Operation Moshtarak

Whatever happens in Marja, Afghan civilians will suffer

If you go to Google News and search for "Marja," you'll find (literally) about 4,000 stories, most of which are rewrites of the same set of ISAF talking points: 20,000 NATO and Afghan troops are gearing up to attack the Taliban; Marja is the Taliban's last refuge in southern Afghanistan; the battle will be the most important military operation in eight years; etc., etc.

Very few of these bother to point out the inherent contradictions in Operation Moshtarak -- like the conflict between this enemy-centric offensive and NATO's stated population-centric strategy.

Josh Foust catches this bizarre press release from ISAF:

Despite reports of large numbers of civilians fleeing the area, the facts on the ground do not support these assertions. Current estimates are that fewer than 200 families have left Nad-e Ali since Operation Moshtarak was announced. Combined force commanders are encouraging civilians to remain in the safety of their homes. Every effort is being made to ensure minimum disruption to the residents during the operation.

As Noah Schachtman writes, the press release contradicts earlier statements from U.S. generals, who urged Afghan civilians to leave the town to avoid "getting caught in the crossfire." NATO planes have spent days dropping leaflets on Marja, urging people to leave.

And the "fewer than 200 families" figure is an absurd underestimate. Journalists and aid workers say tens of thousands of people in Marja have already fled. Al-Jazeera's David Chater traveled to one refugee camp outside Kabul, where he found hundreds of families, many of whom have fled the fighting in Helmand.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has talked a lot about the importance of reducing civilian casualties, and commanders are saying all the right things about protecting the population. But "civilian casualties" is a limited metric: You can avoid civilian casualties by driving villagers from Marja, but if you force them to spend a freezing winter in squalid refugee camps, you're still probably going to lose their support.

ISAF clearly hasn't figured out which is the lesser of two evils -- hence the contradictory statements.

On the other side of the conflict, there's the Taliban, which is reportedly trying to prevent civilians from leaving the town. Civilian casualties breed resentment toward ISAF, so the Taliban has an incentive to cause them; Taliban fighters also want a civilian population to "blend into" when ISAF arrives. Una Moore flags this item from the Associated Press:

Villager Mohammad Hakim gambled that he could wait until the last minute because he was worried about abandoning his cotton fields.

He finally tried to move his wife, nine sons, four daughters and grandchildren out of Marjah earlier Tuesday but said militants told him to return home because they had mined the surrounding roads.

Local Taliban leaders have also promised not to fight "face-to-face," but rather to lay down their arms and wait for ISAF troops to leave Marja (h/t Spencer Ackerman). This is a message aimed largely at potential ISAF supporters among the civilian population: When your protectors leave, we'll take our revenge on you.

No Comments

Post a Comment

The Taliban return to Marja, to nobody's surprise

Security was supposed to be the precursor to better governance in Afghanistan -- but, six months into President Obama's new strategy, it's hard to find many positive data points about the security situation.

The Super-Hyping of Moshtarak

Why did NATO play up Operation Moshtarak? To give civilians warning, sure, but also to scare off a Taliban that wasn't interested in fighting an unwinnable battle, thus ensuring a public-relations victory.

B'Tselem: Settlements occupy 42 percent of West Bank

Ben-Eliezer makes "secret trip" to Turkey: Israeli TV

CENTCOM talking sense on Hamas and Hizballah

Al-Akhbar: Our weekly brief

Peace Processing

Talking about direct talks: Netanyahu returns to the White House

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivering a statement in Jerusalem on July 1, 2010. (Photo: AFP)
US president Barack Obama will use a White House meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push for an extended West Bank settlement freeze. If Netanyahu doesn't offer one - and the domestic politics are quite difficult for him - it's hard to see any possibility of direct talks with the Palestinian Authority later this year.

The Afghan Surge

Obama's southern strategy

Gen. David Petraeus testifying on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Reuters)
The president's decision to nominate Gen. David Petraeus as the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan won't mean a major change in strategy. But there are mounting reasons for pessimism about current policy, particularly the relentless focus on southern Afghanistan. The deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops to Kandahar and Helmand serves few NATO objectives.

Freedom Flotilla Killings

Anticlimax: How much did the flotilla raid really change regional politics?

A demonstration in London against the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla. (Photo: AFP)
It has accelerated Israel's isolation from several of its neighbors and allies; it has sharpened divisions within Turkish domestic politics; it has deepened perceptions that the Obama administration as too close to Israel. And it seems to have had a remarkably minor impact on Palestinian domestic politics.