While claiming NATO/ISAF will accept responsibility for civilian casualties/property damage, the document made clear: militants deliberately target innocent civilians with suicide attacks and IEDs, forcefully oppose efforts to improve the life of the Afghani people, force civilians into situations where they are either killed or are at risk of being harmed by NATO/ISAF or coalition forces, use tactics that involve launching attacks from civilian areas, retreating to civilian areas, and using civilians as human shields.
It also made plain that "Taliban and other insurgents continue to be more responsible for more civilian casualties than US and NATO forces."
If one examines news stories involving Afghani villagers crying out in protest against foreign troops who killed women and children, it becomes evident that this master narrative drives NATO's public relations. The master narrative goes into overdrive whenever civilian deaths are reported and images are broadcast of villagers bringing bodies of innocent civilians like women and children out into the streets. Villagers often appear in these reports voicing their discontent to members of the press or media nearby.
In response to accusations of civilian casualties, NATO will issue
statements usually claiming there is "no evidence to substantiate the claim."
Or, they will claim the dead are all insurgents, at first. Or, they will cite
the fact that they were after a Taliban or militant commander in the area and
they were fired at and returned fire. Or, in some cases, NATO does all of these
things to dampen the intensity of backlashes against killings of civilians;
they create confusion, disorder, and doubt that they were responsible for any
dead civilians.
With a protocol in place to consistently create doubt that civilians were killed by attacks by NATO on "militants," it's no wonder that the Afghani people protest NATO (and U.S.) troops in Afghanistan.
Fortunately for NATO, the Afghani people oppose the Taliban just as much as NATO. The Taliban (or what remains of the Taliban) is finding it has to be just as concerned about civilian casualties as NATO and U.S. forces are, which calls into question any claims by NATO that the Taliban or insurgents are using civilians as human shields into question.
Also, NATO commanders can label anyone resisting foreign occupation "Taliban". When NATO suggests insurgents are involved, it's entirely possible that these "insurgents" are Afghanis who have been radicalized as a result of NATO's negligence, incompetence, and brutal campaigns in the country.
The reality is that NATO (and the U.S.) is waging military occupation. Inevitably civilian casualties will occur. Actions will run counter to what the Afghani people want (in fact, polls often show more than half to two-thirds of the population want foreign troops out of their country now). And, this will all happen under the guise of training Afghan security forces so Afghanis can one day run their own country.
Individuals who are the public face of NATO or U.S. involvement will keep the focus off of accusations that foreign troops are bribing Taliban warlords. They will keep discussion of drug trafficking in Afghanistan out of the conversation. And, they will subvert any credible coverage of policies that might indicate that the U.S. endgame is a geopolitical endgame, part of a quest for a permanent presence in Afghanistan that could directly challenge Russia and China.
The world should know Afghanis are not a people that will keep their head down. They will only move from village to village trying to avoid being caught up in the wanton destruction of their country for so long before they resist foreign troops they are told to accept as liberators.
1 | 2
