Seumas Milne's article (Civilian dead are a trade-off in Nato's war of barbarity, October 16) is an outrageous and false accusation that Nato deliberately puts the lives of its own troops before the lives of Afghan civilians. Our troops are bound to - and want to - apply the highest ethical standards when operating. Furthermore, in any insurgency, the key is to have or win public support. A suggested deliberate "calculation" to mind less about Afghans than about western lives would go directly against this.

We do our utmost to avoid civilian casualties. Recently, the commander of the Nato-led international security assistance force (Isaf) issued a new tactical directive re-emphasising the importance of avoiding civilian casualties. As Isaf spokesman Gen Richard Blanchette told the Washington Post on Wednesday: "Commanders are now under orders to consider a 'tactical withdrawal' when faced with the choice of calling in air support during clashes where civilians are believed to be present." If despite all our precautionary measures it still happens, both the UN and Human Rights Watch recognise that it is mostly the result of the Taliban's deliberate policy to use civilians as human shields.

The international forces are not "occupiers". This is not only an insult to the UN and the government of Afghanistan, but also to our own troops. The UN has just extended the mandate for Isaf, and condemned "the use by the Taliban ... of civilians as human shields" while "recognising the efforts taken by Isaf and other international forces to minimise the risk of civilian casualties". Furthermore, Isaf is there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghan government. Perhaps more importantly, we are not seen as occupiers by the Afghan people. All opinion polls show a large majority supports the presence of foreign forces and the Afghan government, while an overwhelming majority (still) don't want the Taliban back.

James Appathurai

Nato spokesman, Brussels, Belgium