Civilian casualties in any conflict may be inevitable, but that does not make them in any way acceptable. There has been a rising tide of protest in Afghanistan at the death of non-combatants in NATO strikes, just as there is a quiet fury in Pakistan's tribal border lands at the continuing civilian death toll from US drone strikes. It is hard, therefore, not to sympathize with the decision by Afghan president Hamid Karzai to ban his troops from calling in NATO weaponry when the Taliban targets are in civilian areas. NATO has accepted the presidential order, as have Afghan commanders who are taking on an ever greater role in the fight against the insurgents. However, it is easy to imagine that both NATO and Afghan top brass have acknowledged the presidential order through gritted teeth. The reason is obvious. Now that the insurgents know that civilian areas will not be targeted, they will very sensibly exploit the situation and seek as often as possible to locate themselves within the concentration of civilians in the certain knowledge that they will not be attacked. Karzai's response therefore has made it harder for his ground forces to do the job he has given them of defeating the insurgents. The logical consequence of his attempt to avoid more civilians deaths is that he will not even authorize a ground attack by Afghan soldiers on any civilian area which contains insurgents. Such an assault is sure to cause the deaths of innocent non-combatants. Indeed, given the normal ferocity of house-to-house fighting, in which the attacking troops tend to use heavy fire and grenades to suppress all likely opposition, the civilian death toll, not to mention the destruction, is likely to be higher than in a laser-targeted air strike. There is however a political difference. If innocent lives are lost in fighting between Afghans, that is less of an outrage than if those same lives are snuffed out by a bomb or missile fired by foreigners. With NATO's plans to abandon Afghanistan at some point next year already well advanced, Karzai is thinking of his own future within a conflict that will be far from ended when the foreign troops have gone. He will have reasoned that all NATO's technological might, its massive firepower and its so-called ability to deliver “surgical strikes” with minimal civilian deaths - or “collateral damage” as Washington likes to call such slaughter - have in fact not defeated the Taliban. If anything the insurgency has gained in strength, year by year. Karzai is no fool. Nor is he a truly populist politician. Had he cared about public opinion, he would long ago have tried to crack down on the massive corruption within his administration which causes widespread despair and cynicism among ordinary Afghans. Yet he claims that in imposing the NATO attack ban, he is bowing to popular pressure. Though undoubtedly he mourns all lives lost in this vicious conflict, Karzai must understand that by stopping his men from calling in air strikes, he is offering the insurgents an extensive number of safe havens. One day, perhaps sooner rather than later, those safe havens are going to reach into Kabul and the walls of the presidential compound. Unless this ban is part of some secret peace deal that he has cut with the Taliban, Karzai must realize that he is taking a considerable military risk.
