By Mark John

BRUSSELS, July 5 (Reuters) - Western forces are unlikely to curtail the use of lethal air power against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, despite a wave of civilian casualties threatening support for the mission, analysts and military sources say.

An aversion in NATO capitals to allied casualties, plus all-too-frequent shortages of ground troops, have forced commanders to turn to the sky in efforts to beat insurgents still going strong six years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Despite repeated criticism of Western tactics by President Hamid Karzai, and pledges by NATO and U.S. officials to review procedures, few expect an overhaul of strategy by the 50,000 international troops there any time soon.

"We are aware this problem has grown and we must redouble our efforts. But there will be no overnight transformation," an alliance source said on condition of anonymity.

The Afghan government, rights and aid groups say over 300 civilians have died this year from Western operations, mostly when air power is called in to get allied troops out of trouble.

While NATO officials point to surveys showing a majority of Afghans still in favour of their presence, the deaths tarnish the image of the Western-backed Karzai and have triggered protests demanding the exit of foreign troops.

NATO's top operational commander, U.S. General John Craddock, announced a review of procedures in May. Days later President George W. Bush pledged with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to try to reduce the casualties.

Yet the deaths keep coming. Afghan officials say 45 civilians were killed last weekend by an air strike in the south -- a figure the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) says is inflated.

TOO FEW TROOPS?

De Hoop Scheffer has urged better coordination on the ground between NATO forces, the separate U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops. He also wants faster investigations of incidents and more humanitarian relief for victims.

While coordination with Afghan forces has been messy, alliance sources are broadly happy with ties between ISAF and the U.S.-led coalition.

The coalition has focused on aggressive counter-terrorism operations, whereas the 40,000 ISAF troops have a peacekeeping mandate, but the line between the two has been blurred by the mounting insurgency.

Some say more aid and faster probes of accidents might limit the public relations damage from incidents, but would not in themselves reduce casualties.

Others blame the small size of the troop presence -- less than a third of that in Iraq for a country 1.5 times as big -- for what they see as excessive reliance on air power.

"If the Taliban withdraw to a village, there is an inability to send troops forward on the ground to clear that village. That is very manpower-intensive," said Christopher Langton of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Even if further troops were available -- and there are no signs that any of NATO's 26 members or partner nations are in the mood to stump up more -- some analysts sense a preference for air power over riskier deployments of ground troops.

"Countries such as Canada are already under pressure to reduce troops," said Matthew Clements, Eurasia editor at Jane's Country Risk report. "They don't want more casualties."

FINE-TUNING

Given the limitations of Western forces and the Taliban tactic of using human shields, Langton said NATO and its allies would do better to adopt a less aggressive approach and consider negotiating ceasefire deals in some cases.

However, noting how the U.S. general currently running the NATO Afghan effort bluntly condemned one such pact made by his British predecessor, Langton added: "I don't think Dan McNeill would ever accept that."

Reacting to criticism that they were losing the public relations battle, NATO officials have stepped up criticism of the insurgents, with de Hoop Scheffer lashing out at those who "behead people, burn schools, kill women and children".

And, despite McNeill's reputation as a no-holds-barred commander, alliance sources insist there has been a subtle fine-tuning of operations under his watch that they hope will start to translate into a lower toll in civilian lives.

"Ultimately it is up to a commander whether there are fewer air strikes. But is killing 10 Taliban worth killing five civilians? The answer is 'No', and that is fully understood," one source said.

AlertNet news is provided by