美国国家公共电台 NPR 美国空袭阿富汗，造成数名平民死亡（在线收听）

Last week, the Pentagon admitted an airstrike said to be targeting a would-be car bomber in Afghanistan actually killed only civilians - 10 people from the same extended family, including seven children.

上周，五角大楼承认，据称针对阿富汗一名汽车炸弹袭击者的空袭实际上只杀死了平民 ——来自同一个大家庭的 10 人，其中包括 7 名儿童。

This isn't the first time civilians have been killed in drone strikes under the broad banner of the war on terror.

这已经不是第一次在反恐战争的旗帜下，无人机袭击造成平民死亡。

Studies say as many as tens of thousands of innocent people may have been killed in strikes like these in the last 20 years.

研究表明，在过去20年里，成千上万的无辜民众可能在这样的袭击中丧生。

Joining us now to break down some of these numbers and what they mean is Neta Crawford, co-director of the Cost of War Project at Brown University.

布朗大学战争成本项目的联合主任内塔·克劳福德现在加入我们，为我们分析这些数字和它们的含义。

Hi, Neta.

嗨, 内塔。

Hi there.

你好。

So let's start by putting this airstrike we just mentioned in context. Do you have a sense of how many civilians in Afghanistan were killed by airstrikes in the last 20 years?

让我们从刚才提到的空袭开始。你知道在过去的20年里有多少阿富汗平民死于空袭吗?

Well, over the last 20 years, about 5,900 civilians - at least the most recent numbers that we have, mostly provided by the United Nations. Of those, most of them were killed by international forces - the U.S. and its allies.

在过去的20年里，大约有5900名平民，至少是我们最近掌握的数字，大部分是由联合国提供的。其中大多数人是被国际部队——美国及其盟友——杀害的。

Now, the U.S. has waged air campaigns in other countries since 2001 as well, most notably Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen.

自2001年以来，美国也在其他国家发动了空中袭击，最明显的是伊拉克、叙利亚、巴基斯坦和也门。

Why did you and your team decide to start this project? What is important about counting these deaths, specifically in drone strikes like this?

为什么你和你的团队决定开始这个项目？计算这些死亡人数有什么重要意义，特别是在像这样的无人机袭击中？

Well, I'm talking about deaths by all different kinds of aircraft - drone, fixed-wing or helicopters.

克劳福德:嗯，我指的是所有不同类型的飞机造成的死亡——无人机、固定翼飞机或直升机。

And we decided to count because we've noticed that when the United States and other powers have the eyes of the world on them, they get more careful, and airstrikes diminish, and the number of people killed and injured declines.

我们决定计算，因为我们注意到，当美国和其他大国受到世界的关注时，他们会更加小心，空袭减少，伤亡人数下降。

You've mentioned a lot of innocent people being killed in airstrikes, but is there a case to be made, as the U.S. military does, that sometimes they're necessary to protect troops in a critical situation or when a military target is particularly valuable?

你提到了很多无辜的人在空袭中丧生，但是否有必要像美国军方那样，有时在危急情况下或当军事目标特别有价值时，空袭是保护军队的必要措施吗？

Right. The way the U.S. makes that decision about when to use airstrikes is based on consideration of the importance of the military objective - yes.

没错。美国决定何时使用空袭的方式是基于军事目标的重要性——是的。

And they also take into consideration the number of civilians in the area and whether or not those people might be killed or injured.

他们还会考虑该地区的平民人数，以及这些人是否可能被杀或受伤。

So they are working to avoid harming civilians.

所以他们正在努力避免伤害平民。

And sometimes they don't do a strike. And I believe that the U.S. military has made a great effort there.

有时他们不罢工。我相信美国军队在那里已经做出了巨大的努力。

And sometimes they don't do a strike. And I believe that the U.S. military has made a great effort there.

他们会辩称，他们的许多空袭杀死了武装分子。当联合国统计时，他们没有统计多少武装分子被杀。

They'll argue that many of their strikes kill militants. When the U.N. goes to count, they don't count as many militants killed.

他们会辩称，他们的许多空袭杀死了武装分子。当联合国统计时，他们没有统计多少武装分子被杀。

They'll argue that many of their strikes kill militants. When the U.N. goes to count, they don't count as many militants killed.

他们会辩称，他们的许多空袭杀死了武装分子。当联合国统计时，他们没有统计多少武装分子被杀害。

They often count more civilians. So there's a basic disagreement about who is killed in the strikes.

他们通常会计算更多的平民。所以关于谁在袭击中丧生的问题存在基本分歧。

Now, in this particular case, this last airstrike that prompted this discussion, no militants were killed.

在这个特殊的案例中，最后一次空袭引发了讨论，没有武装分子死亡。

Ultimately, the person who was the target was putting what appeared to be water bottles into his truck, had a laptop in a plastic bag.

最终，目标人把看似瓶装水的东西放进了他的卡车，而他的塑料袋里装着一台笔记本电脑。

I mean, how common is it that a strike is completely a mistake like this and only civilians are killed?

我的意思是，像这样的袭击完全是一个错误，只造成平民死亡，这种情况有多常见?

It's not uncommon, unfortunately. I don't have a precise number because the U.S. doesn't actually release all this information.

不幸的是，这并不罕见。我没有一个确切的数字，因为美国实际上并没有公布所有这些信息。

We know that in one case in Afghanistan, the United States struck the International Committee for the Red Cross twice in October 2001.

我们知道，在阿富汗的一个案例中，美国于2001年10月两次袭击了红十字国际委员会。

And there were no militants there. They just struck the Red Cross building.

那里没有武装分子。他们刚刚袭击了红十字会大楼。

Wow.

哇。

We know that there are wedding parties that are unfortunately targeted and killed. It happens not infrequently.

我们知道有些婚礼派对不幸成为目标并被杀害。这种情况并不少见。

Now, if the U.S. did an investigation of every one of its strikes, we might find that they would see more civilians were killed sometimes than militants or it's completely the case that civilians were killed.

现在，如果美国对每一次袭击都进行调查，我们可能会发现他们会看到更多的平民被杀害，而不是武装分子，或者完全是平民被杀害。

But they really don't make those counts public. It would be useful if they did.

但他们真的不会公开这些数据。如果他们这样做了，那将会很有用。

What we have and what we know is based on the United Nations in the case of Afghanistan and other international observers like Airwars in the case of Iraq and Syria.

我们所拥有的和我们所知道的都是基于联合国在阿富汗的行动，以及其他国际观察员在伊拉克和叙利亚的行动。

And we need more transparency on this. So I really can't answer the question because we don't know.

我们需要更多的透明度。所以我真的不能回答这个问题，因为我们不知道。

That's Neta Crawford, co-director of the Cost of War Project.

这是内塔·克劳福德，战争成本项目的联合主管。

Thank you so much for joining us.

非常感谢你参加我们的节目。

Thank you for having me, Leila.

谢谢你邀请我，莱拉。