New York Times oskarza armie USA

Gość: kozak Jesli nie chcesz sie rejstrowac IP: *.marketscore.com / 10.100.2.* 20.07.02, 22:11

Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead
By DEXTER FILKINS

ABUL, Afghanistan � The American air campaign in
Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm's-way
strategy, has produced a pattern of mistakes that have
killed hundreds of Afghan civilians.

On-site reviews of 11 locations where airstrikes killed
as many as 400 civilians suggest that American commanders
have sometimes relied on mistaken information from local
Afghans. Also, the Americans' preference for airstrikes
instead of riskier ground operations has cut off a way of
checking the accuracy of the intelligence.
The reviews, over a six-month period, found that the
Pentagon's use of overwhelming force meant that even when
truly military targets were located, civilians were
sometimes killed. The 11 sites visited accounted for many
of the principal places where Afghans and human rights
groups claim that civilians have been killed.

Pentagon officials say their strategy has evolved in
recent months away from airstrikes to the use of ground
forces to hunt down remaining fighters for the Taliban
and Al Qaeda. Since then, air power has been deployed in
mostly a supporting role; still, the effects have often
been disastrous.

The American attack this month on villages in Oruzgan
Province, where airstrikes killed at least 54 civilians,
has crystallized a sense of anger here is undermining the
good will the United States gained by helping to dislodge
the Taliban. That anger is threatening to frustrate
America's ability to hunt down Taliban and Qaeda forces
that still survive.

For the first time, Afghan leaders are demanding a say in
how air raids are conducted. They are even hinting that
if the mistakes continue, they may limit America's future
military activities.

"We have to be given a larger role," said Dr. Abdullah,
the Afghan foreign minister, in an interview. "If things
do not improve, well, I will certainly pray for the
Americans and wish them success, but I will no longer be
able to take part in this."

The Pentagon often relies on information from warlords
and other Afghans whose loyalties are unclear in a
country riven by decades of war and tribal rivalries.
That information may be incomplete or inaccurate, and
sometimes even deliberately misleading. As a result, the
Pentagon's critics say, the military has too often struck
without a full understanding of what it was attacking.

American military commanders insist they take pains to
ensure that civilians are spared, often verifying their
targets with several sources of information. In many of
the cases cited here, they insisted that they struck
valid military targets. Often, despite evidence on the
ground, they denied that civilians were killed.

Indeed, the American commanders reject the notion that
they may be placing too much reliance on Afghan warlords
for information, or too much reliance on air power to
carry out their strategy.

"We painstakingly assess the potential for injuring
civilians or damaging civilian facilities, and positively
identify targets before striking," said Col. Ray
Shepherd, the spokesman for the United States Central
Command in Tampa, Fla., in an interview.

Nonetheless, American officials acknowledged that the
botched strike in Oruzgan has strained relationships with
Afghanistan. They said that since the raid, they have
changed procedures. "We want to ensure that coordination
with Afghan leaders is complete prior to an action,"
Colonel Shepherd said.

The war in Afghanistan is not the first time that
differences have risen between what pilots thought they
hit and what was found on the ground later. Nor is it the
first time that questions have risen about civilian
casualties from American airstrikes.

After 78 days of airstrikes over Serbia in 1999, American
military officials conceded that damage to the Yugoslav
Army was far less extensive than originally thought. In
those raids, Human Rights Watch, an American
organization, said at least 500 civilians had been
killed.

American commanders say they have not kept track of
civilian deaths in Afghanistan, but they say their
strategy has succeeded. Earlier this year, Gen. Tommy R.
Franks, the head of Central Command, called the Afghan
campaign "the most accurate war ever fought in this
nation's history." The military also takes solace in
relatively low American casualties, including 37 soldiers
killed.

Indeed, the extraordinary accuracy of American airstrikes
since they began in October has produced few of the types
of disasters that plagued past wars, when bombs aimed at
one target hit something else instead. In one of those
cases here last November, an American bomb aimed at a
building that was thought to harbor a senior Taliban
military commander, Jalaluddin Haqqani, hit a mosque.

A reporter visiting the mosque after the strike found
evidence to substantiate Afghans' claim that at least 65
civilians died. American military officials acknowledged
that the mosque had been struck in error, but a senior
American military official was not able to give the
precise number of dead.

Those kinds of incidents have been rare. Instead, the
evidence suggests that many civilians have been killed by
airstrikes hitting precisely the target they were aimed
at. The civilians died, the evidence suggests, because
they were were targeted by mistake, or because in
eagerness to kill Qaeda and Taliban fighters, Americans
did not carefully differentiate between civilians and
military targets.

Field workers with Global Exchange, an American
organization that has sent survey teams into Afghan
villages, say they have compiled a list of 812 Afghan
civilians who were killed by American airstrikes. They
say they expect that number to grow as their survey teams
reach more remote villages.

Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in
Afghanistan, said the most common factor in the civilian
deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete
information to decide on targets.

"Smart bombs are only as smart as people on the ground,"
Ms. Ruzicka said. "Before you bomb, you should be 100
percent certain of who you are bombing."

Drzewko
Od najstarszego
Od najnowszego

Gość: kozak Jesli nie chcesz sie rejstrowac IP: *.marketscore.com / 10.100.2.* 20.07.02, 22:11

Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead
By DEXTER FILKINS

ABUL, Afghanistan � The American air campaign in
Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm's-way
strategy, has produced a pattern of mistakes that have
killed hundreds of Afghan civilians.

On-site reviews of 11 locations where airstrikes killed
as many as 400 civilians suggest that American commanders
have sometimes relied on mistaken information from local
Afghans. Also, the Americans' preference for airstrikes
instead of riskier ground operations has cut off a way of
checking the accuracy of the intelligence.
The reviews, over a six-month period, found that the
Pentagon's use of overwhelming force meant that even when
truly military targets were located, civilians were
sometimes killed. The 11 sites visited accounted for many
of the principal places where Afghans and human rights
groups claim that civilians have been killed.

Pentagon officials say their strategy has evolved in
recent months away from airstrikes to the use of ground
forces to hunt down remaining fighters for the Taliban
and Al Qaeda. Since then, air power has been deployed in
mostly a supporting role; still, the effects have often
been disastrous.

The American attack this month on villages in Oruzgan
Province, where airstrikes killed at least 54 civilians,
has crystallized a sense of anger here is undermining the
good will the United States gained by helping to dislodge
the Taliban. That anger is threatening to frustrate
America's ability to hunt down Taliban and Qaeda forces
that still survive.

For the first time, Afghan leaders are demanding a say in
how air raids are conducted. They are even hinting that
if the mistakes continue, they may limit America's future
military activities.

"We have to be given a larger role," said Dr. Abdullah,
the Afghan foreign minister, in an interview. "If things
do not improve, well, I will certainly pray for the
Americans and wish them success, but I will no longer be
able to take part in this."

The Pentagon often relies on information from warlords
and other Afghans whose loyalties are unclear in a
country riven by decades of war and tribal rivalries.
That information may be incomplete or inaccurate, and
sometimes even deliberately misleading. As a result, the
Pentagon's critics say, the military has too often struck
without a full understanding of what it was attacking.

American military commanders insist they take pains to
ensure that civilians are spared, often verifying their
targets with several sources of information. In many of
the cases cited here, they insisted that they struck
valid military targets. Often, despite evidence on the
ground, they denied that civilians were killed.

Indeed, the American commanders reject the notion that
they may be placing too much reliance on Afghan warlords
for information, or too much reliance on air power to
carry out their strategy.

"We painstakingly assess the potential for injuring
civilians or damaging civilian facilities, and positively
identify targets before striking," said Col. Ray
Shepherd, the spokesman for the United States Central
Command in Tampa, Fla., in an interview.

Nonetheless, American officials acknowledged that the
botched strike in Oruzgan has strained relationships with
Afghanistan. They said that since the raid, they have
changed procedures. "We want to ensure that coordination
with Afghan leaders is complete prior to an action,"
Colonel Shepherd said.

The war in Afghanistan is not the first time that
differences have risen between what pilots thought they
hit and what was found on the ground later. Nor is it the
first time that questions have risen about civilian
casualties from American airstrikes.

After 78 days of airstrikes over Serbia in 1999, American
military officials conceded that damage to the Yugoslav
Army was far less extensive than originally thought. In
those raids, Human Rights Watch, an American
organization, said at least 500 civilians had been
killed.

American commanders say they have not kept track of
civilian deaths in Afghanistan, but they say their
strategy has succeeded. Earlier this year, Gen. Tommy R.
Franks, the head of Central Command, called the Afghan
campaign "the most accurate war ever fought in this
nation's history." The military also takes solace in
relatively low American casualties, including 37 soldiers
killed.

Indeed, the extraordinary accuracy of American airstrikes
since they began in October has produced few of the types
of disasters that plagued past wars, when bombs aimed at
one target hit something else instead. In one of those
cases here last November, an American bomb aimed at a
building that was thought to harbor a senior Taliban
military commander, Jalaluddin Haqqani, hit a mosque.

A reporter visiting the mosque after the strike found
evidence to substantiate Afghans' claim that at least 65
civilians died. American military officials acknowledged
that the mosque had been struck in error, but a senior
American military official was not able to give the
precise number of dead.

Those kinds of incidents have been rare. Instead, the
evidence suggests that many civilians have been killed by
airstrikes hitting precisely the target they were aimed
at. The civilians died, the evidence suggests, because
they were were targeted by mistake, or because in
eagerness to kill Qaeda and Taliban fighters, Americans
did not carefully differentiate between civilians and
military targets.

Field workers with Global Exchange, an American
organization that has sent survey teams into Afghan
villages, say they have compiled a list of 812 Afghan
civilians who were killed by American airstrikes. They
say they expect that number to grow as their survey teams
reach more remote villages.

Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in
Afghanistan, said the most common factor in the civilian
deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete
information to decide on targets.

"Smart bombs are only as smart as people on the ground,"
Ms. Ruzicka said. "Before you bomb, you should be 100
percent certain of who you are bombing."
- Gość: jewHater-kozak Tylu fajnych chlopcoow wanna-be sie marnuje.. IP: *.marketscore.com / 10.103.1.* 20.07.02, 22:15
  
  ju know ,wanna-be wwhat mam na mysli
Gość: jojo Re: New York Times oskarza armie USA IP: *.proxy.aol.com 20.07.02, 22:24

Gość portalu: kozak napisał(a):

> Nowojorska gazeta oskarzyla lotnictwo amerykanskie
> o bledy podczas bombardowania celow Al-Quidy w
> Afganistanie.Gazeta pisze , ze nieostroznosc dowodcow
> jak i pilotow kosztowala smierc okolo 400 niewinnych
> cywili afganskich.
> New York Times przytacza 11 oddzielnych przypadkow
> gdzie ludnosc cywilna zostala ostrzelana lub
> zbombardowana przez amerykanska flote powietrzna.
>
> Caly artykul dostepny pod :
> <a
href="www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/international/asia/21CIVI.html"targe
> t="_blank">www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/international/asia/21CIVI.html</a>
Won psie z tego forum !!!

Najnowsze z forum Świat

Zaloguj się