Friendly Fire In Afghanistan

By Cernig

Amid steeply rising levels of violence, it remains true that if you're an Afghani you are as liable to be killed or injured by US and allied forces as you are by the Taliban. Both sides have caused roughly equal casualty levels among the general Afghan population over the last year. Today comes news of yet another pair of "friendly fire" incidents.

Clashes broke out between Afghan police and international troops in the Anar Dara district of Farah province, with both sides thinking the other were Taliban militants, the deputy provincial governor Mohammad Younus Rasuli said.

"Apart from the nine police who were killed, three other of them have gone missing. We do not know if they are under the rubble or their bodies can not be found," Rasuli told Reuters.

"U.S. soldiers have surrounded the site and we have send a delegation about the incident," he added.

The foreign troops called in airstrikes on the police post that killed nine policemen and wounded four others, including the district police chief, he said.

...Meanwhile, ISAF troops accidentally killed four Afghan civilians in a mortar attack overnight in the Barmal district of the eastern province of Paktika, close to the Pakistani border, the force said.

"An ISAF unit fired two mortar rounds, which landed nearly 1 km (0.6 miles) away from the intended target," ISAF said in a statement. "Shortly afterwards wounded civilians presented themselves for treatment at an ISAF base, and a helicopter medical evacuation mission was immediately launched to assist." There were another three unconfirmed deaths, it said, and four civilians were also wounded in the attack.

Such profligate use of artillery or airstrikes to do the job of troops on the ground wouldn't be needed if there were...duh...more troops on the ground. The reason there aren't is that the U.S. military has been tied down in Iraq chasing terrorists and insurgents of their own making these past five years. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, COIN doctrine has gone out the window because of the shortage of resources and the resultant loss of "hearts and minds" is a direct contributory factor to the resurgence of the Taliban.

Comments

[zenpundit]

"Such profligate use of artillery or airstrikes to do the job of troops on the ground wouldn't be needed if there were...duh...more troops on the ground"

Umm...not always. You need boots but having boots does not mean they will be used properly.

Use of artillery has a lot to do with officers who like to use artillery because they disdain COIN for doctrinal reasons and/or lack of training. Hammer-nail syndrome. Another reason is differing ROE among casualty-shy NATO countries where oddly artillery or airstrikes are at times more "usable" than infantry fire.

[Steve Hynd]

Zen, can you cite me a reference for casualty-shy NATO countries who use artillery instead of ground combat?

[zenpundit]

Sure thing C. Some examples:

Casualty-shyness of some NATO states:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/06/can-nato-get-serious-about-afghanistan.html

Enthusiasm for Artillery ( definitely not limited to Europeans)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25315182/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20070308.aspx

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Zen,

That's pretty much what I'd read too. The casualty-shy NATO nations (e.g. Germany, Spain) are not using artillery instead. It's the ones who are doing the fighting who are also doing the shelling and bombing. Which suggests a lack of other options for those who would like to practise good COIN doctrine in combat. That does still mean that a disdain for COIN practices may well be a factor, however - one that would be at least mitigated by more troops on the ground and the attention of senior COIN experts.

Regards, C