Amidst the crisis in Afghanistan, a single civilian death can create scores of sworn foes. NATO and U.S. forces are often accused of firing upon Afghan citizens in the fear of a possible attack by them. Though officials say the shootings are performed in self-defense, they often injure or claim the lives of innocents. Civilian casualties resulting from Coalition bombings and shootings feeds resentment of the government and its allies and even bolsters support for the Taliban. With a resurgent Taliban, the presence of a disenchanted and alienated civilian populace will serve only to thwart the Coalition's objectives (defeating anti-Western and securing peace and order); all efforts to secure a lasting peace will prove futile if the native populace decides to turn on the 'occupying' forces and abet the Taliban. As such, the contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens may well hinge on the competing sides' collateral damage statistics.

According to Human Rights Watch estimates, more than 100 Afghan civilians have died because of Coalition assaults/strikes in 2006. Last year, in December, British troops speeding away from a suicide bomb attack in Kandahar city opened fire on cars, killing one civilian and wounding six others. In the latest incident on 4 March 2007, U.S. Marines fleeing a suicide bomber and militant ambush opened fire on civilian cars and pedestrians on a busy highway in eastern Afghanistan. The gunfire from Americans prompted angry demonstrations; hundreds of Afghans blocked the road and threw rocks at police and US soldiers, with some demonstrators shouting "Death to America! Death to Karzai!" Hours later, amidst an ongoing battle between US forces and militants in the district of Kapisa, nine civilians (mostly women and children) died after a NATO air strike hit a house.

The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies posits that ensuing collateral damage has created ten enemies out of one and has disillusioned most Afghans. Abdullah Shah, an Afghani citizen, who lost five children to a wayward NATO bomb, exemplifies the stakes involved; following his personal loss, he remarked: "I wasn't with the Taliban and I wasn't with the government. But, I tell you, now I am Talib." Such reaction is most disturbing given the ill will harboured towards foreign forces and worse, the possibility of a distressed/afflicted civilian becoming a potential attacker. Another victim, Mohammed Khan, whose house was bombed during Operation Medusa (2006), screamed expletives at an approaching Westerner shouting, "We hate the world community. We hate America. We hate NATO. What good are they doing for us? What good is our government doing?" Such grievances are causing locals to turn their backs on the Karzai government, and engender mistrust and anger against the international community.

International troops in Afghanistan are there to support Karzai's government. When they do so aggressively (and errantly), even in response to deadly Taliban tactics, they are viewed as brutes protecting an inept and unpopular regime. Officials, however, maintain that while civilian casualties are far from intentional, Coalition troops are forced to engage insurgents (especially potential suicide bombers) who use civilian cover. During such instances, the likelihood of troops firing upon innocent bystanders increases because of their inability to distinguish between militants and civilians. One Afghan citizen opined, "When a suicide bomber blows himself up, the soldiers become crazy and they fire at the crowd, killing innocent people." While such an observation is crude, it highlights the advantages of using guerilla tactics against an ‘enemy’ whose influence insurgents want to staunch – the Taliban’s strategic advantage lies in their ability to sow confusion and draw Western forces into attacks that cause civilian deaths.

It is little wonder therefore that President Karzai is anxious of Coalition recklessness, lamenting the deaths of civilians. He has repeatedly pleaded with Western troops to avoid civilian casualties when engaging Taliban and other anti-government elements. Brigadier General Tim Grant, the Canadian commander in Afghanistan, is of the opinion that Afghan civilians are concerned about personal security and the rampant lawlessness plaguing the country; as such, the use of excessive and errant force further adds to their sense of insecurity.

Within this context, and with the rapid rise of violent insurgency in Afghanistan, the international community's counter-insurgency strategy is in urgent need of reassessment. The Battle for hearts and minds of Afghans is being waged on many fronts, making use of different approaches including - promoting economic development, humanitarian aid and healthcare, amongst others. From a military-strategic viewpoint, counter-insurgency practice should supplement non-military strategies and strive to gain the trust, confidence and support of the local population by respecting and responding to real (or perceived) grievances. The loss of civilian life at the hands of foreign Coalition forces will only undermine the campaign leading to the eventual demise of Afghanistan. In addition to troops employing a measure of restraint when engaging insurgents surrounded by civilians, the hearts and minds campaign needs to be implemented with intensity greater than the negative effects of the military campaigns in addressing the grievances of suffering civilians.