The NYPD shoots civilians........

Why should Afghans get special treatment ???

""it is not the view of the Helmand Task Force commander, it is not the view of our gov't, it is not the view of the Americans, it is not the view of the Alliance""

""and there is no evidence to support the claim by an unnamed anonymous officer""

yet this was given to the press & treated as a serious story by the Scotsman....just look at the headline!... pathetic lot all!...all this does is give fuel to the Bush/soldier-haters & terrorists...

#2-sandy-Agreed (not that the bush/soldier-haters need more fuel). Great propaganda for the terrorists! Why no plea to the taliban to stop hiding amongst civilians. How can they tell who is an innocent civilian? Can't forget about the story of the 12-13 year old boy who beheaded someone.

#Jenny - Let's be fair, now! What else is there for the NYPD to shoot? I suppose they could take on the Port Authority. Or better, bring over some French gendarmes or London bobbies. No, that's no good; the bobbies are unarmed. It's hopeless!

#2-sandy- "treated as a serious story "-Read the "latest news" section about NATOs unawareness of this plea. You are spot on.

2. sandy, USA
3. American, USA
--------------------------------------------------------
British officer's plea to US over civilian deaths
--------------------------------------------------------

Dudes,
Both of you sound like typical Red Neck GOP members.

Just like what evil Cheney and our idiot Pres Bush would say.

"Bring 'em on"
squawked Bush...and they came and they are still there.

"They are in their last throes "
Squawked the evil Cheney

And now we the American tax payers, are out of pocket by $½ billion bucks . All borrowed from creditors including the Chinese,

Not to mention the human disaster of untold numbers of dead bodies on both sides. And wounded.

Yet the financier and planners of 9/11 are still roaming free, Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri.

Saddham Hus. had no WMD (e.g. Missles fitted with nukes that travel 6,000 miles. Bagdad to NY .NY)

Anything said by members of the GPO should be either ignored or taken as mis-information, period.

As for Creeps in the Pentagon jostling for their next promotion, they flat out lie about IRAQ and Afghanistan operations.

The world's most powerful Military our US forces can't even control bands of rag head fighters using outdated AK-47s and home made bombs.
Drink water from ponds and rivers and wells.

While we drop 15,000 lbs bunker busters and straft them with guided missles and shoot them with M-16's.
Drink bottled water @ $5 per bottle (one of our GOP supporters Haliburton rip-offs).

Bin Laden and Co are evil evil people. And they are still free.

Happy GOP Day

GC

Saddam Hussein

#2 Sandy. It's not just the view of "an unnamed anonymous officer", it's also the view of the troops on the ground.

The gung-ho attitude of many of the American troops, and their officers is the problem. They seem to work on the principle of "if it moves shoot it, bomb it or strafe it", regardless of who or what it is. That is why there are so many civilian casulties, including women and children.

It is actually very reminiscent of Vietnam, and such things as the My Lai massacre.

This is one time were
i agree with our counterparts
in the British Army.

Discipline matters.
It's discipline that wins counterinsurgencies.
The code must be followed.

There's a reason why General Eisenhower
surrounded himself with British Intelligence.
I say get with the program.

It's there sector
and he's boss.

The Brits are fundmentally right on this.
And goes along with the greater progam
of General Dave Patraeus.

Can't we do this without
blabbing it all over the place?

Guga, when did you return from Afghan, sounds like you have first hand knowledge ? More likely you have never strayed too far from behind your keyboard in your life. You make blanket statements with no proof and spew the usual leftie crap. And finally, define a "civilian" for me.

Historically armed forces from the USA suffer much lower casualty rates than forces from Britain and other European countries.

There must be a difference in the way in which these forces operate. Anecdotally the impression is that US forces are much more casualty adverse and are more likely to call upon superior fire power rather than commit men in the field in close contact with the enemy. The result of this may frequently be a less precise and result in civilian casulties.

In a theatre such as Afgahnistan where it's important to maintain local support this is catastrophic.

As for anonymity of the British source - please don't be surprised that whistle blowers on American activities are so reticent - look what happened to the Abu Ghraib whistle blower. I believe this is constructive criticism and should be taken as such.

#3 - If I was 12/13 and my family or friends family had been killed by a well intentioned US or other soldier I might be inclined to wreak revenge.

I'm not condoning it - just explaining that it is crucial not to alienate the people who you are trying to help. Otherwise the consequence is to allow the enemy a fantasic recruiting opportunity. It's what happened in Northern Ireland when hard liners were indiscriminate with their retribution. It prolonged the bloodshed by recruiting thousands to the 'cause' (hugely funded by US dollars). I'm sure there are many more examples.

Are really serious when you suggest an appeal to the Taliban to 'fight fair' is likely to have any effect? You are either naive or thick, I'd like to think it's the former.

US special forces operate in small teams very close to their targets. They observe and gather intelligence before they make a move. I suspect that many of the Afghan casualties which are claimed to be civilian are probably harboring the terrorists, which makes them fair game.

The "surge" by US troops in Iraq is starting to succeed, while the British are preparing to abandon Basra to the Sadr militia. I am not so sure the British have proven that their "hearts and minds" campaign is a successful model.

As a former US president was known to say, "Get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow."

Sandy - The Daltons for President

You can't keep hiding behind my country right or wrong, I love GB and Tricky Dick 2, I love Godzillez who has sworn to respect our constitutional rights. The vast majority of Americans themselves don't even believe this. There is something bizarre in hiding behind the sacrifices made by the GIs and their families. Yes I support the GIs and other troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and wish them a safe return to their wives, girl/boy friends and families and would like them to have the best possible support for as long as they are abroad. I do not think the present administration is providing that support in terms of weaponry, tactics or long term strategy. I don't believe GW's claim that if you don't pursue his self-invented anti-Muslim crusade (since duly supported by Ratzinger), the US homeland will be attacked. The contrary is true; these wars won't protect you at all... because they are a totally inadequate response to the threat, they are raising the danger that the US will be attacked directly and indirectly by providing inumerable terrorists with in-depth, on-the-ground training in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Lebanon.... Nearly six years in and well over a hundred thousand dead on all sides... with tin-pot dictators as allies and endless positive sound-bites that have proved false if not downright lies. Yes protect and support our troops and our country but GW's policies are a disaster for both.

Listen to Vincent all you frelling bush lickers! maybe it's time you looked at the success rate of the 'going in to rescue tha people of a country' policy. that same policy that talks about acceptable levels of civilian deaths. Vincent is right, if you came to liberate me and managed to kill my entire family in tyhe process I would be more than reluctant to be liberated. plus I'd have the daily dilemna of 'should I paint an American flag on my face, just so they can tell me apart from their enemy?

Question, during WWII, a German SS unit is held up in a German village, firing at US/British soldiers, would we hesitate to attack that village for fear of injuring "civilians" ?

#11 Jock MacFrog.

try boradening your horizons and have a read at other newspapers. Take, for example, these extracts from today's Glasgow Herald:

"British frontline commanders in Afghanistan want US special forces commandos barred from Helmand because they say the Americans' gung-ho approach is undermining the UK's hearts-and-minds campaign in the province.

A Nato spokesman admitted yesterday there had been "tensions" over differing approaches to operational doctrine, though he tried to play down the growing rift between British and American military leaders.

More than 380 Afghan civilians have been killed this year by airstrikes, many called in by US Delta Force or Green Beret teams in the volatile south.

British military sources say the Americans' instant use of overwhelming firepower when faced with even minor Taliban attacks is creating new recruits for the insurgents and wiping out any goodwill created by civil reconstruction projects"

"Soldiers who contacted The Herald tell a different story. They claim small teams of US special forces are "gung-ho" and trigger-happy" and that their first reaction to incoming fire is to call up bombing missions without regard for civilian casualties.

One officer said: "These guys are a law unto themselves. They are locked into the shock and awe' mentality which makes the US military a war-winning machine but scores very poorly in the pacification stakes.

"Every time a bomb levels a compound containing women and children, the explosion drives the male relatives into the arms of the Taliban. It also totally reverses the small psychological gains we make in improving roads or irrigation for the locals."

That's the story from soldiers on the ground, or are you saying that they are lying?

As for straying from behind my desk, you would be surprised.

Regarding the definition of civilians, I would assume, for e

So Vincent, you "believe that the British forces in Basra can claim a significant level of success with lower resources and a more sympathetic approach."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007...

The British have utterly failed in Basra. Therefore, their approach is suspect. US forces do not need to be lectured by anonymous British officers who can show no real success, but would turn Afghanistan into Basra writ large.

I'll say it again, the US Special Forces operate in small groups very close to the enemy, observing and gathering intelligence before they call in air support. They are in a position to determine who are collaborators and who are not. You aren't. As Dragonhead noted, "producing 21 bodies of 'civilians' proves nothing at all, nothing." It takes a peculiar level of credulity to believe the Taliban on anything, even when they produce bodies and call them civilians.

MacSprog - do you suggest that we inflict another 'Dresden' or 'Hiroshima' on the Afghanistan people?

What happened in the 2nd world war (a war that cost tens of millions of lives) does not compare with modern day Afghanistan. The SS were a uniformed army fighting in a mass war not a geurilla type non-uniformed army fighting in a lower scale conflict.

#14 Entrecot - by the way read macror's comment under a 'Black week in Basra' - the man has actually been, seen and done what the British are about in Basra - not sitting on his backside in the Ozarks.

This is a continuation of the discussion yesterday. The GOP party members will not be conviced, i think they are paid to come onto these sites to spread lies and make rather silly comments about Bush haters etc (surely the only president in history to inspire a debate over whether he is stupid or not). I have looked at the posts yesterday where people give interesting facts and links. The GOP party members do not even attempt to address them in an honest fashion. One arguement yesterday, by a person who actually comes across as quite intelligent and reasonable, was that you must support your government regardless of your own personal feelings. Below is an extract from one of the most important docuemnts in the history of human achivement, all Americans (and every other nationality) should bear this in mind:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Burn the poppies

22. Vincent W, Edinburgh

When the German soldiers were captured without uniform as happened during the Battle of the Bulge, they were shot as spies. To be consistent, all Taliban prisoners should also be shot if they're not wearing an official uniform wouldn't you agree?

The problem is, they want the best of both worlds. They want to have the convenience of anonymity to hide in the civilian population. But they also want to be treated as prisoners of war if captured.

Entropent, Yes I do think that the British forces can claim a significant level of success. I also completely disagree that the have 'utterly failed' in Basra, just as I disagree that the Americans have totally failed in Baghdad. I do think that the British approach has a higher probability of success.

It is not a question of 'lecturing' more a question of listening carefully to each other, and more importantly listening to the Iraqis and Afghanis, or are we all to be so arrogant as to think we cannot learn from each other? Your black and white approach is dismal.

I have a high regard for US servicemen and women especially their 'special forces', I also have extreme high regard for British Servicemen and Women and our special forces. Don't you dare knock them, one on one they are a match for any soldier/sailor/airman in the world.

The telegraph article is unreliable as it politically motivated against the UK Labour Government.

Dougie, Of course the Taliban want their cake and to eat it. that's the nature of that style of warfare. I trust you will never condone the killing of civilians. From a purely pragmatic stance every civilain killed is 10 potential Talibanis recruited.

Entropent - I just re-read over your earlier post - you know the bit where you write that (beleagured) civilians harbo(u)ring the Taleban are 'fair game.'

I have to conclude that you are a complete fool and not worthy of serious discussion.

#27 - i think that is a pretty fair conlcusion.

#26 Vincent "Don't you dare knock them, one on one they are a match for any soldier/sailor/airman in the world."

I strongly agree that the British soldier is outstanding. I did not intend to imply otherwise. I only assert that the British approach is demonstrably wrong.

I was unaware that the Telegraph was a biased resource. Here is a link from the Washington Post stating the same thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007...

Per your inquiry, I am posting from Florida.

Furthemore, I have said nothing about "beleagured civilians," you are putting words in my mouth. I argue that those who HARBOR TERRORISTS are fair game. It is you who have asserted that I believe innocent civilians are fair game. For someone who criticizes others for thinking in "black and white" you are rather lacking in nuance.

26. Vincent W

I don't condone the killing of civilians but realistically, in this type of war, some civilian deaths will be unavoidable - especially since many Taliban live in and fight from their own villages and these villages are full of non-combatants.

If it comes to a choice between using firepower (and civilian casualties) and infantry operations which result in heavy casualties for our own men, a trade off must be made.

You write "From a purely pragmatic stance every civilian killed is 10 potential Talibanis recruited" but this isn't necessarily true. Part of the reason the Taliban is tolerated in certain villages is because they're totally ruthless in dealing with any opposition - so farmers have more to fear from opposing the Taliban than from helping them. Effectively, the Taliban is able to use NATO’s compassion as a weapon against it.

If on the other hand, harbouring Taliban within a village brought a devastating air strike on the village concerned, the Taliban might quickly find themselves less welcome.

I'm not advocating that policy - certainly it would make NATO less popular. But it would quickly remove the Taliban's operational effectiveness. All I'm saying is that it's not clear-cut.

Speak to many members of the British armed forces who have worked with the Americans and you will hear the same thing. They are trigger happy and also ignorant/disrespectful to the local culture of the country they operate. The British operate a far more intelligent approach and thus should be more successful in winning hearts and minds.

Another point, look at the number of blue on blue incidents where our forces have been killed by the yanks.

Trigger happy, gung ho and stupid!

31. dm, Glasgow

Easy to say so - however they're at least able to dominate militarily. British respect for the local culture and appeasement of local strongmen hasn't been able to keep control even in initially welcoming Basra.

I don't mean any criticism of the soldiers concerned but of the operational and political constraints they're operating under. A government which prosecutes its own soldiers for kicking rioters who threw stones at them is never going to win any wars or any respect.

You might criticise the American army as gung ho and stupid but at least the Iraqis know they won't get away with throwing stones at them.

Dear "Unidentified Senior British Commander,"

How dare you let on to one and all where US Special Operations forces operate! What are you trying to do, get Americans killed? You named the province and the city, you ignoramus, and you made my brothers in arms targets. You think the Taliban can't read the news? Have you ever considered things are "calm" precisely because US Special Operations forces are THERE?

Goomba

I would venture to suggest that the report is correct and would be roundly supported by the rest of the Alliance troops on the ground. The sooner the US stops using the rest of the world as its testing ground for new weapons the better.
I wonder how many unarmed civilians have died because the US treat their particular theatres of operations as computer games. This is not to mention the number of friendly forces killed as a result of the indiscriminate shooting. This is no new phenomenon as many books from the first and second world wars will testify.
Win the hearts and minds is the way forward, not blow theF'kers to kingdom come. When will they learn?

Reading the comments made by some of you here really makes me angry.

The US/UK have invaded Afghanistan to remove the legitimate, although somewhat distasteful, Taliban government of Afghanistan, on the pretext that they were supposedly providing assistance to those who were alleged to have been responsible for the events of 11th September 2001.

As in any case where a country is occupied by foreign troops, the legitimate government is removed and a puppet government installed, the population will resist, just as the French resisted the Nazi occupation and the puppet Vichy government ... just as all loyal patriotic republicans would resist and invasion and occupation of the US, however 'noble' the motives of that aggressor ...

Except by more bloodshed for ever, how exactly do you believe the wilds of Afghanistan can be pacified? Queen Victoria couldn't do it ... why should we be able to do it now ....

The removal of the Taliban was carried out in order to a) get the US desired pipeline built and b) to get the drugs trade, suppressed by the Taliban, resumed for the benefit of the CIA and US interests ....

I very much doubt that anybody expects to capture Bin Laden at this late date .......

Just as with Iraq, the sooner troops are removed from Afghanistan the better .....

Perhaps one problem is that the US forces have the same attitude as some of you here.

After all, what sort of mindset is required to volunteer to go and fight in these wars of aggression ....

35. Sammy25

You write that the Taliban were the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan but their power was solely based on military victory over rivals, popular support of the population. By your thinking, any warlord or dictator who can murder his way to power is legitimate.

All the Taliban had to do to avoid war was hand over Bin Laden.

Your conspiracy theories about an oil pipeline is ridiculous. An oil pipe line could have been built all around Afghanistan far cheaper than what the war has cost. And if you seriously think that the drugs trade is run for the financial benefit of the same organisations which spend billions on the "war on drugs" you belong in a kindergarten.

37. Dougie - Edinburgh

That is no different to situation in Pakistan dude.

Gen. Pervez MUSHARRAF, military dictatory and our idiot Pres. Bush's friend.

The word HYPOCRISY comes to mind ..dude

Happy SHAT Day

GC

A large part of the problem is that American forces have nothing but contempt for Afghans and Iraqis. If they were persuaded to stop thinking of them as in some way inferior, it might make a great difference. Also, if they were no longer trained to chant "We're trained to kill, and kill we will!" , that might also help. It seems to matter little who they kill. They have already killed a large number of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

hahahahhaahahahhahah hahahahahahahhaha this is too funny to read

38 ..... / Exactly. And Pakistan are alledged to have had a hand in financing 9/11 as well ...

37 .... / do you people work from a script? conspiracy Theory .... Leftie .... need I go on .... people like you and the anti-smokers are cut from the same cloth .... probably one and the same ...

39 .... / I agree with that

37 / An oil pipe line could have been built all around Afghanistan far cheaper

'all around Afghanistan'?

Which route do you suggest?

#31--dm--i have read, in the Scotsman, of blue-on-blue incidents of your soldiers, so then, i have the right to use your words...""trigger happy, gung ho and stupid""...right??

Totally bogus story. Real British Officers do not hide behind the press - they are not cowards. If they have something to say, it gets said, regardless of the consequences. This is more leftish-hopeful 'let's help the Taliban' tripe that has become all too common in this death-fight with Islam's nutters.

#29--entropent---thanks for the link....was not aware of this!! i think you could lay blame at the Iraqi gov't for not dealing with the oil issue for the 3/factions...they supposedly have been working on that far too long....

The USA and others will never win in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As a former British army man I consider the New Zealand and Australian Armies far superior to that of either of those armies especially in the relationships between officers and men. A Maori soldier in the NZ Army helping in Afghanistan recently won the NZ Victoria Cross for rescuing a fallen comrade.

#50--Scotsman---the 'young Afghan child' didn't send an anonymous message to the troops..it was an up close & personal meeting.....no one seems to know who this "British officer" is, which leads me to believe, anyone could have made the claim..even you!!...anonymously of course...

#51--Halitosis---British atrocities, in Iraq...

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23689

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-suri120504.htm

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk10.html

#54---strike the word "atrocities"...insert 'soldiers killing civilians'

38. GalacticCannibal

I agree Pakistan's hardly a liberal democracy but they're cooperating against Al Qaeda for the time being - so what's the problem? Unless you suggest that the west should install democracy in every dictatorship in the world by force?

Sammy25

I never called you a leftie, I don't care where you stand politically. But you're quite obviously pushing a conspiracy theory. The idea that sustaining an incredibly expensive war over a period of years to control one of the least economically productive parts of the planet for the purpose of making a profit is too stupid for serious rebuttal.

46. Cyril

As it happens I've also served in both New Zealand and British armies. To describe the New Zealand army as superior in any way to the British army is laughable. It's not much more than a poorly funded amateur Maori culture club with Vietnam war technology and Vietnam war doctrines. As late as the 1990s, the infantry radios were Vietnam war vintage and the Iroquois (yes RNZAF I know) are Vietnam war vintage. The last real war it fought was Vietnam and it hasn't progressed much since.

There are a few elite units but the average infantry standard was pretty poor. Lots of semi literate Polynesians, tough but poorer discipline than analogous British units - and poorly suited to the kind of operations involving complex interaction between multinational forces, air support and civilians of the kind modern Western armies now have to fight.

The NZ armoured forces are negligible. The only real front line capability NZ has of any use is a small amount of artillery, a tiny number of SAS and light infantry.

The only personal experience I had of the Australian army was a territorial infantry unit which was terrible - absolutely amateur time wasters who turned up to get paid and had no grasp of basic infantry skills. I can't comment about their regular army but from what I saw, their territorial infantry standard was far below either New Zealand or Britain.

This war on terrorism is bogus

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,10366...