They turned over many of the logs to the Guardian and New York Times.
Here is an example of British Army action in Afghanistan.
The US army's archives contain descriptions of at least 21 separate occasions in which British troops are said to have shot or bombed Afghan civilians, including women and children. The logs identify at least 26 people killed and another 20 wounded as a result.
Some casualties were accidentally caused by air strikes, but many also are said to involve British troops firing repeatedly on unarmed drivers or motorcyclists who come "too close" to convoys or patrols. Their injuries repeatedly result from what are described as "warning shots" or "disabling shots" fired into the engine block, as required by the military's "escalation of force" regulations.
The casualties alleged to have been caused by the British include 16 children, at least three women and a mentally ill man. The number is a small fraction of the 369 civilian casualties listed in the logs as due to coalition (mostly US) actions in total.
www.guardian.co.uk...
What difference do you think this is going to make to policy, ROE in Afghanistan?
www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 25-7-2010 by Peruvianmonk]
Aint that what they suppose to be ?!
