Funny, I see no mention of dead civilians in the article..........
But yes, far too many Afghan civilians are killed in airstrikes.
Air power is used liberally because of a lack of ground forces.....or so not to risk casualties of allied soldiers......especially from countries that are "casualty-adverse"
Want to stop killing Afghan civilians with air strikes?
Stop using air power so liberally......which means you would have to Commit a hell of a lot more ground troops, especially highly trained special forces, and prepare to accept sharply increased allied casualties.......
What I am against is the rampant useage of air strikes. I have no major issues with air strikes being using during a combat mission where there are allied troops involved and they know from first hand that they are targeting people with weapons who are directly shooting at them..... I do have major issues when air strikes are used where no allied forces are located to confirm the target and the air strikes seem to be done based on "Military Intelligence" which more often then not, is wrong.
I have an issue where air strikes are used accross borders and into the lands of our allies, when it was specifically agreed to that they wouldn't be used. I have an issue with air strikes being used accross the borders of our allies when they specifically and repeatedly demanded that they be stopped..... esspecially when they have been showing evidence and signs that they are doing what was requested of them.
I have an issue with air strikes being used in very close quaters to civilians.
In a few examples a few years back, one taliban head was hanging around a village for days.... he was targeted and tracked for the whole time. As soon as he got into his car to head back to the mountains to meet, while on the highway, he was blown up by an air strike..... very far away from the Village of civilians. It was confirmed it was the target, they followed and tracked him until it was safe to take him out.
^ Maybe the US isn't as patient to continue to do this, but in the long run, it'll save a hell of a lot more lives, protect the innocent and reduce the amount of people taking up arms later on due to innocent family members losing their lives from a faceless forign attacker in the sky.
Either remove the useage of air strikes or only use air strikes when there are people on the ground to confirm the target and that it is safe to attack the target, away from civilians.
If we are supposed to be there for the Afghans and to protect them, then do so..... don't use them as simple collateral for your own selfish agendas. And at the same time, don't treat Pakistan the same way.... they are afterall, our allies too.
And when your allies start attacking your own people with their own agendas.... then where's the trust? Who's next?
...... Or foolishly abandon our allies, the Afghans, and any hope of preventing Afghanistan from becoming a base once again for terror attacks in North America. We are on the list, you know....and by "we" I mean Canada.
No easy solution.
No solution is easy, but there are solutions none the less. If our allies can't figure out their begin-game and end-game, have no clear objectives or goals, with no time tables and no clear way out, and continually contradict their messages with their actions..... then how long do you tag along until you understand what is being done is wrong and we shouldn't be a part of it?
I couldn't care if we're a target of the Taliban or the Keebler Elves.... if we are attacked, we shall respond in kind in an appropreate approach for equal justice.... but attempting to overthrown a soverign nation based on faulty information to suit an pissed off ally's objectives was, is and always will be wrong.
Abandon our allies? Many of our allies already have done so based on similar reasons.... only Canada is too chicken sh*t to say no to the US, and hide around some age-old contract of some defunked organization to ward off the Soviet Union...... a group that should have been abolished when the Soviets were.
Added:
But if we are going to continually be sucked into this BS war and fight it out because our buddies want to peer pressure us into doing the "Cool Thing" then meet us half way and try to reduce the amount of retaliation against us and be more cautious on who you're blowing up..... seems simple enough to me.
We are unfortunatly a part of NATO, but that doesn't mean we don't get a say in how things are done. We don't just sign a contract to go blow stuff up when other nations want us to, and then have no say or complaint about how things are conducted.
If we have no say on how to come to an end-game in this war, then wtf are we in it? Just to fight in the front lines for those creating the people we're fighting? Me thinks not.
The US is creating and causing the increase of forces our troops are fighting, not reducing them.... and if they're not going to put their allies' and afghan's best interests at heart, then why should we have the US's best interests at heart?
It's a two way relationship.... we are not simple pawns for the US..... at least I sure as hell ain't.
