. | . |
NATO says 'errant rounds' kills six Afghan civilians
Kabul (AFP) July 10, 2010 International troops fighting the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan killed six civilians, NATO said Saturday, a day after conceding that six Afghan soldiers had died in a "friendly fire" incident. Civilian casualties are an incendiary topic with Afghans, who increasingly regard the presence of international troops in their country as the main cause of violence that has wracked Afghanistan for almost nine years. A brief statement from NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said "artillery fire from an ISAF unit killed six civilians and wounded several others in Jani Khel on Thursday," referring to a district of Paktia province, south of Kabul. The dead had been removed before ISAF units had arrived on the scene, ISAF said, and so it was not immediately clear that people had been killed by what it said were "errant rounds". ISAF had accepted "responsibility for the actions that led to this tragic incident" and apologised, it said. The statement comes after ISAF said a helicopter patrol in southern Ghazni province had opened fire on a group of Afghan soldiers on Tuesday, after mistaking them for militants planting bombs by a roadside. Six of the soldiers were killed and another was injured, it said, as a "result of miscommunication" between ISAF and the Afghan army about where the Afghans would be patrolling that night. While reports of friendly fire incidents are not common in Afghanistan, they add to a perception that the foreign forces fighting the insurgency do not take enough care to avoid killing Afghans, military or civilian. Command of the 140,000 troops in Afghanistan has just been taken over by US General David Petraeus who is under some pressure to change the rules of engagement, as some soldiers believe they restrict defensive action. Petraeus has not publicly ruled out making changes, though observers in Kabul said he is unlikely to alter rules he was instrumental in formulating and which are credited with cutting civilian casualties. The United Nations said in a recent report that most civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban, using roadside bombs or in suicide attacks.
earlier related report The "friendly fire" incident is the latest in a string of botched attacks and comes as the new commander of international forces in Afghanistan is said to be considering changing the way the war is fought. The Afghan soldiers died on Tuesday as a "result of miscommunication" between NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan National Army (ANA), a statement said. The incident took place in Ghazni province, south of Kabul, described by an ISAF official as a "very active IED area", referring to improvised explosive devices which are widely used by Taliban-linked insurgents. Since April there had been 129 attacks or discoveries of IEDs in the area where the friendly fire incident took place, he said. The Afghan soldiers had been mistaken for a group of insurgents planting IEDs, he said, speaking anonymously as the investigation proceeded. Taliban IEDs -- many of which enter Afghanistan from Pakistan, military officials say -- are taking a huge toll on international forces, of whom more than 340 have died this year. "ANA soldiers planned a patrol and had coordinated the patrol location with ISAF elements," the statement said, adding: "While passing the information to the local ISAF unit, the wrong location of the ANA patrol was identified." It said the ISAF helicopter patrol saw a group "digging beside the road in an area that has experienced daily IED detonations and significant casualties". After checking if "friendly forces" were in the area, the helicopters were cleared to open fire on "individuals believed to be insurgents", it said, adding "this approval to engage was based on inaccurate information about the location of the ANA patrol". While reports of friendly fire incidents are not common in Afghanistan, they add to a perception that the foreign forces fighting the insurgency do not take enough care to avoid killing Afghans, military or civilian. The Afghan defence ministry condemned the incident. Command of the 140,000 troops in Afghanistan has just been taken over by US General David Petraeus who is under some pressure to change the rules of engagement, as some soldiers believe they restrict defensive action. Petraeus has not publicly ruled out making changes, though observers in Kabul said he was is unlikely to alter rules he was instrumental in formulating and which are credited with cutting civilian casualties. The ANA is key to the counter-insurgency strategy Petraeus now leads, as the United States and NATO countries leaders have said they will withdraw from Afghanistan once domestic security forces can take over security. While reluctant to set a timetable for withdrawal, Afghanistan's Western backers are eager to boost the country's own security capacity as public pressure to get out is building. US President Barack Obama has set July 2011 to begin drawing down US troops, though has stressed a withdrawal is conditional on Afghanistan's capability to look after itself.
Share This Article With Planet Earth
Related Links News From Across The Stans
Afghanistan surge funding overestimated Washington (UPI) Jul 9, 2010 It seems like simple arithmetic. To send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, with each troop costing about $1 million, the United States has to spend $30 billion. But at the intersection of war, money and politics, nothing is simple. The cost of the supplemental funding bill to fund the war in Afghanistan was inflated, a recent congressional report and several military budget experts sai ... read more |
|
The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2010 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |