DoD Says US Troops Erred in Afghan Air Strikes

DoD Says US Troops Erred in Afghan Air Strikes

www.military.com

June 09, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said Monday that U.S. troops did not follow proper tactics and procedures during an air assault last month on Taliban fighters that also killed a number of civilians.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the number of Taliban militants killed in the May 4 air strikes "greatly outnumbered" the number of civilians slain. But Morrell noted some problems in the way the strikes were carried out, citing a U.S. warplane that investigators said did not follow proper procedures.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The report the Department of Defense compiled regarding this incident where Afghanis allege as many as 145 civilians were killed still remains classified.

What little is being released verbally through Department of Defense spokespeople hints that a B-1 Bomber may have not properly confirmed it’s bombs targets before releasing them.

While many Americans do believe it was wise to attack Afghanistan and to be employed in a long range occupation to prop up a fragile “South Vietnam” style government, more and more Americans are seeing it as not just a thankless task but an amoral and wrong one.

The civilian government in Kabul controls basically a heavily fortified area comprising the Capital City itself while like most Afghani governments over the past several decades the country side is still very much controlled by various tribal elements and some Taliban.

The ‘spin’ and damage control on such incidents as this are a trifle embarrassing to say the least for the U.S. and the U.S. Military. While the Department of Defense is vigorously claiming only 35 civilians were killed as opposed to 145 civilians that the Afghanis themselves are reporting, not only is 35 to many, but we still can’t say definitively how many Taliban fighters were killed other than it was ‘many times more the number of civilians’.

Which begs the question since presumably we can count Afghan civilians better than Afghan civilians themselves can, why is neither the U.S. Military nor the Afghan Government is even stating even a differing number of Taliban dead, like they are doing with the civilian dead?

Makes you wonder what the heck is going on over there, whom though imagines in any shape or form what’s going on over there is going well?


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The Marines represent the first wave of 21,000 troops ordered to Afghanistan this summer by President Barack Obama. Most of the Marine buildup will occur in Helmand, the world's largest opium poppy-growing region and Afghanistan's most violent province. Helmand borders Pakistan, where the Taliban's top leadership is believed to be based.

Such statements really make a person wonder why we are in Afghanistan nearing a decade now? Are we more concerned about the so called ‘War on Terror’ or ensuring the safety of the Oil Pipeline built since the U.S./NATO invasion and the opium crop that has increased 90 fold since the U.S. led invasion.

If Columbia’s opium production had gone up 90 fold in the last 7 years Congress would be screaming about Columbia and why their military and police can’t curtail it.

Our military that roams Afghanistan practically at will with fleets of helicopters, armed convoys and has the most sophisticated Arial Bombardment capabilities of any military in the world can’t seem to do the thing we demand countries like Columbia do.

Yes, it was my first reaction to when i first heard about the high level of civilian casualties involved. Just sad to see them go that way.

Originally posted by tristar
Yes, it was my first reaction to when i first heard about the high level of civilian casualties involved. Just sad to see them go that way.

In a war for what is essential hearts and minds, since the only way a government in Kabul propped up by a foreign occupier could ever succeed is in winning the hearts and minds of the general populace…this strategy of “stand off and attack” weapons that indiscriminately kill as many civilians as they do combatants is not just counter productive but self defeating.

If we know civilians are in the area, then we have to have to have real and real accurate intelligence before we go dropping bombs laden with 500 and 1000 pounds of high explosives into an area that we know civilians do in fact live in.

There is a big difference between fighting a war and simply engaging in indiscriminate murder, and while the population of the U.S. well removed from the smells, and sights and carnage of war watching sanitized news media reports on a flat screen TV might not be able to see that fine distinction you can bet your bottom dollar the Afghani civilians dieing at the other end of those pretty aerial bomb run cockpit videos see the distinction just fine.

True, i do feel its going to get very bloody and very fast as soon the U.S. re-fit their Iraq combat tactics to Afghan criteria. They are moving from urban warfare into a an area which has no distinct path or visible enemy. Im sure were going to be hearing very tragic news from the upcoming surge of forces into Afghanistan.

D.O.D. has made the biggest spending spree since ww2 with the purchase of the South African hi rise personal carrier for Iraq. But since they have been deployed in Afghanistan they found that the wheel axles were built for paved roads rather than off roads, as a result, too many break downs so now they are re tooling the whole drive train amongst other items. Also they are re-fitting other armed layers as the land mines used in Afghanistan have a different content in explosives.

reply to post by tristar


The use of IED's has skyrocketed in Afghanistan too in recent months.

The technology employed in them keeps changing and getting better to keep our forces from being able to easily spot and disarm them.

Clearly we are unwelcomed and uninvited guests in both countries and I for one don't see how it's helping the American Treasury, America's image abroad, or the American people in any tangible fashion.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


What i see and can only be the turning point for the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is as you mentioned the win the hearts and minds of the civilians. If majority of the people will not help you then your in for a blood bath. Obviously it will far worse than Iraq as these people have not desire to have cell phones or own a 1000 sqft house, they only want to be left alone and decide for themselves.

Originally posted by tristar
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

What i see and can only be the turning point for the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is as you mentioned the win the hearts and minds of the civilians. If majority of the people will not help you then your in for a blood bath. Obviously it will far worse than Iraq as these people have not desire to have cell phones or own a 1000 sqft house, they only want to be left alone and decide for themselves.

That really has always been the size of it in Afghanistan. They are a proud and rugged people used to living off a harsh land and relish the challenges and natural way of life that entails.

Not everyone wants or needs a water bed, foot massager, and a taco belle on the corner!

Heh, how is that change working out for all you obama puppets?

Originally posted by blueorder
Heh, how is that change working out for all you obama puppets?

I am still thinking Obama has trouble reading his teleprompter and meant to say "Vote for me, I am 4 more years of George Bush!"

Originally posted by blueorder
Heh, how is that change working out for all you obama puppets?

Given what has been handed over the years, i should be asking you how are you handling trying to change what you disagree with.

Originally posted by tristar
Given what has been handed over the years, i should be asking you how are you handling trying to change what you disagree with.

THat would make sense if I was Bush fan, and it would also make sense if Obama had not made it HIS policy to increase involvement in Afghanistan

Yes he can!

reply to post by blueorder


I would say , "Yes the can"

Seriously though, did anyone believe that if either McCain or Obama was to become president that he would just pull out of that region. If they did, well then i guess they have had a crash course in what it means to believe a politician.