Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online May 15, 2017

Seeing and Unmaking Civilians in Afghanistan: Visual Technologies and Contested Professional Visions

Abstract

While the distinction between civilians and combatants is fundamental to international law, it is contested and complicated in practice. How do North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officers see civilians in Afghanistan? Focusing on 2009 air strike in Kunduz, this article argues that the professional vision of NATO officers relies not only on recent military technologies that allow for aerial surveillance, thermal imaging, and precise targeting but also on the assumptions, vocabularies, modes of attention, and hierarchies of knowledges that the officers bring to the interpretation of aerial surveillance images. Professional vision is socially situated and frequently contested with communities of practice. In the case of the Kunduz air strike, the aerial vantage point and the military visual technologies cannot fully determine what would be seen. Instead, the officers’ assumptions about Afghanistan, threats, and the gender of the civilian inform the vocabulary they use for coding people and places as civilian or noncivilian. Civilians are not simply “found,” they are produced through specific forms of professional vision.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Adey Peter, Whitehead Mark, Williams Alison J. 2011. “Introduction: Airtarget Distance, Reach and the Politics of Verticality.” Theory, Culture, and Society 28: 173–87.
Alexander Amanda. 2007. “The Genesis of the Civilian.” Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (2): 359–76.
Amoore Louise. 2009. “Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror.” Antipode 41: 49–69.
Berman Nathaniel. 2004. “Privileging Combat? Contemporary Conflict and the Legal Construction of War.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43 (1): 1–71.
Butler Judith. 1993. “Endangered/Endangering: Schematic Racism and White Paranoia.” In The Judith Butler Reader, edited by Salih Sarah, 204–11. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Butler Judith. 2010. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London, UK: Verso.
Carpenter R. Charli. 2006. “Recognizing Gender-based Violence against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict situations.” Security Dialogue 37 (1): 83–103.
Feldman Allen. 2005. “On the Actuarial Gaze.” Cultural Studies 19 (2): 203–25.
Garbett Claire. 2012. “The Concept of the Civilian: Legal Recognition, Adjudication and the Trials of International Criminal Justice.” International Journal of Law in Context 8 (4): 469–86.
Goodwin Charles. 1994. “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–33.
Gregory Derek. 2006. “The Death of the Civilian?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 (5): 633–38.
Gregory Derek. 2011. “From a View to Kill: Drones and Late Modern War.” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (7-8): 188–215.
Haggerty Kevin D., Ericson Richard V. 2000. “The Surveillant Assemblage.” British Journal of Sociology 51 (4): 605–22.
Kinsella Helen. 2011. The Image before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
Marx Gary. 2002. “What’s New About the ‘New Surveillance’? Classifying for Change and Continuity.” Surveillance and Society 1 (1): 9–29.
Merry Sally Engle, Coutin Susan Bibler. 2014. “Technologies of Truth in the Anthropology of Conflict.” American Ethnologist 41 (1): 1–16.
Münch Philipp. 2009. “Freund oder Feind? Zur Einschätzung von Sicherheitsbedrohungen in Friedensmissionen am Beispiel der Bundeswehr in Afghanistan.” Arbeitspapier Forschungsstelle Kriege, Rüstung und Entwicklung, Universität Hamburg, No. 4/2009. Accessed February 2, 2016. http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/sowi/akuf/Text_2010/FreundoderFeind-M__nch-2009.pdf.
Owens Patricia. 2003. “Accidents Don’t Just Happen: The Liberal Politics of High-technology ‘Humanitarian’ War.” Millenium 32 (3): 595–616.
Rafael Vicente L. 2012. “Targeting Translation: Counterinsurgency and the Weaponization of Language.” Social Text 30 (4): 55–80.
Scott James C. 1991. “State Simplifications: Nature, Space and People.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 3 (3): 191–233.
Stoler Ann Laura Stoler. 2009. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vertesi Janet. 2014. “Drawing As: Distinctions and Disambiguation in Digital Images of Mars.” In Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited, edited by Coopmans Catelijne, et al., 15–35. MIT Press.
Wilke Christiane. 2007. “Law’s Enemies: Enemy Concepts in U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 40 (2007): 41–77.
Wilke Christiane. 2015. “Notes towards a History of the Civilian.” Presented at the Canadian Law and Society Association Meeting. Accessed February 2, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/14748035/Notes_towards_a_History_of_the_Civilian.
Zehfuss Maja. 2011. “Targeting: Precision and the Production of Ethics.” European Journal of International Relations 17 (3): 543–66.

Primary Sources

Abdul-Ahad Gaith. 2009. “Victims’ Families Tell Their Stories Following NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan.” The Guardian, September 12. Accessed May 10, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/afghanistan-airstrike-victims-stories.
Al Jazeera English. 2009. “Scores Killed in NATO Air Strike in Afghanistan—4 Sept 09.” Accessed April 2, 2013. http://youtu.be/04sqTMX9HVw.
Amnesty International. 2009a. Afghanistan: German Government Must Investigate Deadly Kunduz Airstrikes. 30 October 2009. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/10/afghanistan-german-government-must-investigate-deadly-kunduz-airstrikes-20091030/.
Amnesty International. 2009b. List of Suspected Civilian Casualties in the NATO Ordered Airstrike on Two Fuel Tankers in Kunduz, September 4th 2009. 30 October 2009, AI Index: 11/016/2009. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/44000/asa110162009en.pdf.
Amnesty International. 2009c. Afghanistan: Background to the Kunduz airstrike of 4 September 2009. 30 October 2009, AI Index: ASA 11/015/2009. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/44000/asa110152009en.pdf.
Brenner. 2009. Untersuchungsbericht Zum ‘Close Air Support KUNDUZ’ Vom 04.09.2009. 9 September 2009. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://wlstorage.net/file/de-isaf-cas-kunduz-sep09.pdf.
Chandrasekaran Rajiv. 2009. “Sole Informant Guided Decision on Afghan Strike.” The Washington Post, September 6.
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, August 12, 1949.
Der Spiegel. 2009a. “The German Air Strike Has Changes Everything.” Der Spiegel, September 14.
Der Spiegel. 2009b. “New Allegations against German Officer Who Ordered Kunduz Air Strike.” Der Spiegel, September 21.
Der Spiegel. 2016. “Deutschland haftet nicht für Kundus-Bombardement.” Der Spiegel, October 6.
Deutscher Bundestag, 17. Wahlperiode. 2011. Bericht des Verteidigungsausschusses. 25 October 2011. Document # 17/7400. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/074/1707400.pdf. [Cited as Bundestag].
F-15E.Info. 2012. “LANTIRN Pods.” Accessed February 2, 2016. http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/avionics/67-lantirn-pods.
Feldenkirchen Markus, Gebauer Matthias, Koelbl Susanne. 2009. “How the Taliban Are Taking Control of Kunduz.” Der Spiegel, August 19.
Frankfurter Rundschau. 2009. “Verheimlichtes Wissen.” November 27.
Grant Rebecca. 2013. “The ROVER.” Air Force Magazine, August, 38–42.
International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law). 2012. Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan. Accessed April 9, 2013. http://livingunderdrones.org/.
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force Headquarters, Kabul). 2009a. “Tactical Directive,” 6 July 2009. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf.
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). 2009b. Transcript of Communications between F-15E Cockpits and JTAC. September 4. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/CD07400/Dokumente/Dokument%20060.pdf.
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). 2009c. F-15 Eagle Video Footage of the Kunduz Airstrike. Accessed February 2, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfrErSvy7U8.
Kornelius S. 2010. “US-Piloten für Angriff von Kundus bestraft.” Süddeutsche Zeitung, May 17.
Ruttig Thomas. 2013. “The Incident at Coordinate 42S VF 8934 5219: German court rejects claim from Kunduz air strike victims.” Afghan Analyst Network, 15 December 2013. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/the-incident-at-coordinate-42s-vf-8934-5219-german-court-rejects-claim-from-kunduz-air-strike-victims/.
Wood David. 2010. “Holding Fire over Afghanistan: Airmen Adapt to the McChrystal Directive.” Air Force Magazine, January, 28–32.

Biographies

Christiane Wilke is an associate professor in the Department of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].