H15063
Headlines : "War on Terror"Calls for U.S. forces to quit Afghan hotspot
The extent of NATO’s failure in Afghanistan is highlighted by the alacrity with which the component groups are turning on each other. Here the Brits blame the Yanks for causing all of the civilian casualties, although it seems that this was OK until a short time ago, given that the NATO Secretary General issues the reassuring statement:
Nato commanders had changed the rules of engagement, ordering their troops to hold their fire in situations where civilians appeared to be at risk.
This raises the question: What were the previous rules of engagement?
The only positive outcome of the campaign is a record opium crop. So at least somebody’s happy.
[Posted By Watson]Republished from The Guardian
Tension between British and American commanders in southern Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as a senior UK military officer said he had asked the US to withdraw its special forces from a volatile area that was crucial in the battle against the Taliban.
British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for “hearts and minds” and infuriating Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.
Des Browne, the defence secretary, recently raised the issue with Robert Gates, his US counterpart, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary general, admitted last month that an increasing number of civilian casualties was undermining support for alliance troops. He said Nato commanders had changed the rules of engagement, ordering their troops to hold their fire in situations where civilians appeared to be at risk.
Posted by Watson
RELATED ITEMS
- At least 30 Afghan civilians killed in air strike
Posted by Szamko on Saturday, June 30th 2007 - Afghans Report 133 Civilians Dead In Airstrikes
Posted by Watson on Monday, July 9th 2007 - Goats for peace : Afghan Update
Posted by Szamko on Friday, September 15th 2006 - Thirteen more civilians killed in coalition raid in Afghanistan
Posted by Watson on Saturday, May 5th 2007
NATO decided to let the farmers grow opium, so that they can continue to control Afghanistan. Only thing I can think of.
I wonder if they’d be interest by an international annual bid on their whole crop? Wouln’t that be better than hard drugs hitting the streets?
and which government would you trust to get rid of all the opium? Plus, prices would skyrocket because of demand for heroin.
Pharms could use some, some could be set aside for “social purposes” and the rest destroyed.
With UN oversight.