'120 die' as US bombs village
Afghan outrage after strike targeting Taliban fighters hits women and children
AP
Afghan villagers sift through the rubble of destroyed houses after the coalition air strikes in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, Afghanistan
A misdirected US air strike has killed as many as 120 Afghans, including dozens of women and children. The attack is the deadliest such bombing involving civilian casualties so far in the eight years since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.
Families in two villages in Farah province in western Afghanistan were digging for bodies in the ruins of their mudbrick houses yesterday. "There were women and children who were killed," said Jessica Barry, a Red Cross spokeswoman. "It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit." Survivors said the number of dead would almost certainly to rise as the search for bodies continued.
The killing of so many Afghan civilians by US aircraft is likely to infuriate Afghans and lead to an increase in support for the Taliban in the bombed area. President Hamid Karzai, who was meeting President Barack Obama in Washington yesterday, sent a joint US-Afghan delegation to investigate the incident. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, standing next to Mr Karzai, voiced her "deep regret".
US Marine Special Forces supporting the Afghan army apparently called in the air strike on Tuesday on two villages in Bala Baluk district after heavy fighting with the Taliban. Accounts by Afghans of high civilian casualties are often denied or dismissed by US officials. But a team from the Red Cross visited the scene of this attack. "There were bodies, graves, there were people burying bodies when we were there," said Ms Barry. She said a first aid worker for Afghanistan's Red Crescent died with 13 members of his family. "Dozens of dead bodies were seen in the two locations we went to." Rohul Amin, the provincial governor of Farah, told The Independent that "the dead numbered over 100". Villagers brought 30 bodies, including women and children, in a truck to Mr Amin in Farah City to prove it had happened.
The Afghan government has made increasingly angry denunciations of the US Air Force for using its massive firepower without regard for ordinary Afghans. Wedding parties have been a frequent target of US bombers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably because they are mistaken for gatherings of militants.
The US air strike on Bala Baluk appears to have been deadlier for civilians than any similar event since the first US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. The government has asked villagers not to bury the dead until investigators arrive today.
Previously the worst such incident was a US strike on Azizabad in August 2008 when the US originally claimed that no civilians were killed. Afghan and UN investigators concluded that 90 Afghans had been killed. A high-level American inquiry later admitted that 33 civilians had been killed. Opinion polls in Afghanistan show that backing for the Taliban soars in provinces affected after bombing or shelling kills innocent people.
The air strikes were preceded by two days of fighting between Afghan government forces supported by the US and dozens of Taliban fighters. Farah is a poor province whose people are mostly farmers and where the Taliban has been very active. The provincial police chief, Abdul Gaffar, said three police officers and 25 Taliban were killed in fighting near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district.
Local residents later told Afghan officials that they put their children, women and elderly men in walled compounds in the village of Gerani, which is three miles from the scene of the fighting and where they thought they would be safe. It was these compounds which were then attacked from the air and most of the people sheltering inside were killed.
Despite US denials or claims that a high death toll among civilians is Taliban propaganda, the US military should have very immediate access to eyewitnesses to air strikes. This is because the most severely injured are often taken to American medical facilities at US military bases. It is not known if this happened at Bala Baluk.
After the Azizabad killings last year, the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan were meant to have introduced more stringent rules to safeguard civilians from their strikes. The top US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, issued a directive ordering commanders to consider not pursuing Taliban fighters into populated areas. The US also pledged to investigate bombing incidents alongside Afghan investigators.
Afghan air strikes: The toll mounts
552 Civilians killed in air strikes in 2008.
17 per cent Proportion of US drone attacks to hit targets since January 2006.
701 Killed in drone attacks in three years.
14 Al-Qa'ida leaders in that number.
4.5 million dollars The estimated cost of a single Predator drone.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
Come Friday 8th May 2006 they'll tell us all about another 600,000+ Unemployed for the month of April.
At that rate every month they wont last till the end of the year.
Then they wont be bombing and killing Women and Children.
They will be finished.
No we haven't missed it, just another days time.
Then a month after that, and a month after that.
another proof that the US troops are completely inept to reach to their goal to beat the Taleban and follow just one parameter - minimise civilian loss
If we were to leave, what would the stats be then? The Indy seems to have missed one
1500 - civilians killed by the Taliban since 2008
Unfortunately no reliable data seems to be available for the time the Taliban were in power
Why didnt the Indy mention that then? Not here in opinion or elsewhere in the "news" (spun opinion) sections either. I'm not saying the Indy are wrong that these innocent deaths are awful and must end, I'm just saying dear reader that you are being told a story by this "independent" paper.
Is it better to stop "our" forces" killing civilians accidentally while fighting the Taliban or to minimise future total civilian casualties by stopping the Taliban once again enslaving the Afghans?
I note that Afghan opinion polls remain, as a country, massively against the Taliban. Of course the Indy will, correctly, point out that in the rural poor areas Taliban support is much higher. But it wont dwell on the overall Afghan opinion, oh no. They might AFTER the west leaves because then it could be used to blame the US for the Talibans victory over them!
Independent? Isnt this a trades description act violation?
From Carter to Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obomber, GOP or dem makes no difference: Afghans & Iraqis die like flies. 500000 dead Iraqi kids were "worth it" for Maddy Albright. The millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans since 2001 don't even get a passing mention nowadays.
By Nuremberg rules every single Yank president should be swinging from a noose, accompanied by Bliar & Broon.
Tom MacKinnon, London
Of course the U.K. is a puppet state of the U.S. Why do you think there are all those U.S. military bases there?
If you want to protest against U.S. actions, boycott them. Don't buy anything American.
In the short term sending in an air strike where there may be civilians may seen a better option than using griund troops with the associated risk of casualties, but if each incident like this strengthens the taliban the long term result is likely to lead to a longer and more intense conflict which will lead to more deaths on all sides, American as well as Afgan.
These groups thrive on foreign forces killing civilians. We should fight them as little as possible, using the minimum force necessary and use foreign aid to provide jobs, healthcare and education to get the people to turn against them - and to divide the hardline ideological extremists from the factions willing to negotiate for a reasonable deal.
Yesterday's New York Times tells a more, er, nuanced story.
One in which the Taliban was responsible for the civilian deaths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/w
I don't doubt the Taliban are capable of atrocities, but US air power has a long history of being somewhat lax as to who and where the enemy might be, as Lance Corporal Matty Hull found out to his cost:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,
In WWII there was saying:
"When the Luftwaffe comes over the Allies take cover; when the RAF comes over the Germans take cover, when the USAAF comes over we all take cover!"
That's the nature of guerilla and terrorist warfare though - if they all wore uniform and fought in the open they wouldnt stand a chance when they have no heavy weapons, aircraft or armour.
If we continue airstrikes and big military offensives we play straight into their hands.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Ya all be good now ya here!. Say hi to Marysue for me!
The mistake made here, as in Iraq, is thinking that massive firepower can be used to defeat terrorists or guerillas - it can't - it kills more civilians than fighters and turns the population towards your enemies, then you lose.
The Taliban has certainly killed a lot of civilians, but we're trying to persuade Afghans and Pakistanis that we're on their side and the Taliban isnt - we can't do that by using methods that kill lots of civilians.
The sociopathy lurking close to the surface of US foregin policy echoes that of Imperial Rome: it doesn't matter how many people suffer, as long as WE get out way.
How can the Taliban kill these people and transport them to the site of the US bombing is beyond me? Even Obama slick cant explain this.
She should have her mouth washed out with the strongest lye.
Only yesterday a top American general quoted, we will have to police the world, this was stated by the American over 50 years ago, just look at their record of policing the war, kill the women, children and old folks first, then their men will give up, odd to police the world?
USA could learn lessons from the Israeli on how to deflect all blame for such massacres.
Deny everythng and blame on those who die for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do they learn? This is turning out to be a personal issue. Is it not?
Emphasis on Al Qaeda at Three-Way Talks
President Obama said the U.S. was deeply committed to
helping Afghanistan and Pakistan defeat Al Qaeda and its
extremist allies and helping democracy flourish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/w
Iraqi Forces: Rebuilt and Stronger, but Still Stumbling
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
A recent series of attacks by insurgents have highlighted
shortcomings, large and small, despite billions of
dollars in American training and equipment, officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/w
G.M. Says Its Cash Reserves Are Dwindling
By NICK BUNKLEY
The automaker lost $6 billion in the quarter and ran
through $10.2 billion in cash, leaving it just enough
liquidity to stay in business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/busin
What Happens to the American Dream in a Recession?
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Pollsters for The New York Times and CBS News set out to
answer that question. The results seemed somewhat
contradictory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla