In Afghanistan, nine civilians have been killed in NATO artillery fire: the NATO soldiers were responding to an attack by Taliban fighters. Afghan authorities in Kapisa province say three children, five women and one man died as a result of NATO fire.

On Sunday, at least eight Afghan civilians were killed when they came under fire from United States troops. After that incident, thousands of Afghans demonstrated against US forces and President Hamid Karzai. Mr Karzai has condemned the US soldiers' actions and has ordered inquiries into both Sunday's and today's incidents.

(Rnw.nl)

Hah, fat chance that the soldiers will ever actually be punished. Slap on the wrist after an inquiry that never goes anywhere, most likely.

In my opinion, soldiers who commit a crime against the civilians of another country should be handed over to the courts and judicial system of that country. That would ensure a complete lack of favouritism.

It doesn't mention what kind of fire for the US troops, but for the NATO troops it was Artillery fire. This could mean anything from a stray rocket, or a faulty mortar shell that didn't have the oomph it was supposed to have. Since the shell, either variety, would look the same as any other shell, how is one supposed to know if it's faulty? Small weapons fire can certainly be controlled, but in the case of artillery, your kind of at the mercy of the shell itself, and conditions relevant at the time of use. War criminals should be punished. However, what punishment is needed for what could obviously be an accident?

Not to seem like I'm jumping on the US can't do any wrong bandwagon, but the only clearly listed cause of civilian deaths was artillery fire. Before we get to overly condemning of US, or NATO actions, perhaps it would behoove us to have all the facts, instead of just a oneliner about how all US/NATO forces are evil....Ya' think?

Did I ever say that they were all evil? I did not. There are good people in the militaries of both the US and NATO member states in general. In fact, most of their soldiers are likely good, honest people. Most of their officers are probably good, honest people, too.

However, it cannot be denied that few countries are good at punishing their soldiers for what they do in foreign nations. Currently this would seem like a jab at the US due to all the bad shit that's going on in Iraq, but it applies to all nations, really. The UK has done the same.

As for the artillery fire: There is such a thing as criminal negligence. Anyone can screw up, but when your screwing up causes other people to die, you should still pay for not being more careful. There is also a limit to just how far a shell can fly off course due to being faulty or wind conditions or minor imperfections, officers should be at fault if an area close enough to civilians that they could be hit by accident was ordered for a shelled.

<font color=8fbc8f>I guess those Marines that are serving hard labor for their actions unbecoming have been forgotten? What about the Air Force A-10 pilots who where court martialed. How about the Army fire team (1/2 squad) that was charged for their actions against the wrong house (target) that are also serving time, do they count? Y'eap hard time in a military prison with a federal conviction sure is a "slap on the wrist". Not only does the court martial and federal conviction end their career, it also places them within a select group of ditch diggers, because that's about as high as they can go.
No matter how much 'you' are displeased with the situation as a issue, those that are involved in criminal acts will be punished.

I find it extremely annoying the media uses the word NATO to identify the accused for the artillery. Assuredly those in charge know exactly what gun, time of launch, grid coordinates, and more than likely who was the cord man!</font>

It's a bit complicated when the Taliban mingle with local villagers, it's not like you can recognize them or anything, since they dress exactly the same as said villagers, they are an army without uniforms, and cower behind their civilian fellow countrymen. I'm not so sure either if these so called plain civilians don't know about the presence of rebels among them, some may, and some may not. But if fire is commenced from a certain village, the military has no other option then answer with fire with fire.

Collataral damage.

They have the choice to either back off or respond with more measured force. You cannot fight an insurgency, rebellion or guerilla force with overwhelming force. If you do, the resulting civilian casualties will end up with the insurgency gaining more legitimacy, power and members that they lose.

The only way to fight it is to suck up the losses, go in with minimal force and infantry aso ften as possible.

You cannot fight a "safe" war like this and win it in the long term. Modern militaries will have to come to terms with this.

Collateral damage is only acceptable as an accident, not as "acceptable losses," for there is no such thing when it comes to civilian lives.

That's of course your opinion, it doesn't set the standards for how it's really done. In Afghanistan, nonthing is what it seems, that nice farmer down the road may suddenly pull an AK47 from under his rags, or that cute kid at the corner of the street may suddenly toss a grenade in your jeep. If you're willing to take the risk of losing half your squad by ignoring the so called innocent civilians, then your military career would ne a short and shamefull one.

So? I never said that insurgents do not hide among the civilians, I merely said that you cannot win this sort of thing in the long term unless you are willing to sacrifice military assets(And people.) for the sake of not hurting civilians.

In my opinion, a lot of our current insurgencies, terrorist groups and enemies of the West can be directly traced to the West's poor track record in this field. These people do not get the idea that the West is horrible from nowhere, these people get this idea because the West has considered the civilians of other countries to be worth less than their own safety and riches. Call that a logical reaction from the others or not, fact is that that IS how it works.

Blow Achmed the Farmer up today and his brother Muhammed has a dynamite vest strapped to his chest next month. Or not even that closely related, maybe Muhammed realizes that it's a tragic accident, but some impressionable teenager a few towns over hears about what Evil Imperialists the Americans are from third-hand rumours(Where it's not Farmer Achmed dead by accident, but an American raping Achmed and his five cows to death while flashing a V hand-signal at a nearby photographer), and decides to join whatever insurgent/fanatic group is hip that weekend.

The current tactics may very well win you a battle today, or save you five soldiers next week, but it means that you'll still be fighting the war in ten years, rather than it being over in two.

You see, this is where we part ideologies. War is an ugly thing, and it's all about death. The idea, as I've stated before, is to reduce the other side until they surrender. If this war were happening on US soil, and I was in a position to eliminate rebels, or standard troops, depending on which side I'm on, I would. That's just me, though. I suppose that the opposite of your opinion isn't true; that if enough civilians die as a result of insurgent actions, such as the incident in Baghdad the other day, that they'll tire of the insurgents, and take action that way. It's war, you shoot at me, I shoot back. It's not a game of chess at the local coffee shop, where one guy wipes the other, and both say good game. It's all about killing bad guys, and the bad guys are defined, by either side, as the other side. Therefore, a lot of reports can be viewed skeptically, because was the "civilian" who lost his family really a civilian, or an insurgent, looking to sow malcontent. Just another of the guerilla tactics that can be so effective.