President Obama is shutting down the war in Iraq, but we also need to take a new look at how we are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Our recent attacks in both countries have caused hostile responses by the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The reason is that too many civilians have been killed in our efforts to control insurgent forces in both countries.

A recent operation in Afghanistan killed 13 civilians and three militants, according to a U.S. general who investigated the incident. U.S. officials originally reported that 15 militants were killed in the attack.

After complaints from the Afghan government, Brig. Gen. Michael Ryan went to the scene of the operation and determined that only three of the victims were militants. He apologized for the incident.

Avoiding such casualties may be especially difficult because of the U.S. practice of using unmanned predator aircraft to bomb suspected Taliban hideouts.

Traditional military operations are impossible in both countries because the enemies are not armies -- they are members of the Taliban and other insurgent groups who live among ordinary citizens. For that reason, it is difficult to predict what will happen when 17,000 more U.S. troops are sent to Afghanistan.

There are other problems as well. Iran is known to be sending a steady stream of weapons to the insurgent forces in both countries and also offers military training for them. Both countries also have large mountainous areas where insurgent forces can hide and where it is difficult for traditional armies to operate.

Afghanistan also is the site of a $740 million opium industry that is believed to finance some of the insurgent groups and also may have other effects on public policies. The government of President Hamed Karzai apparently has made little effort to control the opium trade.

A citizens' organization, the National Security Network, has said that United States could achieve the most positive results by "safeguarding the economic and security requirements" of the citizens of Afghanistan. In other words, military force is one way to oppose the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan, but a more effective way would be to support programs that would improve the economic future for ordinary citizens.

The group also urges a crackdown on government corruption in Afghanistan and breaking "the stranglehold of the opium trade" that helps fund the insurgency.

It is clear that military force alone is not the only factor that can be effective in Afghanistan. Winning the allegiance of the Afghan people, through various means, would help to destroy the influence of the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

President Obama has said that he is willing to sit down and talk with leaders of Iran about matters of mutual interest. If he is able to do so, then a question of Iran's support of insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be part of the discussion.

With regard to Pakistan, we need to take note of recent changes there. The Pakistani government has agreed to allow the Taliban to assume control of Swat, one of its provinces. That step is in line with the belief of some of the country's leaders that the country would benefit from a more decentralized form of government with added power for each of the provinces.

Military action is not the only thing to be considered in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. We need to understand the basic needs of the people in both countries and to determine what the United States is able to do to meet them.

Our experience in Iraq should demonstrate that even the most ambitious military operation can lead to failure. You don't have to go far to verify these observations. Rochester veterans who fought in Iraq can verify the havoc wrought both on troops and on civilians in combat operations.