Nine boys were killed Wednesday in Afghanistan when a NATO helicopter mistakenly fired on them. The attack took place after a NATO military base in the area had been rocketed earlier in the day. General David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, apologized for the attack.
The military base that was the target of the rocket attack sits in a valley. The rockets were fired from one of the hills overlooking the valley. The location of insurgents who fired on the base was not known in any detail. According to the troops on the ground, the insurgents were simply up in the hills. All that the helicopters had to go on was what the troops on the ground had told them. After the helicopters arrived, they fired indirectly on the "assessed point of origin", i.e. where it was thought the rocket fire came from. Indirect fire means you cannot see what you are shooting at. The helicopters were not actually shooting at insurgents. They were shooting at an area where insurgents were suspected of hiding. Also, according to NATO officials, the helicopters were returning fire, yet nothing was said about the helicopters receiving fire. The troops on the ground may have been fired at, but the helicopters weren't. The helicopters were not returning fire, they were firing.
There probably were insurgents up there somewhere. But there were also nine boys up there collecting firewood. The military forces in the valley did not know that because they did not go up the hill to look for who had fired on them. They called in the helicopters. The helicopters did not know that there were nine boys down there collecting firewood because no one told them and they did not look. They launched rockets and fired machine guns at where insurgents were suspected to be lurking but they did not actually look to see if there were any insurgents. The helicopters just presumed that whoever fired the rockets was still loitering about and that there were no civilians near by.
So, nine boys are dead because NATO did not want to put soldiers at risk by sending them up a hill where the enemy might be hiding or send helicopters in too close where they might have been shot at. This does not seem the way an army should fight. An army, at least an army trying to win the hearts and minds of a population, should not put civilians at risk in order to protect soldiers. It should do just the opposite.
NATO might have spared itself a few casualties but in doing so it killed nine boys and fueled the animosity of Afghans already angered at growing civilian casualties. Perhaps the families of those nine boys will accept General Petraeus' apology. Perhaps everyone who has lost a family member, a limb, or a livelihood will accept an apology. It is worth a try. If that doesn't work, there is always money.
General Petraeus stated in his apology that the deaths never should have happened. He is right. They shouldn't have. If the soldiers had climbed the hill rather than wait for helicopters, chances are those children would still be alive. Asking soldiers to climb a hill and find the enemy is not asking too much of them. It is their job.
