| |
Awkward questions over civilian
deaths
By Sergei Danilochkin
PRAGUE - Ongoing violence in Iraq is continuing
to take its toll on Iraqi civilians, as well as US-led
coalition troops.
A total of 357 US and British
soldiers have been killed in both combat and non-combat
action since the beginning of the war to depose Saddam
Hussein in March. Some 2,300 Iraqi fighters are
estimated to have been killed in and around Baghdad.
But some observers estimate that more than 9,000
Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led
campaign - a campaign based in part on sophisticated
precision weaponry meant to minimize needless
casualties. And civilian casualties have continued to
mount as sporadic fighting and guerrilla attacks replace
the more traditional warfare of the campaign's early
weeks.
A US military spokeswoman, Lieutenant
Kate Noble, said that US troops have been carefully
trained in dealing with the civilian population in order
to avoid unnecessary casualties. "We operate at all
times within the laws of armed conflict and we do not
directly and deliberately target civilian
infrastructure," she said. "Any planning for any
operations takes into account the need to minimize
civilian casualties. Every one of our troops [was fully]
aware of the rules of engagement. Civilian casualties,
unfortunately, will occur in a situation of
high-intensity and low-intensity conflicts. While we do
everything that we can to minimize those, the fact of
nature is that they will occur."
Coalition
forces are not tracking civilian casualty figures in
Iraq. They say that it is too difficult to keep such
information accurate and up-to-date. Critics accuse the
coalition of attempting to minimize bad publicity in an
already extended and difficult war. They also say that
civilian death counts could ultimately help the military
to improve troop conduct and reduce future casualties.
But Noble said that the coalition does
investigate civilian deaths when events warrant and is
attempting to work more closely with Iraqi authorities.
"We conduct investigations very frequently and very
thoroughly," she said. "We take any allegations of
errors very seriously. And any reports that do come in,
we investigate them fully and often times they would be
released to the public when requested."
Humanitarian activists, however, say that they
are not satisfied by such efforts. They say that the
coalition still regards civilian casualties as
inevitable collateral damage.
Hamit Dardagan is
a researcher with Iraq Body Count, an Internet project
attempting to track Iraq's civilian casualties.
Dardagan's group has used Western press reports to tally
Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of military
operations - a number that Iraq Body Count now puts at
between 7,352 and 9,152. Deaths are only recorded once
they have been confirmed by two separate news sources.
Dardagan said that the coalition's decision not
to track civilian casualties is meant to spare it
political discomfort as sporadic fighting continues
unabated. "It's an embarrassment to [the coalition
governments and military command], and it's, of course,
the kind of information that is unhelpful to the
rhetoric of politicians about humanitarian intervention
and about liberating Iraq and making the country better
for Iraqis," he said. "I think that probably it's just
uncomfortable information, something they'd rather not
talk about."
Occupation opponents are
questioning the tactics and weapons used by coalition
troops in the restive country. Dardagan said combat
units are trained to use overwhelming firepower to
suppress the enemy - a strategy that can prove efficient
on a battlefield but dangerous in cases of urban warfare
or guerrilla attacks. "It's all [the coalition] was
talking about [at the beginning of the war] - precision
weapons. But if you are having a ground war situation,
then it's not much different from World War II," he
said. "You have armored vehicles, you have tanks, and
you have heavy-caliber machine-gun fire. So these are
pretty much not precision weapons in this sense at all."
Military experts say that guerrilla attacks on
coalition convoys and patrols have left troops tense and
prone to responding hastily and sometimes too
aggressively. Marcus Corbin, an analyst at the Center
for Defense Information in Washington, told RFE/RL that
rules of engagement are meant to limit soldiers'
response options. But he said such guidelines do not
apply in all situations.
"I think that some
level of casualties is inevitable in a situation where
you have numerous daily attacks on the US soldiers. They
are going to be pretty jumpy and are going to be
shooting quickly. There are rules of engagement. And
they may vary by unit, by area and so on. But in a
life-or-death situation it is often difficult to make a
slow and clear decision about returning fire," Corbin
said.
Analysts say that the current use of
combat troops for routine patrols is far from ideal,
because different skills and training are required. Many
suggest that using Iraqi police or other authorities
would go a long way toward scaling back random violence
by smoothing interaction with local populations.
Corbin said that reducing the number of firearms
possessed by the Iraqi population would also improve the
security situation and help troops feel less at risk. He
also said that the coalition should be certain of its
intelligence information before launching air strikes on
guerrilla bases and other targets. Last but not least,
he suggested that it may be time for the US military to
change the way it works.
"The US military needs
to greatly improve its training for peacekeeping
situations or occupation situations, as opposed to the
heavy combat which it is so good at," Corbin said. "I
think there does need to be an improvement in the rules
of engagement or the broader strategy of US troops in
Iraq. Because the bottom line is, if we keep killing
innocent civilians, even when firing at legitimate
targets, we are going to lose the hearts and minds of
the people in Iraq."
Copyright (c) 2002,
RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut
Ave NW, Washington DC 20036
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
