Careless. Reckless. Irresponsible. No doubt, the Air Force would reject such a characterization of the latest massacre of people in Afghanistan--and has. The "complete" report on the incident at Shindand has been issued. Never mind that any agency investigating itself is an invitation for a cover-up or, at best, an occasion to plead ignorance.

The massacre was first report as located in Azizabad, a village in Shindand district in Herat province in Western Afghanistan--i.e. not next to the badlands of Pakistan, where the really bad guys are supposedly hiding.

Before we consider the particulars, let's remind ourselves that weapons, that were designed to "kill" tanks and other military hardware and installations, being used to go after individual people and small groups, which caused outrage during the Vietnam invasion, has now become an accepted routine.

Anyway, the BBC coverage of the incident at Shindand seems fair. It covers what was known on the ground as of August 27, five days after the event.

It was the early hours of Friday morning when US and Afghan troops moved in to Azizabad, a village in western Afghanistan close to the Iranian border.

Their target was described as a "key Taleban leader" and after receiving intelligence reports of his whereabouts, the troops attacked.

What happened next in the Shindand district of Herat province has driven a wedge between President Hamid Karzai and American forces, between the United Nations and Nato, and has threatened to change the way international troops do business in Afghanistan.

There are two interpretations of what happened that night and as yet no indisputable evidence either way.

I'm going to go into the "official" assessment by the "Coalition forces" as put out by the US Air Force in some detail, but the thumbnail description from the reporter is revealing,

But the other interpretation is that up to 90 civilians died - more than half of them children - after false intelligence was deliberately given by a rival tribe and a funeral wake was bombed killing many innocent people.

mainly because it suggests that we still haven't learned the basic lesson of Vietnam that, if you allow yourself to be suckered by the local population, you've already lost the hearts and minds of the people you want to rule.

Coalition forces complete Shindand investigation

from Combined Joint Task Force-101

9/2/2008 - BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan -- A Coalition forces' investigation into allegations of civilian deaths resulting from an Afghan National Army and U.S. Coalition forces incident in western Afghanistan on the morning of Aug. 22 is complete.

The investigation found that ANA and U.S. forces began taking fire from Taliban militants as the combined force approached their objective during a planned offensive operation, in the early hours of darkness on August 22nd in Azizabad, Herat province.

What this tells us is that troops set out, in the dark, in an unfamiliar country intending to attack, while people were supposed to be sleeping, but not everyone was and somebody took defensive action. "taking fire" is a matter of perspective. That it was a "planned offensive," rather than a random act or a defensive action, is, I guess, supposed to make it OK. After all, intent is what counts; not what you actually do. That's the paradigm favored by the faith-based.

The intensity of the enemy fire justified use of well-aimed small-arms fire and close-air support to defend the combined force. The type and application of fires were used in accordance with existing rules of engagement.

Right, blame the victim, whom you're planning to attack, for fighting back. Never mind that neither "well-aimed" shots nor low-flying aircraft can be sure that they hit where they're aiming, especially when they can't see what they're doing. And who, pray tell, devised the rules that permit attacking people presumably sleeping in their beds?

The investigation found that 30-35 Taliban militants were killed including evidence suggesting a known Taliban commander, Mullah Sadiq, was among them. In addition, five to seven civilians were killed, two civilians were injured and subsequently treated by Coalition forces, and five Taliban were detained.

If we disregard the fact that the first sentence is totally ungrammatical (a sure sign that somebody's either ignorant or dissembling), finding "evidence suggesting" through a disembodied process (investigation) is evidence of nothing. But, the important question that's never asked is how do you distinguish people who consider themselves religious (Taliban) from run of the mill civilians. How do you identify insurgents? Do people who don't like being ordered about by people who don't speak their language sprout horns?

The range in the casualty numbers were determined by observation of the enemy movements during the engagement as well as on-site observations immediately following the engagement.

The "range ... were determined"? Let's remember that this "engagement" occurred in the dark. At least, this time it wasn't a wedding party that was wiped out.

In addition, investigators discovered firm evidence that the militants planned to attack a nearby Coalition forces' base. Other evidence collected included weapons, explosives, intelligence materials, and an access badge to a nearby base as well as photographs from inside and outside of the base.

Well, that's better. "Investigators," who are unnamed but, presumably, part of the attacking forces, found "firm evidence" of a "planned" attack. So, the action is equalized on the basis of intent and the Americans got there first. Hurray for us.

The engagement disrupted any planned attack.

This statement, which, I guess, is supposed to be a justification, describes a logical impossibility. Something that hasn't begun can't be disrupted. Not to mention that "any" is both too indefinite and too broad. Any self-respecting Afghans would surely plan more attacks to retaliate, especially if they hadn't planned to begin with.

Of course, the air-power summaries issued by the Air Force on a regular basis routinely assert, month after month and year after year that militants or insurgents or extremists or terrorists or Taliban have been deterred. And yet the killing goes on. Which makes sense. After all, to deter simply means to delay and fail and set the stage for fighting another day. What will our warfighters do when there's no war?

Here's another question. How was this possible?

Local government officials, Afghan National Security Forces and Coalition forces were denied entry into the village the day following the event.

Who denied entry during daylight hours? Does this statement tell us that all the information was collected in the dark and from black and white video recordings of the aerial attack?

No other evidence that may have been collected by other organizations was provided to the U.S. Investigating Officer and therefore could not be considered in the findings.

Beware of people who use the passive voice. It obscures who's actually doing what to whom. In this case, it tells us that the investigator doesn't know what s/he's reporting about and would probably rather not know. Who can blame him/her? What can one person do when the policy is to go after people with missiles designed to stop tanks because there are no tanks?

The investigating officer conducted the investigation using methods prescribed by U.S. Army Regulation 15-6, Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers.

JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS, SIR.