[Peace-discuss] Fw: U.S. Must Protect Civilians in Marjah

[Jenifer Cartwright]

--- On Thu, 2/11/10, Just Foreign Policy <info at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:


From: Just Foreign Policy <info at justforeignpolicy.org>
Subject: U.S. Must Protect Civilians in Marjah
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 6:52 PM




 

Dear Jenifer,

Write to President Obama and Congress and urge them to protect civilians in Marjah ahead of the planned NATO strike.

The United States and NATO are poised to launch a major assault in the Marjah district in southern Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians are in imminent peril. 

Will you write to President Obama and Congress and demand that they act to protect civilians in Marjah, in compliance with the obligations of the United States under the laws of war? 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/marjah 

Few civilians have managed to escape the Afghan town of Marjah ahead of a planned US/NATO assault, raising the risk of civilian casualties, McClatchy News reports. [1]"If [NATO forces] don't avoid large scale civilian casualties, given the rhetoric about protecting the population, then no matter how many Taliban are routed, the Marjah mission should be considered a failure," said an analyst with the International Crisis Group. 

Under the laws of war, the US and NATO - who have told civilians not to flee - bear an extra responsibility to control their fire and avoid tactics that endanger civilians, Human Rights Watch notes. "I suspect that they believe they have the ability to generally distinguish between combatants and civilians," said Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch. "I would call that into question, given their long history of mistakes, particularly when using air power. Whatever they do, they have an obligation to protect civilians and make adequate provision to alleviate any crisis that arises," he said. "It is very much their responsibility." [2] 

Indeed, a report in the Wall Street Journal casts fresh doubt on the ability - and even on the interest - of U.S. forces to distinguish combatants from civilians. "Across southern Afghanistan, including the Marjah district where coalition forces are massing for a large offensive, the line between peaceful villager and enemy fighter is often blurred," the Journal says. The commander of the U.S. unit responsible for Pashmul estimates that about 95% of the locals are Taliban or aid the militants. Among front-line troops, "frustration is boiling over" over more restrictive rules of engagement than in Iraq, the Journal says - a dangerous harbinger of potential war crimes when the U.S. is about to engage in a major assault in an area densely populated with civilians. [3] 

If the U.S. assault in Marjah results in large scale civilian casualties, the U.S. will have committed a major war crime. Please join us in demanding that the U.S. comply with its obligations under international law to protect civilians in Marjah. 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/marjah

Thank you for all you do to help bring about a just foreign policy, 

Robert Naiman, Sarah Burns, Megan Iorio and Chelsea Mozen
Just Foreign Policy 

Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html

References: 

1. "As Afghan Assault Looms, Many Civilians Haven't Fled," Saeed Shah, McClatchy Newspapers, February 10, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/afghanistan-pakistan/story/84126.html
2. "NATO to Afghan Assault Villagers: Keep Heads Down," Peter Graff, Reuters, February 9
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6181IP20100209 
3. "New Battles Test U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan," Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057630668291288.html



© 2009 Just Foreign Policy
Click here to unsubscribe


      
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100213/e9eb4fda/attachment.html>