Britain
is prosecuting five of its Royal Marine Commandos on suspicion of murder. This
is based on a brief video of the marines discussing what to do with a wounded
terrorist suspect. The video was taken last year and the marines are accused of
killing the man rather than trying to get him medical aid. Not all the facts
are known, as the video did not indicate a decision to kill the prisoner.
On the
battlefield, killing a wounded prisoner is not unusual, especially when the
friendly troops are under attack and lacking the resources to defend themselves
while also tending to a badly wounded enemy fighter. This is technically
against the “rules of war”, but these rules were drawn by people who had little
or no combat experience. Commanders understand that there is nothing worse for
morale that prosecuting troops for doing whatever they could to prevent
themselves from becoming casualties and losing a battle.
In
Afghanistan, even many civilians have a flexible attitudes towards how the Taliban
should be treated. This often runs contrary to the Western values the foreign
troops are supposed to practice.
For
example, in the last few years American troops have increasingly encountered
angry Afghan civilians who demand that the Americans act more decisively in
pursuing and killing Taliban gunman, even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk.
This is an unexpected side effect of a change, three years ago, of the U.S.
rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. This was in response to popular (or at
least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of
the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb
when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders had to decide who
they should respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban
oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan
civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do?
Taliban
propaganda, and the enthusiasm of the media for jumping on real, or imagined,
civilian deaths caused by foreign troops, made people forget that far more
civilians (about four times as many) had been killed by the Taliban. But
because Afghans have been conditioned to expect more civilized behavior from
the foreign troops, much less media attention is paid to the civilians killed
by the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Of
course, Afghan civilians are aware of who is killing most of the civilians, and
that's why the Taliban and al Qaeda get low numbers in local opinion polls. But
the media, hammering foreign troops get every time they kill a civilian, or are
simply (often falsely) accused of doing so, led to the ROE becoming far more
strict than it ever was in Iraq. Thus one Taliban victory you don't hear much
about is how they turned their use of human shields into a powerful, and very
successful, propaganda weapon against NATO and U.S. troops, and an excellent
way to avoid getting attacked.
Under
the new ROE, you had to, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a
lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the
Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most
of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the
lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that
attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming
civilians.
The
Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live
among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to
move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs
to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of
many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.
The U.S.
Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air
attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when
airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these
conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as
human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The
tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be
tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart
bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian
casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and
kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid
getting hit with a smart bomb.
The new
restrictions on the use of air power, and the greater Taliban use of civilians
as human shields, has enabled the Taliban to avoid a lot of situations where
they would otherwise get killed. When they are out in the open, the Taliban
still get toasted regularly by foreign troops (with or without the use of smart
bombs). The new ROE is based on the fact that the Taliban are increasingly
openly hated by Afghan civilians. This has led to more tribes getting angry
enough to fight the Taliban. This is why outside of Pushtun areas (most of
southern Afghanistan), you see very few Taliban. The Taliban are basically a
Pushtun thing, and non-Pushtun people are violently opposed to any Taliban
moving into their territory. The new American ROE is hoping to exploit that
growing hatred of the Taliban in the south. But in some areas of the south,
particularly Helmand province (where most of the world’s heroin comes from),
where the Taliban and locals are in the drug business together, there are still
fans of the Taliban. Moreover, the Taliban recruits heavily in Helmand, and
adjacent provinces. This is where the Taliban came from (initially as refugees
living in Pakistan.) Helmand has always been ground zero in the fight against
the Taliban, and now the fight has gotten harder, and more dangerous.
