Controversial missive!
Looking at the Taliban's official statements and material that is publicly available, I personally have not been able to identify any official statement confirming their deliberate targeting of civilians. Caveats below 👇
@JJSchroden
Looking at the Taliban's official statements and material that is publicly available, I personally have not been able to identify any official statement confirming their deliberate targeting of civilians. Caveats below 👇
@JJSchroden
In the initial years, the Taliban appeared to be very indiscriminate in their targeting. There primary concerned appeared to be sowing instability regardless of cost. However, over the years, we notice a clear attempt to control CIVCAS or perceptions there of.
In the Layha, TB officially forbade indiscriminate killings. This was followed by the setting up of Civilian Casualties Commission and it appears TB hold regular meetings with @ICRC_af to discuss minimising CIVCAS.
We also witness vociferous statements by TB protesting the CIVCAS reports published by #UNAMA and TB has on several occasions proposed joint working groups to ascertain wrongdoing and attribute blame for CIVCAS.
The obvious exception to this policy is the targeting of government officials and foreign nationals who are regularly targeted by TB and TB almost appears to take pride in this targeting.
From TB POV, anyone that works for the government is a legitimate target and can be killed for that simple reason.
Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) unless government officials are classified as combatants, they cannot be killed and are considered civilians.
Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) unless government officials are classified as combatants, they cannot be killed and are considered civilians.
However, one can also argue whether TB officials that don't take direct action in combat can be classified as civilians or not.
See for example 👇
See for example 👇
Now, understandably, the U.S. has not taken this approach.
Instead adopting a very wide interpretation of who can be considered a legitimate military target. More details on their approach below.
Are all “members” of ISIL targetable? justsecurity.org/30508/members-…
Instead adopting a very wide interpretation of who can be considered a legitimate military target. More details on their approach below.
Are all “members” of ISIL targetable? justsecurity.org/30508/members-…
Worth pointing out that most legal scholars, the @ICRC and @UNHumanRights all disagree with the U.S. approach on how they classify legitimate military targets.
As the following excerpts clearly state, members of an armed group cannot be considered combatants solely based on their engagement in activities that support the general war effort of the armed group.
Therefore, I would argue, that emotions and rhetoric aside, their seems to be little difference in how U.S. differentiates between combatants/civilians versus how the Taliban do so.
Granted, that the TB seem to allow a much greater leeway when it comes to collateral damage and their threshold is far higher than that of the U.S.
For example, given the fact that TB fighters are on the ground and can more clearly ascertain civilian damage, they still continue to target military/government targets where civilians suffer far greater harm than the intended target. This is particularly the case n urban attacks
Also, one can argue that given that U.S. makes decisions primarily from aerial footage, there is more margin for error and misreading a situation.
HOWEVER, I would argue that since 2014, we have seen a deliberate escalation on both U.S. & #ANDSF behalf.
HOWEVER, I would argue that since 2014, we have seen a deliberate escalation on both U.S. & #ANDSF behalf.
Since 2014, increasingly reports suggest that ANDSF forces will deliberately & indiscriminately target a location from where TB fighters might launch an attack.
Rather than attempting to identify the fighter, ANDSF forces tend to fire mortar rounds in that general direction
Rather than attempting to identify the fighter, ANDSF forces tend to fire mortar rounds in that general direction
There is also a growing tendency to consider any rural centre/village as enemy territory and a legitimate target simply based on fact that TB controls area and therefore must be supported by local populace.
Point well illustrated by this example
Point well illustrated by this example
There is also a growing trend where ANDSF &/or U.S. treats any civilians (I.e. villagers) as Taliban because they either support or tolerate TB presence in their localities. People that provide TB with food or shelter involuntarily are then targeted and killed for that act.
While, I would argue that this trend was started by ANDSF, increasingly we are beginning to see U.S. targeting and applying those same standards when it comes to such individuals.
Here is one example
Here is one example
The whole point of this ramble was to refute the claim that one side deliberately targets civilians.
The truth is that both sides are continuously targeting supporters of the other side regardless of their status under IHL.
The truth is that both sides are continuously targeting supporters of the other side regardless of their status under IHL.
While generally, the U.S. has had a better track record of avoiding CIVCAS, it does not mean we give them a free pass if they start targeting more civilians.
It is important that we continue to call out all sides for these grave violations.
It is important that we continue to call out all sides for these grave violations.
It seems that such collective actions has had an incremental effect in curtailing TB behaviour, it is therefore crucial to continue similar actions in the hope that it forestalls escalation by other parties. 🤞
