An investigation revealed that a one-year-old boy was one of the dozens of Afghan children who were killed in British military action.

Over the nine-year period, 64 victims were confirmed to have been killed by the armed forces.

However, the real number of fatalities could rise to 135 if someone is referred as a “son”, “daughter”, or “nephew”, for example.

According to the Action on Armed Violence, there is no evidence that British forces intentionally targeted civilians or children. The deaths can be attributed to poor targeting, heavy weaponry over-use or fighting in populated areas, as the AOAV findings suggest.

Advertisement

An analysis of compensation payments from 2006 to 2014 revealed that there were 38 cases involving 64 child deaths where the British military paid out.

If more vague references to “son”, “daughter”, or “nephew”, this number increases to 135 for 47 incidents.

Afghanistan’s median age is 18 years old, so it is likely that any mention of a person’s “son or daughter” refers only to a child.

According to the AOAV, the average age of children who were killed in 27 cases was six.

One-year-old baby boy died in March 2009, making him the youngest of all.

A few months later, a 18-month-old girl was also murdered.

Crossfires and airstrikes were the most frequent causes of death.

Eight members of the same family were murdered in one strike.

Between 2006 and 2014, the total amount paid for confirmed child deaths was PS144,593. This includes adult fatalities.

This is the average payout per victim at PS1,656 when you consider child death claims (36 from 27). This includes property damage and injuries.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said that any civilian killed in conflict is tragic, especially when it involves children and their families. The UK’s armed forces try to minimize that risk but it is regrettable that this cannot be eliminated completely.

This is achieved through a combination of highly targeted targeting methods, solid engagement protocols, rigorous training for conflict-prone personnel, and clear assessments following an engagement.

“We investigate civilian casualties reports and are always open for re-examination where new information is provided.

“We are monitoring the US Department of Defense review in this area and will consider any outcomes that might assist our processes.”