As part of the renewed effort to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan, NATO commanders are reportedly considering ways to award coalition forces for not killing Afghans. While not disclosing whether the plan would entail a new kind of medal or military honour, high-ranking officials said they are exploring ways to recognise soldiers who exhibit “courageous restraint” while operating in combat conditions.
News of the novel idea comes shortly after several recent deadly encounters between US troops and locals, including an incident in which soldiers fired at a civilian bus near Kandahar City, killing four people and wounding more than a dozen. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US military commander in Afghanistan, issued strict guidelines last year limiting the use of force in an effort to reduce civilian casualties and curb Afghan public anger. However, avoiding civilian casualties during NATO’s planned offensive in the Taliban's spiritual heartland of Kandahar province later this summer will be a major challenge.
The idea of using awards as another way to encourage soldiers to avoid civilian casualties came from a team that advises NATO on counterinsurgency (known as COIN) doctrine. In a statement recently posted on the ISAF website, the Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team said: "We routinely and systematically recognize valor, courage and effectiveness during kinetic combat operations. Afghan and coalition forces alike understand that most medals and formal recognition currently come from effective actions during fierce combat. In a COIN campaign, however, it is critical to also recognize that sometimes the most effective bullet is the bullet not fired…. There should be an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the troops who exhibit extraordinary courage and self-control by not using their weapons, but instead taking personal risk to de-escalate tense and potentially disastrous situations".
John Sloboda, Programme Director of the ‘Recording Casualties in Armed Conflict’ project at the UK-based Oxford Research Group called it an “interesting” development, while identifying a number of caveats: “I guess it would work if (a) the citations were detailed enough that other members of the armed forces could learn from these instances of courageous restraint how to change behaviour in specific situations, and (b) there were sufficiently robust and transparent metrics in place to demonstrate (not only to NATO's satisfaction) but to the satisfaction of the Afghan people, that deaths caused by NATO were down as a result”.
The percentage of civilian deaths attributed to NATO and Afghan forces did begin to fall as a result of McChrystal’s directive last June, although civilian casualtiesare reportedly rising again as the conflict with the Taliban intensifies.
Sloboda also considered that the very country-specific operational practices of individual coalition members might hinder an Alliance-wide application of the idea. “If this were to have any real effect, it would need to be agreed by both the British and the Americans. If just the Brits did it but the Americans didn't, then forget it!”, he said. The concept also drew fire from more traditional sources that argued it would cause soldiers to second-guess their training and to hesitate in the face of confrontation.