CIVIC: Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: AIRSTRIKES AND CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN

By Sarah Holewinski

To the Editor:

Lara M. Dadkhah, in “Empty Skies Over Afghanistan” (Op-Ed, Feb. 18), makes a dangerous argument. She calls for more allied airpower, saying that once a war has begun one should use “every advantage you have.”

She misses the point of counterinsurgency: protecting the civilian population is the military objective and the advantage. There are all too many case studies of the strategic costs of harming civilians — from the British in Malaya to the United States in Iraq. Anyone needing more evidence need only visit Afghan towns.

Tactical military advantage is always balanced against competing humanitarian and strategic objectives. Refrains like “wars are always ugly” or that civilian suffering is inevitable tell us nothing about what this balance should be.

Causing fewer civilian casualties is not “cold comfort” but an important marker of success. Ms. Dadkhah appears to miss the simple logic that what’s good for the village is good for the troops.

Sarah Holewinski

Washington, Feb. 18, 2010

The writer is executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict.