Citha D. Maass is an Afghanistan expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and is currently focusing her work on perspectives for Afghanistan's consolidation.

DW-WORLD.DE: Seven children were killed during a US-led air strike in eastern Afghanistan. Survivors said the children were forced to stay in the building to act as "human shields" for militants suspected to be there. Is there any proof the Taliban acts in this way?

Citha D. Maass: Naturally, there is no proof, but time and again over the last few months we have received reports that the Taliban uses this tactic. It is certainly a part of the Taliban's tactics, and that creates an enormous dilemma for NATO's ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) troops since they can't get the children out and keep the Taliban inside.

NATO has recently announced that fewer civilians would become victims of the conflict in Afghanistan. How can that be done?

Civilian casualties cannot be completely avoided when these types of guerilla tactics are used. It is really always a balance of proportionality. Are you willing pay the price or should you avoid it? When there is secure information available that there really are important Taliban members, it is more likely that the order for an air strike is given than if you have solid tips that only nominal members are concerned. The more civilian victims there are the more upset the population becomes about the ISAF troops.

What exactly happens when an attack kills civilians?

Part of the Taliban's tactics is to incite resentment and anger that can then be shown in demonstrations aimed at the ISAF troops or in protests against support of civilian reconstruction. You can try to clarify the situation for the population, but that, of course, is only possible in a relatively minor way. In the end, the Taliban probably have more leverage.

Does that mean that the tactic of using "human shields" seriously endangers the international soldiers' mission?

Yes. That's the intent of this asymmetrical guerrilla tactic. On one hand are the well-armed ISAF military troops and on the other are guerrilla fighters like the Taliban who, with the help of "civilian shields" and suicide attacks, conduct pinprick attacks. They are trying to unsettle the ISAF troops and to stir up the population's mood against the international troops.

According to NATO diplomats, soldiers in the Operation Enduring Freedom are mainly responsible for the civilian casualties. Is there a possibility that ISAF troops are being more careful?

ISAF has a different mandate -- a different way of operating. But we have to take a special look at the south -- and that is the area that is most affected -- and how the two groups work together. The ISAF troops do not have any air support of their own. That means when they get into an ambush they have to order air support for their own defense. This comes from the Americans, who are operating under the Enduring Freedom mandate. That makes it impossible to say who acts how. Instead it's simply a compound approach in which the air attack comes from Enduring Freedom planes. When an ISAF patrol ends up in an ambush it naturally tries to get free, that's the nature of the situation, and in such a case both units of soldiers are connected.

You said that civilian casualties cannot be completely avoided, that you have to consider them against the benefits in each case. Isn't that cynical when people's lives are being sacrificed?

No, the ISAF side has recognized that the Taliban is using this tactic to stir up the population against the international troops. Because of that they have become more and more careful. But the casualties cannot be fundamentally avoided because they are part of guerrilla tactics. I would definitely not call it cynical, because I am sure in every case there is a careful consideration of whether or not to attack. Such an attack can both protect the international troops and at the same time destroy a religious school where Taliban troops barricaded themselves.

In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that NATO is "in a different moral category" than the Taliban. Do people in Afghanistan also see it that way?

I doubt that because the people who are in southern Afghanistan, which is economically weak after several years of drought, are fighting to survive. Moral categories just don't apply there.