US Military, Taliban Share Same View of Aid Workers

by Michael Bear · 2009-08-27 08:15:00 UTC
Topics:

Not the best of times to be an aid worker in Afghanistan.  Or, for that matter, not the best of times to be in Afghanistan, period.  Unless, of course, you're a fan of vote-rigging and potentially fraudulent elections.  Then it's Valhalla.

Anyhows, Afghanistan is far and away the most dangerous country in the world for aid workers - 18 aid workers have died in the country this year, including a Red Cross engineer killed earlier this week.  One reason why aid workers are so vulnerable is that the Taliban doesn't so much buy the entire "aid workers are neutral and independent and, really, on the side of angels" argument.

As one member of the Taliban recently explained: "The UN and aid organizations are not impartial. If they are truly impartial why do they use armoured cars, armed guards and hide behind barricaded walls.They receive funding from the US and Britain; support the puppet government in Kabul; and damage our Islamic and Afghani values."

Which isn't exactly a surprise.  Back in August 2008, the Taliban slaughtered four aid workers in Logar province.  Soon after the killing, a Taliban spokesman explained that aid workers aren't neutral at all, but in fact part of the "foreign invader forces".

So, probably not a good time for the US military to announce its intention of collecting intelligence from aid workers. Right?  Can I get a witness?  Anyone?  Anyone?

Alas, not so much.

General Petraeus recently announced plans to open an "in-house intelligence organization" at US Central Command, to be known under the wonderfully Orwellian name of The Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence.  (No comment.)  It will be led by retired Colonel Derek Harvey.

In an interview with the Washington Times, Mr. Harvey helpfully explained that "the intelligence community tends to rely too much on information from human sources such as spies and from signal intercepts such as wiretaps, to the exclusion of reports from people on the ground such as military officers and aid workers."

Which is depressingly similar to comments made by Richard Holbrooke - the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan - back in April, when he said the US would seek to improve its intelligence capacity by tapping into aid groups. Holbrooke estimated that 90 percent of US knowledge about Afghanistan lies with humanitarian and development organizations.

I'm not sure what upsets me more - that the military wants to gather intelligence from aid workers, or that any number of senior US officials feel the need to mention said plans in public.

Either way, looks like Afghanistan just became that much more dangerous for aid workers on the ground.    Thanks Harvey.

For more on the debate around humanitarian neutrality, see here.

[US military patrol in Afghanistan in 2004 - image from the 25th Infantry Division]

Michael Bear
PREVIOUS STORY:
Your Chance to Question A High-Ranking UN Official
NEXT STORY:
A letter from Bettina Siegel, "Pink Slime" petition creator

COMMENTS (7)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.