The Complex Reality Of Airstrikes In Afghanistan: Strategies, Challenges, And Civilian Impact

Airstrikes in Afghanistan have been carried out by the US government, the Afghan Air Force (AAF), and the Pakistani military. Since 2001, the US has conducted at least 13,074 airstrikes, resulting in the deaths of at least 4,138 people, including civilians and children. The AAF has also carried out strikes, with at least 41 strike-capable operations since June 2016. In April 2022, Pakistani airstrikes in Khost and Kunar provinces killed at least 47 civilians and injured 23 others.

The effectiveness of airstrikes in Afghanistan is a highly debated topic. While some argue that they help to destroy enemy equipment and boost the morale of Afghan security forces, others highlight the high number of civilian casualties and the limited long-term impact on the Taliban's strength. The use of airstrikes in Afghanistan has faced criticism from human rights organisations and the international community due to the significant loss of civilian lives and the destruction caused.

The impact of airstrikes in Afghanistan is complex and multifaceted, with both strategic and humanitarian consequences. While they may provide temporary tactical advantages, the high civilian death toll and the destruction of infrastructure have led to widespread condemnation and concerns about their effectiveness in achieving long-term stability in the country.

The effectiveness of airstrikes in Afghanistan

Since 2001, the United States government has conducted at least 13,074 airstrikes in Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of at least 4,138 people, including 310 civilians and 73 children. These airstrikes have not only caused direct casualties but also had indirect consequences, such as the destruction of civilian infrastructure like bridges, roads, and communication systems. Additionally, the use of burn pits by US soldiers in Helmand province has led to environmental damage and toxic smoke exposure for the local population.

The effectiveness of airstrikes is further questioned when considering the resurgence of the Taliban and their eventual takeover of Kabul in 2021. Despite the US and Afghan Air Force's efforts to target and eliminate Taliban fighters, the group continued to gain territory and consolidate their power. This suggests that airstrikes alone may not be sufficient to defeat an insurgent group like the Taliban, which has strong local support and can adapt its tactics to avoid airstrikes.

Furthermore, airstrikes have had limited success in preventing the Taliban from capturing key cities and provinces. In the lead-up to the US withdrawal, the White House authorized additional bombing campaigns to buy time for Afghan security forces to defend major cities under siege by the Taliban. However, these airstrikes could not prevent the fall of Kandahar and other important provincial capitals to the Taliban.

While airstrikes may have provided temporary tactical advantages or slowed the Taliban's advance, they do not appear to have significantly altered the overall trajectory of the conflict. The Taliban's ability to adapt, their knowledge of the local terrain, and their support among the population likely contributed to their resilience in the face of airstrikes.

In conclusion, while airstrikes in Afghanistan may have achieved some short-term military objectives, their effectiveness in achieving long-term strategic goals is less clear. The high civilian death toll and the limited success in preventing the Taliban's resurgence raise questions about the overall effectiveness of airstrikes as a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Civilian casualties of airstrikes

Airstrikes in Afghanistan have led to a significant number of civilian casualties, including children. Between 2016 and 2020, there were 3,977 civilian casualties from airstrikes, with 2,122 civilians killed and 1,855 injured. Of these, 1,598 were children, with 785 killed and 813 injured. The majority of these casualties were caused by international forces.

The number of civilian casualties from airstrikes increased dramatically after the US military relaxed its rules of engagement in 2017. From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data under the Trump administration, the number of civilians killed by US-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330%. This change in policy also led to a decrease in investigations into allegations of civilian casualties, with the number of in-depth investigations by the US military halving between 2018 and 2019.

The harm caused by airstrikes extends beyond immediate casualties. Airstrikes have destroyed civilian property, forced civilians to flee their homes, and added to the internally displaced population in Afghanistan. They have also caused significant political fallout, fuelling anti-government sentiment and providing propaganda for the Taliban.

To reduce civilian casualties, Human Rights Watch has urged the US and NATO to adopt several measures, including improving planning, intelligence, targeting, and identification of civilian populations; ensuring air attacks comply with obligations to minimise harm to civilians; and providing timely and adequate compensation to victims of airstrikes.

The legality of drone attacks

The legality of drone strikes centres around the interpretation of international laws and treaties, such as the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. According to the UN Charter, the use of military force against another country is only permitted when acting in self-defence under Article 51. However, the International Court of Justice has clarified that Article 51 cannot be invoked against attacks by non-state actors that are not attributable to another country.

Additionally, the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law emphasise the importance of distinguishing between combatants and civilians, prohibiting the targeting of civilians, and ensuring proportionality in attacks. The legality of drone strikes is further complicated by the involvement of the CIA, which, unlike the military, is not bound by the same requirements and doctrine of international humanitarian law.

The Obama administration's Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) attempted to address some of these concerns by setting stricter standards for drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities. However, the applicability and operation of the PPG have been a subject of debate, with critics arguing that it does not provide a clear legal framework for drone strikes.

The use of drones in counter-terrorism campaigns has been a controversial topic, with rights groups and civil liberties advocates expressing concerns about the legal basis, transparency, and high civilian casualties associated with such actions. While supporters argue that drones can engage in more precise and discriminatory attacks than traditional weapons, critics counter that the use of drones amounts to a boundless forever-war, with the potential for abuse and a lack of accountability.

The environmental impact of airstrikes

Airstrikes have devastating impacts on the environment, as they contaminate the air and soil, causing long-lasting harm to nature and people. The use of explosive weapons by armed drones produces pollutants that pose risks to human health, and the toxic substances released during airstrikes can have severe short-term and long-term effects on both people and wildlife.

Oil installations have been a priority target for airstrikes to limit the funding of the Islamic State. Oil fires release harmful substances such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead. These substances can spread over large areas, depositing in soils and groundwater, and causing severe health issues, including respiratory disorders, liver and kidney problems, and cancer. The release of dangerous substances from damaged oil storage sites and processing facilities further exacerbates the environmental and health risks.

The breakdown of environmental services in conflict zones exacerbates the problem. Countries experiencing civil war often lack basic services such as waste removal, leading to the accumulation of heavy metals and toxic substances in the environment. The contamination from weapons residues, including heavy metals and explosives, poses additional health hazards to the population.

The use of illegal weapons, such as depleted uranium, by the US and UK in Kosovo and the Gulf War, has raised concerns about the long-term health and environmental consequences. The World Health Organization acknowledges the chemical and radiological toxicity of depleted uranium, highlighting the risks of lung cancer and kidney damage at higher doses. The discussion around the environmental impact of airstrikes is often overshadowed by the focus on the humanitarian toll, but it is crucial to address both aspects to comprehend the full scope of the devastation caused by warfare.

The impact of airstrikes on the ground forces of each side

Airstrikes have had a significant impact on the ground forces of both sides in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Impact on the Taliban

Airstrikes have been used to target Taliban fighters, commanders, and equipment, and to destroy Taliban bases and supply lines. The US-led coalition has also imposed sanctions and attempted to cut off the Taliban's funding channels, including by targeting oil fields and refineries, and blocking smuggling routes. These actions have disrupted the Taliban's economy and reduced their oil production levels.

Impact on Afghan National Army and NATO forces

Airstrikes have been used to provide close air support to Afghan National Army and NATO forces, helping to destroy enemy targets and boost morale. However, airstrikes have also resulted in civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, which has strained resources and caused displacement. Additionally, hospitals and healthcare facilities have been targeted during the conflict, further impacting the ability to provide medical care to those affected by the fighting.

Impact on Civilians

Airstrikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties, including women and children, and have destroyed civilian infrastructure, homes, and livelihoods. The impact of these losses has been exacerbated by the lack of access to healthcare and other essential services due to the ongoing conflict and economic crisis.

The use of airstrikes by both sides in the conflict has had a profound impact on the ground forces and civilians in Afghanistan, shaping the course of the conflict and the lives of those involved.

Frequently asked questions