Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_194802254-scaled

Civilian deaths spike after US, Taliban use violence as 'leverage' for talks

Another indication that our continued presence there is not making anyone more safe.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

A new study released on Monday revealed something shocking — thanks to to loosened rules of engagement, the number of Afghan civilians killed as a result of U.S. and allied bombing skyrocketed by over 300 percent in the last three years. This significant increase in Afghan deaths — combined with the huge toll of overall American casualties — should finally convince American policymakers the war is unwinnable and should be ended without delay.

The new report from Brown University’s Cost of War project focuses on the Afghan civilian population and deaths due to the Taliban, the U.S.-led coalition, and the Afghan National Security Forces, over the last four years. The report says the United States eased its rules of engagement beginning in 2017 to “gain leverage” in negotiating an end of the war with the Taliban. 

In 2019, the study continues, “[U.S. and allied] airstrikes killed 700 civilians — more than in any other year since the beginning of the war in 2001." These findings, along with the intent behind the tactics America uses in the war, expose three main reasons why our military has never been able to win the war.

First, in terms of strategic effectiveness, it should by now be painfully obvious that increasing airstrikes on the Taliban was never going to make them buckle and sue for peace on terms beneficial to the coalition. 

The Taliban weathered the entire Obama surge of 2010-12 when there were more than 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops on the ground fighting in Afghanistan. Since 2012, the Taliban has dramatically increased its numbers and amount of territory it  controls or influences. More bombs were never going to drive them to the negotiating table.

Second, it should have been patently obvious that loosening the rules of engagement to such a degree that it resulted in thousands of civilian casualties was never going to cow the Taliban nor win us friends among the Afghan population. 

One of the tenets of counterinsurgency warfare is to win “hearts and minds” of the population for the host government. But when the government and allied forces kill almost as many citizens as the enemy, the people become susceptible to the Taliban’s propaganda that the government can’t protect them. In such circumstances, the people won’t turn on the insurgents and the war drags on inconclusively.

Third, it is troubling that so few in Washington pay much attention to  a report documenting that our military actions last year alone killed 700 innocent people. Of course, war is a horrific, brutish, and bloody affair that often causes the innocent to suffer, even when forces apply strict rules of engagement and employ every device to limit collateral damage. But we should never be casual with the loss of life — whether that of our own troops or the innocent civilians where we fight. 

It would go a long way to restore a proper consideration for the value of human life by ending this war in Afghanistan. Already there is a compelling strategic imperative to do so.

By every observable metric and the application of logic, the war cannot be won on the battlefield. Today many pin their desires for an end to the war on the hope that talks between the Taliban and Afghan government may finally produce a negotiated settlement. 

Historically speaking, however, what is more likely is that the negotiations will drag on for many years, sometimes appearing to be leading to a conclusion, but then suffering a major setback. It is not in America’s interest to leave its military fighting an indefinite war — without an objective, without a strategy to win — essentially held hostage to the whims of the Taliban and the unwillingness to compromise by Afghan negotiators. 

We need to end the war, on our terms, and in a predictable timeline that can ensure a safe handoff of full security to the Afghan armed forces and the commensurate withdrawal of our NATO allies. However painful, we must acknowledge that the war can never be won at a cost acceptable to the American people, and that it is inappropriate to continue asking our uniformed service members to sacrifice their lives and limbs in pursuit of the unattainable.


Unidentified Afghan girl playing on October 24, 2012 in Herat, Afghanistan. (Travel Stock/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.