More than 70 people are said to have died. The toll from the bombing of hijacked fuel tankers comes at a tenuous time. Afghanistan and the Western alliance are investigating.

By M. Karim Faiez and Laura King

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Istanbul, Turkey, September 5, 2009 – In an incident that could seriously undermine the central aim set forth by the new American commander in Afghanistan, dozens of Afghan civilians were killed and injured early Friday in an airstrike by NATO-led forces on a pair of hijacked fuel tankers, according to Afghan authorities.

The predawn strike in a remote part of northern Kunduz province, near the border with Tajikistan, killed more than 70 people, most of them civilians, according to Afghan police, provincial officials and doctors. Dozens of villagers suffered serious burns in the massive fireball ignited when the tankers were hit, they said.

NATO is investigating the incident, which comes at a time of deepening political turmoil in Afghanistan. Tensions have been running high as votes are being tallied in the country's disputed presidential election.

Only days earlier, Western military officials had touted figures showing a dramatic dropoff in civilian casualties inadvertently caused by Western troops, crediting strict new rules of engagement for declines in deaths during July and August.

Upon assuming command of American and Western forces in Afghanistan in mid-June, U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal had declared the safeguarding of civilian lives his top priority, because such casualties, perhaps more than any other single factor, erode support among Afghans for the presence of foreign forces.

In the initial hours after Friday's strike, Western military officials expressed confidence that nearly all those killed had been insurgents. But in subsequent hours, reports trickling in from the scene painted a grim picture of impoverished villagers engulfed by the explosion as they swarmed the stranded tankers, trying to siphon fuel.

The incident could fray already strained ties among NATO allies, further complicating the troubled war effort. The strike was called in by German troops, who make up the bulk of Western forces deployed in Kunduz, and involvement in such a controversial act could depress already flagging domestic support in Germany for the Afghan mission.

Not long ago, Kunduz was considered a relatively quiet corner of the country, rendering it a logical base for German forces, who operate under strict "caveats" limiting their engagement in active combat. But insurgents in recent months have made increasingly bold forays into the area. A Western military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the airstrike, said the destruction of the hijacked tankers was considered a matter of urgency because it was feared that they could be used to launch suicide strikes on a German base close by.

The hijack drama began Thursday night when suspected Taliban militants commandeered the two tanker trucks as they traveled along a main road. In recent months, NATO has been sending supplies into Afghanistan via Tajikistan, to the north, after Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal areas repeatedly attacked what had been the most widely used supply route, running through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan.

After the hijacking, the trucks were tracked via aerial surveillance to a spot near the village of Omar Khel, where they became stuck when the hijackers tried to drive them across a riverbed. Western military officials said they believed there were no civilians in the area, a crucial precondition for airstrikes under a new tactical directive issued by McChrystal soon after he took command.

But as is almost always the case, there was a time lag of more than half an hour between when the decision to call in a strike was made and it was carried out, according to military officials. That might have given more villagers time to arrive as word spread that there was fuel for the taking.

Some Afghan officials said the Taliban actively encouraged local people to take advantage of the bonanza on their doorstep, alerting villagers in the middle of the night to the stranded trucks' presence.

The initial casualty tally was provided by local officials, including pro-Western provincial Gov. Mohammed Omar, who said many of the 70-plus dead were civilians. That number, which has fluctuated during the day, could further change as investigation continues. Because of the remoteness of the area and confusion over the fact that the attack took place in darkness, there was likely to be confusion about how many people were present, how many hurt and where the injured wound up.

The handling of the incident's aftermath will be a test for McChrystal's handpicked inner circle. In the past, denials and a slow pace of investigation by U.S. and other Western forces in the face of large-scale civilian casualties have further inflamed anti-coalition sentiment.

It is not uncommon for such incidents to end with wide disagreement between Afghan and Western officials about the scope and nature of civilian casualties, engendering bitterness among local citizens. In one of the most contentious such cases, Afghan officials said about 140 civilians were killed in airstrikes in May outside the western village of Garani; the U.S. military acknowledged a far smaller number of deaths and said most were insurgents.

Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay, the chief spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said Friday's strike was "clearly directed at the insurgents" and said the alliance was "deeply concerned for the suffering that this action may have caused to our Afghan friends."

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the hijacking and blamed Western forces for the civilian deaths. News agencies quoted spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid as saying the trucks were a fair target for hijacking because they were supplying Western troops.

In Kabul, the U.N. mission in Afghanistan issued a statement expressing concerns over the reports of civilian deaths and injuries. The U.S. Embassy offered condolences to those killed and injured while stressing that it awaited the results of a joint investigation with Afghan authorities.

President Hamid Karzai, who is locked in a tough re-election fight with challenger Abdullah Abdullah, dispatched investigators to the scene and declared that targeting civilians "under no circumstances is acceptable." Karzai for months had been highly critical of Western battlefield practices that he said led to far too many Afghan civilian deaths. That, together with problems like drug-fueled corruption in his government, have contributed to a cooling in his once-warm relations with the West.

Rival Abdullah has accused Karzai of widespread and systematic vote-rigging. Many observers fear an explosion of violence if the vote tally, expected within days, puts the Afghan leader above the 50% mark, which he would need to win the Aug. 20 vote. With about 60% of the ballots counted, Karzai had about 47% of the vote.

The past two months have been the most lethal interlude of the 8-year-old conflict for Western troops. On Friday, a French soldier was killed and nine others were injured in an explosion near Bagram air base, outside Kabul. American and British forces also have been suffering heavy casualties, particularly in Afghanistan's south.

laura.king@latimes.com
Faiez is a special correspondent.

Source: The Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2009

Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search