistan aren’t Taliban either, the war can’t be mainly about stopping the Taliban either. The fact that our governments have no problem with continuing to arm and fund dictatorships or military regimes in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi and Egypt as they kill and torture unarmed protesters shows how much they really care about promoting democracy or human rights.

This does not make all the sacrifices of their lives by British troops in Afghanistan meaningless. They gave up their lives believing they were stopping Afghanistan falling back under the rule of the Taliban – and maybe they did. Certainly far more girls have been able to go to school in Afghanistan in areas controlled by NATO and the Karzai government than could under the Taliban – and there have also been some horrific murders of schoolgirls by the Taliban – but many of our allies in Afghanistan are as brutal or as fundamentalist as the Taliban are – and most of the people our forces are fighting are not Taliban at all.

(1) = Boston Globe 09 Oct 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy’, http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(2) = BBC News 24 Jul 2010 ‘US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832

(3) = Independent 15 Mar 2012 ‘David Cameron pays 9/11 tribute at Ground Zero ’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/david-cameron-pays-911-tribute-at-ground-zero-7573770.html

It's not extreme ideology that creates most Afghan or Iraqi insurgents or Al Qa'ida men, it’s killing members of their family, country or religion

Tony Blair is still pointing to Islamic “extreme ideologies” as “the threat” and the cause of all opposition to the US led “liberations” of Iraq and Afghanistan. Blair adds that it’s not about anything “we” do to “them” (1) – (2).

Yet one British reporter in Libya for Al Jazeera English the day the rebels took Tripoli recounted how Iraqis had come up to him in Baghdad the day Saddam was overthrown and told him they loved Americans, who were the greatest people in the world. A week later, one of the same people told him American troops had killed two members of his family – and that he would now kill as many Americans as he could.

This was not an unusual case. A CIA intelligence assessment in 2005 found the typical Iraqi insurgent was “motivated to fight because the United States is occupying his country” and “a family grievance, someone was hurt by coalition forces”, though adding that “There is also [in this Iraqi insurgent] religion and nationalism that results in a view he must fight on to get non-Muslims out of Muslim territory.” (3)

‘Hurt’ here is a nice vague word that papers over family members jailed without trial, tortured by Coalition forces or by US trained Iraqi government ‘police commandos’ or ‘counter-terrorist’ units using the same torture methods as under Saddam, or raped or killed by them. Blair’s claim that only insurgents and Al Qa’ida kill civilians in Iraq, with British , American and Iraqi government forces not responsible for killing any, is demonstrably and very false (4) – (8).

American journalist Thomas Ricks even found American forces often ‘arrested’ the wives and children of suspected insurgents – and often even if the suspect did give themselves up, US forces had ‘lost’ their families in the horrific prison torture network of which Abu Ghraib was the tip of the iceberg (9).

While Blair is probably right that terrorist attacks killed more civilians than Coalition forces did, due to truck, car and suicide bombings, even US military statistics showed that over 75% of insurgent and/or terrorist attacks targeted Coalition or Iraqi government armed forces (10).

So the insurgents’ motives include not just the religious ones that Blair sees as the only issue, but anger at foreign troops having killed, tortured or raped a member of their family; and opposition to foreign troops occupying their country. These are not examples of an alien ideology distorting reality, but reactions anyone can understand and empathise with.

Our enemies’ motives also include opposition to a new government that uses the same death and torture squad techniques on it’s people as the military government of El Salvador in the 80s, or Saddam Hussein himself (11).

Similarly, when many Iraqi insurgents turned from being allied to Al Qa’ida to accepting American money to fight it, the reason was not their ideology changing to one more similar to the British or American governments’, but disgust at Al Qa’ida killing Iraqi civilians (12) – (14).

Afghanistan : it’s mostly not about extreme Islamic ideology either

In Afghanistan the extremism of the Taliban is notorious. Yet US intelligence analysts found that 90% of the people NATO are fighting in Afghanistan are neither Taliban nor even “religiously motivated”, but fighting out of a cultural tradition of attacking foreign troops who are occupying their lands (which in Afghanistan may include for instance non-Pashtuns occupying Pashtun areas, or even soldiers from a tribe from another valley) (15) – (16).

A study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research also found that the number of attacks on NATO forces in each area of Afghanistan correlated closely with incidents in which NATO troops killed civilians in that area, with, on average, six extra attacks taking place each time civilians were killed (17).

There is also a fair amount of evidence of the ‘El Salvador option’ of US trained and led native ‘counter terrorist’ and ‘militia’ death squads being employed by the US in Afghanistan in summary executions in night raids (often of teenagers who turn out to be innocent). As in Iraq this allows the US military massive influence while denying any direct involvement – US officials for instance confirming that a raid had had US forces present but with the ‘trigger pullers’ being Afghan (18) – (20).

As with Al Qa’ida in Iraq most of the opposition to the Taliban among Afghans is due to Taliban killing civilians.

(US, UN and Afghan government sources show that Taliban and other opponents of NATO and the Karzai government have been responsible for the majority of civilian deaths for several years including 2011 so far. Given the Karzai government and the UN giving slightly higher figures for civilian casualties than NATO this can’t be discounted entirely as biased reporting of numbers.  However the total number of civilians killed has also been rising each year. (21) – (25).

NATO forces are also the body with the most security resources to collect enough statistics to make even a rough estimate of the total for each year across the whole country (21) – (26).

NATO figures for civilian casualties caused by their forces are also much lower than those of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission’s  figures in the minority of cases in which the AIHRC conducts it’s own investigation, though the UN may increase it’s figures in such cases. The AIHRC are all appointed by President Karzai and it’s head, Sima Samar, has had death threats from the Taliban and has said she’s in favour of NATO forces staying on to defeat the Taliban. This suggests NATO and UNAMA figures may understate the number of civilians killed by NATO and Afghan government forces. (26).

Even Al Qa’ida gets many recruits who want to protect Muslim civilians from being killed

Photo : The aftermath of the Madrid bombing

Al Qaeda was always a tiny minority of the people fighting the US and it’s allies and most Muslims want nothing to do with them, largely because they have often deliberately targeted civilians, which is not justified either morally or by anything in the Quran, but they have also repeatedly said they are killing our civilians because we are killing their (Muslim) civilians.

After 9-11 Bin Laden said “Every time they kill us, we kill them” (27). The Madrid bombers asked “Is it OK for you to kill our children, women, old people and youth in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine..? And is it forbidden to us to kill yours.” (28). Al Qa’ida in Europe said the July 7th bombings were revenge for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (29). In 2004 Bin Laden offered a truce to European countries if they withdrew their troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying “stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling yours” (30).

This does not mean their murder of civilians was justified. Two wrongs cannot make a right. It is never justified to target civilians or take revenge on people not responsible for the acts you are taking revenge for. Taking revenge is usually pointless and counter-productive.

Al Qa'ida have also lost support among Muslims for targeting Muslim civilians as supposedly not 'true' Muslims.However these statements are more evidence that Al Qa’ida, like other Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, have motivations which are based at least partly on reality and which we can understand.

Only someone blinded by ideology could claim that the US and its allies have done nothing to turn any Afghans, Iraqis or Muslims against them

It’s hard to believe that Tony Blair can genuinely fail to see that if you kill members of the families of many thousands of people, or torture people by the thousand, many of them will hold it against you and some will seek revenge.

The fact that some Muslims, seeing themselves as part of a global community of Muslims, may also think they have a duty to fight to protect other Muslims in other countries, should not be surprising either. It’s not so different from Tony Blair, a British Prime Minister, deciding that we had a moral duty to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Americans due to ‘shared values’ after September 11^th.

No doubt Blair is right that a minority of Muslims would be extreme in their views no matter what the US government and military and it’s allies did or didn’t do. Bin Laden for instance once claimed that “the crusaders” had allied with the Serbs against the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

To claim that nothing the US led alliance has done in terms of military action, torture, or supporting the dictatorships and occupations of others over mostly Muslim populations has turned anyone against us, or that anyone opposed to the US led alliance is only opposed due to ideology, is just him believing what he would like to believe though, blindly refusing to see the facts. That is deluded. You might even say that he clings so blindly to an ideology in which the US and it’s allies can do no wrong - and that this ideological belief is distorting his perception of reality.

Many converts to Islamic extremism may well be more symptoms of how some people react to having family members killed by foreign forces than a cause of them, just as the number of votes the BNP gets in the UK rises with the unemployment rate and rose after the London bombings. Blair and Bush and the neo-conservatives like to pretend that history began on September 11^th – that it was what the Khmer Rouge called Year Zero, but in fact Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has been a motivating factor for Islamic extremist groups for decades, as have American and European support for torturing dictatorships in Muslim countries, along with civilians killed in wars on Muslim countries.

(1) = Independent 10 Sep 2011 War on terror 'not over' says Tony Blair,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/war-on-terror-not-over-says-tony-blair-2352499.html ; ‘Mr Blair warned the threat would only end when "we defeat the ideology". …"I think it will take a generation, but the way to defeat this ideology ultimately is by a better idea, and we have it, which is a way of life based on openness, democracy, freedom and the rule of law."’…my view is that actually this is a spectrum of which the terrorists are at one end but actually that spectrum of radical Islamism goes far, far deeper than we think…."It is profound, it is an ideology, it is a movement and it is still there, still with us.

(2) = BBC News 10 Sep 2011 ‘Tony Blair denies military action 'radicalised' Muslims’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14858265 ; ‘The reason why these people are radicalised is not because of something we're doing to them. …There is this view, which I'm afraid I believe is deeply naive in the West, that somehow these people, you know, misunderstand our motives, that we've confused them, that that's why they've become radicalised. …And until we stop accepting that somehow we, by our actions, are provoking these people to be as they are, we will carry on with this problem….Mr Blair said that military force should be considered to stop Iran developing a military nuclear programme. "I don't think it would include invasion but I think you cannot rule out the use of military force against Iran if they continue to develop nuclear weapons in breach of the international community's obligations on them."’

 (3) = Washington Post 06 Feb 2005 ‘CIA Studies Provide Glimpse of Insurgents in Iraq’,http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1508-2005Feb5?language=printer

(4) = NYT magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’,http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html

(5) = New York Times Magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

(6) = Nation 06 Jun 2009 ‘Iraq’s new death squad’, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer

(7) = Amnesty International World Report 2010 (covering 2009) – Country Report Iraq,http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123 ;(once pdf loads, scroll down to page 125 (by PDF page number) or 178 (number marked on page)

(8) = On US and British forces in Iraq killing civilians see this link and sources listed on it and also this one

(9) = Thomas E. Ricks (2006) ‘FIASCO – the American military adventure in Iraq’, Penguin, London, Chapter 11 - pages 236-238 of paperback edition & chapter 12, pages 283-284 of paperback edition

(10) = Brookings Institution (July 2008) – Iraq Index, Page 8 – Enemy-Initiated Attacks against the Coalition and it’s partners, source MNF (multinational forces) Iraq, see Page 8, http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

(11) = See the part of the blog post on this link with the sub-heading ‘Killing and torturing Iraqis - supposedly to save them from Saddam doing it’ and the sources for it

(12) = NPR 31 Mar 2005 ‘Profile of an Iraqi Insurgent’, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4568785, He says he grew disillusioned with the insurgency, which he says has been "hijacked by foreigners" and directs its attacks against Iraqis, not Americans.

(13) = Christian Science Monitor 06 Feb 2006 ‘Sunni tribes turn against jihadis’,http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0206/p01s01-woiq.html ; ‘Sheikh Osama al-Jadaan, head of the influential Karabila tribe… He's also turned away from supporting Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters in Iraq. "We realized that these foreign terrorists…claim to be striking at the US occupation, but the reality is they are killing innocent Iraqis in the markets, in mosques, in churches, and in our schools."

(14) = Time 31 Jan 2011 ‘The Insurgent's Tale: Rolling Stone's 2005 Profile of a Soldier Reconsidering Jihad’,http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-insurgents-tale-rolling-stones-2005-profile-of-a-soldier-reconsidering-jihad-20110131 ; ‘At thirty-two, Khalid was beginning to have serious reservations about the course of the insurgency in Iraq. They are over-killing there. Fighting foreign soldiers was one thing — he had been doing it all of his adult life. But did his faith really sanction killing civilians in their own country? The blood of people is too cheap.’

(15) = Boston Globe 09 Oct 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy - Few militants driven by religion, reports say’,http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(16) = Washington Post 27 Oct 2009  ‘U.S. official resigns over Afghan war’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447

(17) = AP 02 Aug 2010 ‘Study ties civilian deaths to attacks on U.S. forces’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38530360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/study-ties-civilian-deaths-attacks-us-forces/#.Tm1FuOxZ-So ; for full report see Luke N. Condra, Joseph H. Felter, Radha K. Iyengar, Jacob N. Shapiro (2010) ‘The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq’  , National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 16152, July 2010, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16152 ; The fact that no correlation was found in Iraq may well be due to a greater degree of nationalism in Iraq, with most Iraqis seeing themselves as Iraqi first, compared to what one American officer called ‘valleyism’ in Afghanistan, with community loyalties often limited to one valley (see (16) above)

(18) = Guardian 22 Nov 2009 'US pours millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/us-anti-taliban-militias-afghanistan

(19) = On the ‘El Salvador option’ of US trained and/or led native death squads from El Salvador to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to Colombia see the blog post on this link and sources for it

(20) = On summary executions of people who are often later found to be innocent and teenage boys see the blog post on this link – scroll down to the sub-heading ‘Night Raids and the El Salvador Option moving from Iraq to Afghanistan’ or to see sources for it to ‘Sources for Night raids etc’. Some links may have changed but you should be able to find the original articles by googling the newspaper name and the headline

(21) = Afghanistan Conflict Monitor ( of simon Fraser University, Canada) – Facts and Figures – Civilian Casualties http://www.conflictmonitors.org/countries/afghanistan/facts-and-figures/casualties/civilians (tables using UN statistics for 2007-2010 showing civilian casualties and whether they were caused by NATO or Afghan government forces or their allies (PGF =Pro-Government Forces) or their enemies (AGF = Anti-Government Forces)

(22) = Casualty Monitor – Civilian Casualties: Afghanistan – more tables showing the same things and again based on UNAMA figures, http://www.casualty-monitor.org/p/civilian-casualties-afghanistan.html

(23) = Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission AIHRC (2010) ‘Afghanistan Annual Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, http://www.aihrc.org.af/2010_eng/Eng_pages/Reports/Thematic/Executive_Summary_Final.pdf

(24) = guardian.co.uk 19 Jul 2010 ‘Afghanistan civilian death toll has risen sharply, says United Nations’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rise-un

(25) = USA Today 22 Jun 2011 ‘Taliban behind most Afghan civilian casualties’,http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2011-06-22-afghan-civilian-casualties_n.htm

(26) = On problems with and likely biases in Afghan civilian casualty statistics in general; and on US civilian casualty counts on NATO airstrikes being far lower than AIHRC counts see the blog post on this link and sources for it

(27) = Guardian 12 Nov 2001 , ‘Bin Laden denies anthrax attacks’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/12/afghanistan.anthrax

(28) = Guardian 12 Mar 2004, ‘The clues that point towards al-Qaida’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/12/alqaida.spain2

(29) = Guardian Unlimited 17th July 2005 , 2.15p.m update ‘Al-Qaida in Europe claims responsibility for blasts’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/07/terrorism.july7

(30) = Reuters / guardian.co.uk 15 Apr 2004 ‘Excerpts from 'Bin Laden' tape’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/15/alqaida.usa

Gates recycles disproven Afghan war air strike propaganda for bombing of Libya

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has claimed that in Libya “The truth of the matter is we have trouble coming up with proof of any civilian casualties that we have been responsible for…But we do have a lot of intelligence reporting about Qaddafi taking the bodies of the people he's killed and putting them at the sites where we've attacked.” (1)

There’s just one slight problem with this ridiculous propaganda – Gates used exactly the same propaganda line in 2009 after repeated US air strikes killed around 70 civilians in the Bala Baluk area of Farah Province in Afghanistan.

In 2009 it was reported that “A claim by American officials, which was repeated by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday in Kabul, that the Taliban might have killed people with grenades because they did not pay an opium tax is not supported by any eyewitnesses and is disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters, one of which is filled with water.” (2)

Gates’ story was also found to be untrue by investigations on the ground by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by Human Rights Watch and by the Afghan Human Rights Commission and Gates was later forced to admit it was untrue. A US military cover up “investigation” that concluded only 25 to 30 civilians were killed used such stringent methodology as counting a grave in which a mother and child were buried as one person (3) – (6).

So claims that no air strikes in Libya have killed any civilians are unlikely to be any more true than in Afghanistan and if you want “the truth of the matter”, don’t take the word of Robert Gates or the US military any more than Gaddafi or his spokesmen.

(1) = CBS 27 Mar 2011 ‘Gates: Qaddafi losing ground in Libya’,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047619.shtml

(2) = Independent 08 May 2009 ‘Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html

(3) = ICRC 06 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: ICRC confirms dozens killed in air strikes’,http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/afghanistan-news-060509.htm

(4) = Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission 26 May 2009 ‘Press release:Balabolook incident’,http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Press_releases_eng/2009/pre_rel_balabluk_eng_26may2009.pdf

(5) = Human Rights Watch 14 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: US Should Act to End Bombing Tragedies  : Civilian Death Toll in May 3 Airstrikes Shows Previous Measures Inadequate’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies

(6) = Dispatches – Afghanistan’s Dirty War, Channel 4 News (UK) 12 Jun 2009, Afghanistan's Dirty War, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/afghanistans-dirty-war-watch-clips

A ceasefire allowing helicopters and trucks to be used to bring aid to flood victims is the way to win to save lives and win hearts and minds

Survivors of the floods in Pakistan face hunger, lack of clean water and exposure to the elements. A ceasefire could allow more of the helicopters being used in Afghanistan and some of the 5,000 truckloads a month of supplies going to NATO troops there to be used to rescue supply flood victims - saving lives and winning hearts and minds - Picture - AFP/Getty Images via CNN

With tens of millions of people without food or clean water after the floods in Pakistan; and the UN urgently requesting more helicopters for the aid effort; NATO governments should declare an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Afghanistan and re-direct many of their military helicopters and supply trucks from the war to the relief effort (1) – (4).

This could save large numbers of lives and win large numbers of hearts and minds which cannot be won by continuing the war, especially as the flood hit areas include some with large Pashtun populations, the same group which most Taliban on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border come from.

If the Taliban agree to a ceasefire then some of the vast quantities of ammunition and fuel currently being shipped to Pakistan and then through passes into Afghanistan for NATO forces could be replaced by aid shipped and trucked to flood survivors, with the operation placed under the command of charities, not military commanders.

Currently 5,000 truckloads a month of supplies are shipped to Pakistan then trucked through Pakistan and Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass to NATO forces there. Yet enough labourers and trucks have been hired to re-open routes that NATO spokespeople say “There’s no disruption that would influence any of our operations at that sort of level.”. (5) – (6).

If the Taliban continue attacks on NATO forces during a ceasefire called to help other Afghans, Pashtuns and Muslims they will lose support as a result.

I’m personally in favour of withdrawing from Afghanistan, but of course as long as we have troops in Afghanistan we have a duty to keep them supplied with enough food, ammunition, fuel and transport to avoid un-necessary casualties – so the aid redirected could not include the use of all the helicopters in Afghanistan or the redirection of all supply trucks to carry aid instead.

However if all military offensives were suspended by a ceasefire the troops would require far less supplies for purely defensive operations. The message sent  by helicopters and supply trucks being sent to save Muslims would have an immense impact on the view of NATO governments held by ordinary Afghans, Pakistanis and Muslims worldwide; just as many flood survivors have been turned towards Islamic fundamentalist groups by receiving aid from them. More importantly it could save huge numbers of lives.

It could also help build trust for a peace agreement which will have to come sooner or later in a war in which US intelligence reports show 90% of the people fighting NATO are neither Taliban nor Muslim fundamentalists (7).

The war in Afghanistan has been extended to Pakistan by the Obama administration on a much greater scale than under Bush, with more unmanned drone strikes (causing many civilian casualties), more US military aid to the Pakistan military dependent on them fighting the Pakistan Taliban and more US Special Forces leading Pakistan ‘counter terrorism’ units as they, for instance, round up suspected Taliban, torture them and shoot them in the head. Dozens of tortured bodies were found in the town of Swat for instance, after a US led offensive by the Pakistan military. Later a bomb set there killed 3 US special forces trainers. Swat is one of the areas hit by flooding. (8) – (13).

The Taliban on both sides of the border have committed plenty of murders of their own, including murdering a woman who made her living by dancing and stoning women accused of adultery to death.

This does not make torture and summary execution without trial of anyone suspected of being a Taliban, without any trial, somehow better though, especially since it will result in the torture and murder of many people who turn out to be innocent.

So far some victims of the floods say they have had more help from Islamic political parties like that of former Prime Minister  Nawaz Sharif and from more extreme groups linked to the Pakistan Taliban than they have from their own government or foreign governments (though some have actually welcomed any help, including from US forces). If this continues it will both cost a lot of civilian lives – far more than terrorism – and win a lot of hearts and minds – for the Taliban and similar extremists (14).

If NATO continues to use helicopters, ships and trucks which could be helping flood victims to send more fuel and ammunition to fight a war in Afghanistan while millions of Pakistanis starve or die of waterborne diseases due to lack of clean water though, the message to them will be clear : that NATO governments don’t really care about saving their lives, nor about winning their hearts of minds by any means except force or the threat of it. This will be especially so as the trucks bringing supplies to NATO troops in Pakistan via the passes on the border in North-West Pakistan will be passing through flood hit areas on their way.

Currently the US military have provided 19 helicopters out of at least 225 that they have based in Afghanistan and have rescued thousands of people from drowning (15) – (18). (They have far more helicopters than this in total worldwide but the majority are being repaired and maintained at any one time. The British military, much smaller, has 500, though most aren’t suitable to carry troops and many have to be repaired and refitted at any one time (19)). This is great to hear and has saved thousands from drowning, but a pretty small contribution for the second largest economy in the world and the only superpower, particularly compared to the hundreds left devoted to the war in Afghanistan.

NATO also promised to send ships and planes with aid. So far that seems to have amounted to just three planeloads from the whole of NATO (much of it from Slovakia, one of the poorest and smallest countries in NATO) and one US navy ship carrying 1,000 marines. Again this aid is welcome and important and saving lives, but compared to the resources devoted to killing people in Afghanistan, it’s very small stuff, especially coming from an organisation which includes the largest military in the world and two of its wealthiest economies – the EU and US – not forgetting Canada (20) – (23).

NATO’s website boasts of having “transported more than 421,000 pounds of emergency supplies”, with pounds presumably chosen as the unit of measurement because if you translate that to tonnes it comes out at just 186 tonnes – a small fraction of the amount supplied to NATO troops in Afghanistan over the same period (24).

By 25^th August the UN said it had just 13 helicopters for the flood rescue effort – and for the supply of food and clean water to refugees on a scale that dwarfs the rescue effort (25).

 It’s not much good rescuing people from drowning if you then let them and a thousand times as many others die of hunger, exposure or water borne disease.

The US’s defence budget for the financial year 2010-2011 is  $637 billion (a billion being a thousand million here). Spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since 2001 already exceeds $1 trillion (i.e 1 million million dollars).US government spending on the war on Afghanistan for the same period is estimated to come out at around $41 billion (41 thousand million). It’s pledge for aid to Pakistan flood victims stands at 150 million, which, while it’s the most pledged by any government so far, works out at less than 0.4% of it’s budget for the Afghanistan war this year. Even if you compare total US aid to Pakistan each year, at $7.5 billion over 5 years, or $1.5 billion a year, it comes to under 4% of spending on the war on Afghanistan per year, despite education and employment being far more effective ways to reduce terrorism and the overlap of sectarian violence with crime (26) – (27).

British government priorities don’t seem to be much better – one helicopter for instance being used to carry British Prime Minister David Cameron about on a public relations and vote getting exercise – and another used to let Deputy PM Nick Clegg do the same a few days later. Apparently this use of a helicopter was more important than either transporting troops in Afghanistan or saving drowning or hungry or ill people in Pakistan. The main debate in the media was over whether security against the Taliban shooting Cameron’s helicopter down was good enough or not (28) – (29).

Far more money and effort is being invested in getting ammunition and fuel to NATO forces to continue the war than to save any civilian lives in Afghanistan. This is exactly how you lose a war for the hearts and minds of the majority of the population.

(1) = UN General Assembly 19 Aug 2010 ‘General Assembly Calls for Strengthened Emergency Relief to Meet Pakistan’s Urgent Needs after Massive Destruction Caused by Unprecedented, Devastating Floods ;Secretary-General Briefs on Visit, Says Disaster Test for Global Solidarity; World Must Act, So ‘This Natural Disaster Does Not Become a Man-Made Catastrophe’, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10969.doc.htm

(2) = BBC News 20 Aug 2010 ‘UN says Pakistan urgently needs more aid helicopters’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11040017

(3) = BBC News South Asia 25 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan floods: Aid effort needs more helicopters’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11080542 ; ‘The aid operation in Pakistan urgently needs at least 40 more helicopters to help an estimated 800,000 people trapped by flood waters, the UN says. The warning comes as the country's prime minister said he was "seriously concerned" about potential epidemics of water-borne diseases like cholera and diarrhoea.’

(4) = Reuters 25 Aug 2010 ‘U.N. appeals for more helicopters for Pakistan flood aid’, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100825/tts-uk-pakistan-floods-ca02f96_2.html ; ‘"We have got thirteen helicopters right now. We would like another 37 because more are needed," said U.N. humanitarian spokesman Maurizio Giuliano. "We are using aid drops. It's not the best way of doing it, but it is the only way."....The World Food Programme urged Pakistan's government to quickly help the 800,000 people who can only be reached by air. "The fear is they may die of hunger or any (disease) outbreak," WFP spokesman Amjad Jamal told Reuters.’

(5) = NATO Source Alliance News Blog ‘NATO Supply Route to Afghanistan Disrupted by Pakistan Floods’,http://www.acus.org/natosource/nato-supply-route-afghanistan-disrupted-pakistan-floods ; ‘Pakistan is the major supply route for equipment destined for 141,000 Nato forces in Afghanistan, with some 5000 lorries a month travelling through the Khyber pass on their way to the border and Kabul beyond... A spokesman for the American embassy in Islamabad said supplies were still getting through and that the floods would not affect the safety of service personnel in Afghanistan...“There’s no disruption that would influence any of our operations at that sort of level,” he said.’

(6) = New York Times24 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan Flooding Disrupts Afghan War Supplies’,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/world/asia/25pstan.html ; ‘Capt. Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for United States Transportation Command, which oversees logistics for the war, said that the flooding had slowed supply lines but had not stopped matériel from getting to American troops in Afghanistan. ...“The bottom line is that stuff is moving,” Captain Aandahl said. He said he did not know the extent of the slowdown, but that goods were still crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan via the two main border crossings.

(7) = Boston Globe 09 Oct 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy - Few militants driven by religion, reports say’, http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(8) = NYT 28 Feb 2009 ‘Obama Expands Missile Strikes InsidePakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/washington/21policy.html

(9) = New Yorker 26 Oct 2009 ‘The Predator War’,http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer ; see especially final section, beginning ‘Predator drones, with their superior surveillance abilities’

(10) = CBS/AP 12 Feb 2010 ‘Obama Has Increased Drone Attacks’,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/politics/main6201484.shtml

(11) = Reuters 23 Aug 2010 ‘US Drone strike kills 20 people in Pakistan’,http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE67M0M320100823 ‘Missiles fired from a U.S. pilotless drone aircraft killed 13 militants and 7 civilians in Pakistan's North Waziristan on Monday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.They said the missiles were fired at a militant hideout. Most of the militants killed were members of the Afghan Taliban. Four women and three children were among the dead, said the officials. (Reporting by haji mujtaba)’

(12) = NYT 14 Sep 2009 ‘Pakistan Army Said to Be Linked to Swat Killings’,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/asia/15swat.html

(13) = ABC News 03 Feb 2010 ‘3 U.S. Special Forces Die in Pakistan Bombing’,http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-military-die-pakistan-bombing/story?id=9734681&page=1

(14) = guardian.co.uk 06 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan floods: Storms ground US supply helicopters’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/pakistan-floods-storms-supply-helicopters ; ‘Also helping the relief effort are Islamist charities including the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, which western officials say is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The charity's head, Hafiz Abdur Rauf, said the assistance of the US army was welcome..."This is a difficult situation for us. Every helping hand and donation is welcome," he said, adding that his group was running 12 medical facilities and providing cooked food for 100,000 people every day. The foundation helped out after the Kashmir earthquake under a different name.’

(15) = Reuters 12 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. triples helicopters for Pakistan flood relief’,http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11218798.htm ; ‘Defence Secretary Robert.... Gates said the USS Peleliu, with about 19 helicopters on board, was already off the coast of Karachi. Six helicopters initially sent to Pakistan to assist relief efforts would return back to neighboring Afghanistan, he said.’

(16) = CNN 14 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. helicopters arrive in Pakistan to assist relief efforts’,http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/pakistan.floods/index.html#fbid=3s6cdZ_IS9U&wom=false ; ‘Two U.S. Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters arrived Saturday to assist with humanitarian and rescue efforts in flood-ravaged Pakistan....A statement from the U.S. State Department says the two aircraft are part of the contingent of 19 helicopters, ordered to Pakistan on Wednesday by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates....Seven of the 19 craft are now in the country....Twelve Marine CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters will arrive over the next few days.... Since August 5, U.S. military helicopters have rescued more than 3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency relief supplies, according to the State Department.’

(17) = US Air Forces Central 19 Aug 2010 ‘Additional U.S. Helicopters Arrive for Relief Ops, U.S. Cargo Planes Deliver Aid’, http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123218332

(18) = Time magazine 27 Oct 2009 ‘Why Flying Choppers in Afghanistan Is So Deadly’, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html#ixzz0y1vtP6nQ ; first sentence of 5^th paragraph reads ‘The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage.’

(19) = Hansard – House of Commons - Written Answers for 17 June 2009, column 338W,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090617/text/90617w0013.htm

(20) = Telegraph 13 Aug 2010 ‘US Marines arrive to help Pakistan flood efforts as Zardari finally arrives’,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7941984/US-Marines-arrive-to-help-Pakistan-flood-efforts-as-Zardari-finally-arrives.html ; ‘The USS Peleliu arrived off the coast near Karachi on Thursday along with helicopters and about 1,000 Marines....The helicopters will fly to flood-hit areas and rescue stranded people and deliver food and other supplies.’

(21) = Reuters 20 Aug 2010 ‘NATO to provide planes and ships for Pakistan aid’,http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67J1GN.htm ; ‘NATO said on Friday it would provide ships and aircraft to transport aid to flood-stricken Pakistan, a day after Islamabad warned that militants were trying to exploit the disaster. A statement from the Western military alliance, which is battling Islamist militants in Pakistan's neighbour Afghanistan, said a NATO aircraft would fly in power generators, water pumps and tents donated by Slovakia on Sunday.’

(22) = NATO Source 20 Aug 2010 ‘NATO to airlift aid to Pakistan’,http://www.acus.org/natosource/nato-airlift-aid-pakistan ; ‘In response to a request by the Government of Pakistan, the North Atlantic Council decided today to provide airlift and sealift for the delivery of aid donated by nations and humanitarian relief organizations. A NATO aircraft will conduct a humanitarian relief mission to Pakistan on Sunday 22 August 2010 in support of the flood humanitarian efforts in that country. A Trainer Cargo Aircraft of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (AWACS) will transport relief goods donated by the Republic of Slovakia. The flight will depart Geilenkirchen airbase in Germany to Islamabad with goods including power generators, water pumps and tents.’

(23) = Dawn (Pakistan) 27 Aug 2010 ‘Nato sends two more aid planes to Pakistan’,http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/06-nato-sends-two-more-aid-planes-to-pakistan-rs-01

(24) = CNN 14 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. helicopters arrive in Pakistan to assist relief efforts’,http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/pakistan.floods/index.html#fbid=3s6cdZ_IS9U&wom=false ; Since August 5, U.S. military helicopters have rescued more than 3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency relief supplies, according to the State Department.’

(25) = See (4) above

(26) = Reuters / NYT 25 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. to give more flood aid to Pakistan’,http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/25/world/international-uk-pakistan-floods.html ;  ‘The United States will divert $50 million from a development package for Pakistan towards relief funds, the top U.S. aid official said on Wednesday after touring a flood victims camp supplied by a charity with suspected links to a militant group on a U.S. terrorist list....After touring a camp for flood victims set up in a school, Shah told a news conference that $50 million would be diverted from a five-year, $7.5 billion development package for Pakistan to help the flood relief effort.’

(27) = Congressional Research Service 16 July 2010 ‘The cost of Iraq Afghanistan and other global war on terror operations since 9/11’, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf ; see Summary

(28) = Guardian 27 Aug 2010 ‘Taliban give details of thwarted plan to attack David Cameron’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/27/david-cameron-taliban-attack-plan

(29) = guardian.co.uk 31 Aug 2010 ‘Afghan campaign turning the corner, says Nick Clegg, as Oxfam withdraws from remote area’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/31/afghan-campaign-corner-nick-clegg

The problem with nation building in Afghanistan

NATO governments have tried to persuade themselves and us that their “mission” in Afghanistan is a benevolent project of “Nation Building” in which they prevent terrorists having a safe base and provide Afghans with “security” and protection against a new Taliban government. Neo-conservatives have also compared the invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq to the overthrow of the Nazis and of the militaristic regime in Japan, both of which were replaced with democracies.

The trouble is that the post World-War Two occupations of Japan and Germany were not nation building at all, because Japan and Germany had both been single states for decades with people who all saw themselves as German (for decades) and Japanese (for centuries). So the nations involved had actually been built long before World War Two even began, in some very bloody wars. There is no existing nation which most Afghans identify with as the group they primarily belong to.

Most Afghans do not see themselves as Afghan first, nor even Pashtun, Hazara, or Tajik. They identify with their own tribe in it’s own valley. This may well not be a sign of backwardness either, but a sign that the central government has never done much for people outside the main cities other than make war on them to try to get them to submit – and send police and soldiers many of whom abuse their power by stealing and worse.

US intelligence analysts say that the main enemy in Afghanistan is not the Taliban. The majority of people NATO forces are fighting are not motivated by religious fundamentalism, but are just local Afghans resisting the invasion of their territory by troops from elsewhere according to  these intelligence reports (1).

Recently leaked NATO documents include a revealing interview by NATO officers of a former Taliban fighter, who told them they he had been timber merchants who had first joined the Taliban after being held without trial or explanation by NATO forces. He also said a senior Taliban commander first joined after NATO destroyed his house (2).

Matthew Hoh, a former US marine who served in Iraq as a Captain and also worked as a civilian contractor for the Pentagon in Iraq and in the US embassy in Afghanistan during the current war there, says he initially believed it wasn’t Jihadim but nationalism that motivated most of those fighting the US in Afghanistan. He says he later realised it wasn’t nationalism, but what he calls “valley-ism”. He found that in most of Afghanistan people see themselves as part of the people living in the valley they live in, not any larger group or country. So the problem went beyond sending foreigners into Afghanistan or Hazara or Tajik Afghan troops into Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. Any armed force not from the same valley is seen as an outside invasion which must be resisted according to tribal codes, just as Iraqis resisted invasion of Iraq as their country and just as Americans would resist any invasion of their country by foreign forces (3) – (4).

Other driving forces behind people joining those fighting NATO and Afghan government forces include killings of civilians by those forces. For instance a report by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found a strong link between civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan and the number of insurgent attacks on NATO forces in the areas where the casualties had been caused in the six weeks after them (5) – (6).

 (For more on civilian deaths caused by NATO forces (including US led Afghan militias and death squads on the El Salvador model) and by the Taliban in Afghanistan click here)

This shows that in Afghanistan as in other countries in the past actual nation building is not just a process of democratisation or rebuilding economy, state and society, like that in Germany, Japan or even Iraq. It has not been everyone coming together as equals as in Rosseau’s imagined “social contract”.

In every country it has been a process in which one group forces others to submit to them by force in bloody and oppressive campaigns of war and massacre, as English Kings, Queens and soldiers did in Scotland, Wales and Ireland over centuries to form the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’ and French kings did in the Albigensian Crusade in southern France and in campaigns of subjugation in Flanders, Brittany, Aquitaine, Brabant, Burgundy; as well as against the Hugenot Protestant rebels.

The same happened in Germany, which was only unified by a series of wars and getting small principalities so indebted to Prussia that it could buy them over under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the 19^th century.

In Japan there were centuries of bloody warfare over who would be ‘Shogun’ of the whole of Japan (after the previous inhabitants, the ‘Ainu’ had been largely wiped out).

The same happened in the US as European colonists attacked and massacred Indian tribes across America – and then Northern forces did much the same to Southerners in the American Civil War (which, despite being dressed up as being about “liberation” for black slaves in the South was accompanied by lynchings of black people in Northern cities when it was announced black soldiers would be recruited, segregation of military units by race and continuing lynchings and ‘Jim Crow’ segregation laws in North and South long after the war was over.

After this process is over then the state indoctrinates generations of children from birth to think of themselves as all “British” or “American” or “Iraqi” and to think of their country as uniquely tolerant, progressive, benevolent and good. This indoctrination is generally quite successful.

I am not arguing that other nationalisms which call for separation from the then established state are necessarily more progressive or less brutal – the wars in the former Yugoslavia showed that every nationalism involved was harmful.

I am pointing out that actual nation building in every country in history has not been a benevolent process in which the majority were peacefully persuaded to become part of the state, but one of oppression and force in which those with more power and wealth imposed their will on others to gain even more power and wealth. There have often been some in the countries being absorbed by force who were in favour of the union – but usually just as many opposed to it and whose acquiescence was only gained by being attacked, fought, having many of their civilians massacred and their lands and property taken.

It would be nice to think that the war in Afghanistan was a unique case, but it’s not. The Karzai government and its police and military are as corrupt and brutal as all the other factions in Afghanistan.

Helping impose a strong central government’s authority across Afghanistan, if continued, will continue to be a process of creating new enemies by invading the territories of local tribes with forces from other tribes, other identity groups (Hazaras, Tajiks and others invading lands populated by Pashtuns) and foreigners invading Afghanistan and killing people who resist the invasion. It will continue to involve accidental killings and deliberate massacre of civilians, jail without trial on mere suspicion and torture, creating new enemies or “insurgents” in a process that could go on for decades.

We can try and persuade ourselves this is a benevolent process on the grounds that our government and military are surely basically good (when in fact they’re no better or worse than most others) ; and on the grounds that we are giving them the unity and peace we have (forgetting that centuries of war, oppression and massacre actually created unity by force – with the apparently “natural” unity which came after it only being achieved by a subtle life-long process of indoctrination over generations).

By invading the lands of Afghan tribes and killing them if they try to resist the invasion we are not promoting democracy, but it’s opposite. Once a relationship between government and people based on the people obeying or being killed is established it will take decades or centuries to reverse and democratise.

Democracy as a system of government only survives as long as people believe in it. That means it can only be promoted by persuasion and example. As soon as you try to force people to obey a central government who don’t recognise it as being their government at all – and do so by killing any who resist – you de-legitimise democracy and make it seem like hypocrisy. This will not make Afghans more moderate in their religion or nationalism any more than September 11^th made most Americans more moderate in their views on foreign policy. In both cases it makes the majority more extreme, because  they are suffering extreme pain, mourning, anger and the desire for revenge.

If Afghans in the outlying regions of Afghanistan are to be persuaded to accept the authority of a central government then they should be persuaded by that government aiding them with infrastructure projects – clean water supplies, electricity, healthcare, education etc. Sending troops in instead not only won’t work, it’s backfired spectacularly.

Militarising aid and reconstruction projects has similarly back-fired according to many charities operating in Afghanistan, resulting in the Taliban and other insurgents seeing them as part of the occupying forces rather than as people bringing assistance with no strings attached. Despite much propaganda by certain governments most aid agencies said they had no problem in operating in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

It can’t be denied that most Afghans do not want the Taliban back in power in Kabul – and that Pakistan’s military and military intelligence have continued backing the Taliban so they can exclude Indian influence from Afghanistan and have “strategic depth” for guerrilla campaigns if India invades Pakistan.

That is unlikely to change once NATO forces leave Afghanistan. Pakistan’s military will try to get a Taliban government back in Kabul, as they did using military aid and tacit support from the US government in the 90s, also aided by Saudi money.

Our governments could however end all military aid and arms sales to Pakistan so that it can’t continue to pass these on to Taliban forces in Afghanistan, reducing Pakistan’s ability to fund the Taliban and forcing the Taliban to negotiate a coalition government deal with other Afghan factions – and they could increase funding for civilian infrastructure and aid projects in Afghanistan as a viable way for the Afghan central government to gain the support of people across Afghanistan. That could achieve what no “nation building” war ever will at a fraction of the cost in money and lives.

(1) = Boston Globe 09 October 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy - Few militants driven by religion, reports say’,http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(2) = Times 28 Jul 2010 ‘‘He said they were scared of the Taleban leaders’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2662453.ece?lightbox=false

(3) = Washington Post 27 Oct 2009 ‘U.S. official resigns over Afghan war’,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html

(4) = Matthew Hoh’s resignation letter,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

(5) = NBER Working Paper No. 16152 Issued in July 2010 , Luke N. Condra, Joseph H. Felter, Radha K. Iyengar, Jacob N. Shapiro (2010) ‘The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq’,http://www.nber.org/papers/w16152

(6) = BBC News 24 July 2010 ‘US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832

Killings of civilians by NATO forces in airstrikes , night raids and by El Salvador style native death squads in Afghanistan

A report by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found a strong link between civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan and the number of insurgent attacks on NATO forces in the areas where the casualties had been caused in the six weeks after them (1) – (2). Clearly revenge for civilian deaths caused by NATO forces is one of the main motives for those fighting them. (for more on civilian deaths, torture and detention without trial as motives for those fighting NATO forces

On NATO and ISAF figures NATO forces have killed a lower proportion of those civilians killed than Taliban forces have, though NATO’s own figures can’t be taken as particularly neutral or unbiased. Investigations by Human Rights Watch, the Afghan government and others have found that US military investigations of incidents in which US forces have killed civilians in Afghanistan have repeatedly been “seriously flawed” and deliberately hidden the true numbers of civilian deaths. The US military reports on the Azizabad airstrikes in 2008 and on the Farah airstrikes in May 2009 were equally farcical distortions of the truth, despite the latter having taken place under Obama’s new strategy. Kunduz in September 2009 was the first instance of NATO admitting to causing civilian deaths in a major incident – though this may have been because German forces were responsible, allowing McChrystal to admit it without upsetting his own troops or US public opinion – and as airst  Recent leaks revealing civilian casualty incidents covered up by NATO forces underline this.

Experts also point out that all figures on civilian deaths, even those compiled by the UN, the Afghan government and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (which is actually appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai) are likely to be far lower than the true figure due to these bodies lacking enough resources and people to investigate all civilian casualties across such a large and mountainous country, coupled with the dangers of kidnappings or becoming collateral damage (caused by both sides) making reporting in many areas almost impossible (3) - (4).

Civilian deaths caused by NATO forces fell under McChrystal (on NATO figures) as a proportion of total civilian deaths, though the total number of civilian deaths has continued to rise for most of his period as supreme NATO commander for Afghanistan.

General Petraeus, replacing McChrystal a few weeks ago, has also said he will review rules of engagement brought in by McChrystal which had required troops to definitely identify any target before firing on them. These rules are unpopular with the troops who see them as “too restrictive”, but the NBER report suggests they saved not only civilian lives but also those of NATO soldiers by reducing revenge attacks on them (5).

It’s also worth noting that McChrystal and Petraeus strategy has involved a focus on “counter-insurgency” using Afghan forces led by American “advisers”, with the “trigger pullers” being Afghan. This suggests falls in statistics civilian casualties attributed to NATO forces may have been achieved by assigning many US-led night raid squads of Afghans as being carried out by “unknown” or “Afghan government” forces rather than NATO ones (6) – (17).

This echoes the methods used in Iraq where native “special police commandoes” and other “counter-insurgency” units were trained by some of the same people who trained the notorious US-trained death and torture squads in El Salvador. Many Iraqis say members of their families have been tortured, summarily shot without explanation, or “disappeared” just as Salvadorans were by these US trained forces (18) – (19). Iraqis, like Afghans, will probably continue to suffer at the hands of these “counter terrorist” units given the 50,000 US troops that will be staying in Iraq as “advisers” despite the US “withdrawal”.

Another motive for Afghans joining the insurgency is that they or their relatives, friends or neighbours have been tortured or held without trial or explanation by NATO or Afghan government forces. For instance an excerpt from the recently leaked NATO documents on Afghanistan published in the Times newspaper discusses an Afghan who wanted to defect from Taleban forces to government ones. When asked why he had joined the Taleban in the first place he replied that he had been a timber merchant and had been stopped at a NATO checkpoint and then held without explanation for 7 days. He added that one senior Taleban commander had first joined the Taleban after his house was destroyed by “coalition forces” (presumably meaning ISAF/NATO and Afghan government forces) (20).

(1) = NBER Working Paper No. 16152 Issued in July 2010 , Luke N. Condra, Joseph H. Felter, Radha K. Iyengar, Jacob N. Shapiro (2010) ‘The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq’,

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16152

(2) = BBC News 24 July 2010 ‘US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832

(3) = The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of the Simon Fraser University in Australia, ‘Civilian Casualties’, http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/civilian.html

(4) = Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Commissioners, Dr. Sima Samar, http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Commissioners/Dr_samar.htm

(5) = BBC News 04 July 2010 ‘US Gen Petraeus urges unity to tackle Afghanistan war’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10497749 ‘Gen Petraeus has also pledged to look at the application of the current rules of engagement. These are designed to reduce civilian casualties but some US troops believe they put them at too great a risk’ (last two sentences before bolded sub-heading ‘Welcome Aboard’)

(6) = Observer 28 Feb 2010 ‘Nato draws up payout tariffs for Afghan civilian deaths’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/28/coalition-payouts-afghan-civilian-casualties

(7) = Open Society Institute ‘Strangers at the Door – Night raids by international forces lose hearts and minds in Afghanistan’, http://www.soros.org/initiatives/cep/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf

(8) = Times 31 Dec 2009 ‘Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article6971638.ece

(9) = AP 21 Jan 2010 ‘AP Exclusive: US to Tighten Rules on Afghan Raids’, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=9620447&page=1

(10) = Times 25 Feb 2010 ‘Assault force killed family by mistake in raid, claims Afghan father’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040216.ece

(11) = Times 26 Feb 2010 ‘Hunt down the spy behind deaths of our children, say Afghan night raid survivors’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7041941.ece

(12) = AP 05 Mar 2010 ‘NATO details Afghan night raid policy’, http://www.sfexaminer.com/world/nato-troops-must-bring-afghan-troops-with-them-on-night-raids-a-new-directive-says-86553107.html

(13) = Times 08 Mar 2010 ‘Karzai offers families ‘blood money’ for sons killed in raid’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7052982.ece

(14) = Times 13 Mar 2010 ‘Nato ‘covered up’ botched night raid in Afghanistan that killed five’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7060395.ece

(15) = Times 14 Mar 2010 ‘Afghan family killed as special forces defy night raid ban’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7061069.ece

(16) = Scotsman 17 Mar 2010 ‘Nato special forces 'reined in' after spate of civilian deaths’, http://news.scotsman.com/afghanistan/Nato-special-forces-39reined-in39.6157285.jp

(17) = Guardian 22 Nov 2009 ‘US pours millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/us-anti-taliban-militias-afghanistan

(18) = New York Times magazines 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’,http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?_r=1

(19) The Nation 22 June 2009 ‘Iraq's New Death Squad’,http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

(20)= Times 28 Jul 2010 ‘‘He said they were scared of the Taleban leaders’http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2662453.ece?lightbox=false