×
Back in July, Gen. Stanley McChrystal mandated a switch to a population-centric counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. In practice, this means that unmanned drone attacks have all but ceased in Afghanistan and ground troops are no longer protected by air cover. As a result, unintended civilian casualties have dropped by 87 percent while U.S. military casualties have more than doubled. In Wired, Noah Shachtman describes the often dangerous effects these new rules of engagement for troops have on the ground. But, Shachtman explains, McChrystal has his reasons for the strategy:
The US needed to rob the militants of popular support, he argued. Dropping bombs only disrupted lives and drove people into the arms of the Taliban. So civilian casualties from air strikes had to stop — immediately.Just as we appear to have learned one lesson -- that civilian casualties, particularly perpetrated by airborne robots -- make us no friends on the ground, we seem to find ourselves employing an identical strategy in neighboring Pakistan. As Shachtman puts it, in the "Pakistan air war next door" there are "more drone strikes and fewer troops to get caught in the cross-fire." Now I'm not advocating bringing ground troops onto Pakistani soil. But if the main reasons for civilian animosity toward U.S. forces are the civilian casualties and "collateral damage," do we not run the risk of creating similar hatred and mistrust in Pakistan, thereby making us and the region less safe in the long run?--Laura Dean
