Everything's dandy in Afghanistan - except for the Afghans killed and maimed by NATO forces

[bigtree]

OVER HALF of the 346 Afghan children killed in 2009 were done in by NATO forces . . .


Counterproductive Counterinsurgency

Tuesday, March 02, 2010
by Charles Peña

A recent NATO airstrike in the province of Uruzgan — against what was thought to be a convoy of Taliban insurgents on their way to attack Afghan and foreign military forces — killed at least 27 Afghan civilians, including four women and a child. In February, more than 50 Afghan civilians are believed to have been killed in more than half a dozen U.S. and NATO military operations.

The good news is that “collateral” civilian casualties have dropped since Gen. Stanley McChrystal took over as the commanding general in Afghanistan, and he has apologized publicly for the casualties on Afghan national television. The bad news, however, is that — although they are fewer than before — civilian casualties are counterproductive to counterinsurgency.

Although there is a military component to successful counterinsurgency, it is largely about winning hearts and minds. Killing innocent civilians — even unintentionally —is a prescription for defeat.

Consider the aftermath of a U.S. airstrike (targeting an alleged local Taliban leader) in March 2007 in the Kapisa province. Four generations of a single family were killed, including an 85-year-old man, four women, and four children ranging in age from five years to seven months. According to one villager, “We used to hate the Russians much more than Americans. But now when we see all this happening, I am telling you Russians behave much better than the Americans.” The 7-year-old boy who survived the bombing said plainly enough about Americans: “I hate them.”

What the United States needs to recognize is that continued military operations in Afghanistan are not in our larger strategic interests. We must understand that foreign military occupation — however well intended and however successful at the tactical, operational level — is not the solution, but rather part of the problem because of the resentment it creates (both in Afghanistan and also the larger Muslim world).


read more: http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/03/32131-counterproductive.html

[tekisui]

1. Not to mention more US troops have been killed in the first

two months of this year than were killed in the first 5 months of last year.

[QC]

2. America! Fuck yeah!

[NJmaverick]

3. Those numbers are inaccurate and the opinions expressed in error

[HughMoran]

4. So?

Propaganda is often based on rhetoric :evilgrin:

[NJmaverick]

5. Very true

[bigtree]

9. I'll let DU'ers decide who to believe here

. . . you and NJM"s snark or this fellow's reasoned commentary.

Charles V. Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, former senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project.

Or, maybe you believe the folks reporting from the UN are also propagandists. Too much.

[NJmaverick]

12. The UN's facts and figures VS a propaganda blog

who to believe

[bigtree]

21. stop lying

you know full well that they got their numbers from the UN ARTICLE I provided you in response to your jibes. It's you who is being untruthful in this thread.

[NJmaverick]

22. Demanding accurate claims is not lying (as opposed to your blog's claims of over half the deaths

being from NATO)

[asdjrocky]

7. Prove it.

[NJmaverick]

10. Here are the UN's numbers

Of the 2,412 deaths reported last year, 1,630 (67 per cent) were attributed to anti-Government elements while 596 (25 per cent) were attributed to pro-Government forces. The remaining 186 deaths (8 per cent) could not be attributed to any of the conflicting parties as they died as a result of cross fire or by unexploded ordinance, the Mission stated in a news release.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33473&Cr=afghan&Cr1

Very different than the made up numbers from the propaganda blog

[bigtree]

14. you are uninformed about the source

from the UN News Centre: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33879&Cr=afghan&Cr1=

Afghanistan: UN official urges steps to prevent child deaths in conflict

24 February 2010 – A senior United Nations human rights official today called on international troops fighting militants in Afghanistan to follow directives designed to guard against civilian deaths, drawing particular attention to the plight of children caught up in the conflict.

Last year, some 346 children were killed by warring factions in Afghanistan, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy told reporters in Kabul.

“One hundred and thirty-one of these were by aerial strikes, 22 by search-and-raid by Special Forces; 128 were killed by anti-Government elements, including assassinations and suicide bombings,” said Ms. Coomaraswamy.

“The rest were undetermined perpetrators,” she said in a statement, recognizing the efforts of General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to ensure that the protection of civilians is a part of the military strategy.



from SRSG for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy's Press Conference: http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=7881

"346 children were killed (as part of the conflict) in 2009: 131 of these were by aerial strikes, 22 by search-and-raid by Special Forces; 128 were killed by anti-Government elements (AGE), including assassinations and suicide bombings. The rest were undetermined perpetrators."


. . . so your argument is resting on the 65 'unaccounted for' child deaths. Alright then, of those deaths which can be accounted for, the assertion of more responsibility for those from NATO invasion forces appears correct. It's still a staggering number and an outrage. But, you keep on defending them, hear?

[NJmaverick]

17. Even your source disputes your propaganda blog's claims

Your blog claimed over half the children deaths were by NATO but this post shows that to be incorrect

[bigtree]

20. The UN News Centre isn't a 'blog'. And you're just wrong.

346 children were killed

“131 of these were by aerial strikes, 22 by search-and-raid by Special Forces

131+22=153 children killed by NATO forces

128 were killed by anti-Government elements, including assassinations and suicide bombings,” said Ms. Coomaraswamy. “The rest were undetermined perpetrators,” she said.

346-153=193

193-128 killed by anti-Government elements=65

65 killed by undetermined perpetrators. Undetermined means UNPROVEN.

Of the child deaths where responsibility is accounted for, NATO bears over half of the responsibility. That's nothing to be proud of and belies the 'success' that you're hawking.

[NJmaverick]

23. EarthTimes.org is a blog and that is what you originally posted

All your math does is PROVE your original OP was WRONG!

[bigtree]

25. They got the numbers from the UN, so just stop the smear of Earthtimes

. . . and stop the lying. My math is correct.

[bigtree]

8. sez you

[NJmaverick]

11. The UN's numbers dispute your propaganda blog's made up numbers

[bigtree]

15. you've completely made up the source of those numbers

[NJmaverick]

16. That claim is as inaccurate as the blog you posted

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33473&Cr=afghan&Cr1

[bigtree]

18. take it up with the UN official - your report deals with all civilians and doesn't focus on children

. . . at any rate, you haven't disproved the numbers on Afghan CHILD deaths by posting the link to that article. In fact, the comparison is deceptive and misleading.

[NJmaverick]

19. The UN numbers directly dispute your blog's claims of NATO being responsible

"for over half the 346 children killed"

[bigtree]

24. bullshit. SRSG for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy is the source

. . . for the numbers, not the 'blog' which cited them. Stop lying.

And you can't make any credible determination about 65 unattributed child deaths.


"some" 346 children were reported killed

“131 of these were by aerial strikes, 22 by search-and-raid by Special Forces

131+22=153 children killed by NATO forces

128 were killed by anti-Government elements, including assassinations and suicide bombings,” said Ms. Coomaraswamy. “The rest were undetermined perpetrators,” she said.

346-153=193

193-128 killed by anti-Government elements=65

65 killed by undetermined perpetrators. Undetermined means UNPROVEN.

Of the child deaths where responsibility is accounted for, NATO bears over half of the responsibility.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

13. Doesn't the U.S. not keep track of civilian casualties?

But I guess it's good that fewer civilians are being killed, and the commander of the killers is at least saying "sorry" about the inconvenience. After all, eggs, omelettes, you know how it is. But this conclusion that military operations aren't the answer? Now that's something people can get exercised about! It's like he's saying that all this is wasted effort, that people - including our holy troops - are dying for no good reason.

It's like people can't read the financial section and see how well Halliburton and KBR are doing.

[Echo In Light]

26. K&R