Afghan civilian deaths rose 40 percent in 2008

[Kalevalatar]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/18/asia/18afghan.php

The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan leapt by nearly 40 percent last year, according to a survey released Tuesday by the United Nations, the latest measure of how the intensifying violence between the Taliban and American-led forces is ravaging that country.

The death toll — 2,118 civilians killed in 2008, compared with 1,523 in 2007 — is the highest since the Taliban government was ousted in November 2001, at the outset of a war with no quick end in sight.

Civilian deaths have become a political flash point in Afghanistan, eroding public support for the war and inflaming tensions with President Hamid Karzai, who has bitterly condemned the American-led coalition for the rising toll. President Barack Obama's decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan raises the prospect of even more casualties.

Read the UNAMA report here.

Anti-government forces caused the deaths of 1,160 non-combatants while Afghan and international forces caused the deaths of 828 non-combatants, the report said. Suicide attacks, improvised explosions and executions by insurgent groups, and aerial bombings by international forces were the main ways that civilians were killed.

More and more coalition countries are "seeing the light" by realizing that there is no purely military solution in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan needs less warfare and more CIMIC. The only way to win is through hearts and minds, to provide for the civilian populace so that they will see the foreign presence as a force of good and will choose our side and not the Taliban.

 

[Billnew]

Seems that the anti-goverment forces are attacking civilians more. How does that mean the hearts of civilians need to be won?
I never have understood the mentality of civilians, that would decide to fight against the military that isn't harming you or your family, versus helping the ones that kill civilians.
IMO if they kill civilians, then help the other side more then ever.

No military can protect civilians everywhere. So why play into the hands of the abusive military when that military starts murdering you fellow countrymen?

Seems a Propaganda war isn't being waged on our side. They are killing unarmed civilians, help us to rid your country of them.
Another way to think of it, One side is killing civilians, and if you rise up against the military that isn't killing you, they will start.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Seems a Propaganda war isn't being waged on our side. They are killing unarmed civilians, help us to rid your country of them.

Sons of Iraq anyone? This is why Iraq is really quiet now, though there is still sporadic fighting. Civilians got tired of being caught in the middle and chose the lesser of "two evils" so to speak. However, Afghanistan is completely different; most of the country isn't educated whereas Iraqis are. These people are used to living under a regime where women are extremely oppressed and neighboring a country that harbours these cowards who intentionally kill civilians.

We're going to start up in Afghanistan and I gotta say that I do believe that the foreign Al-Qaeda and the local Taliban are gonna have their hands full now.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Seems that the anti-goverment forces are attacking civilians more. How does that mean the hearts of civilians need to be won?

The anti-gov forces, according to the UNAMA report, killed 1,160 non-combatants while the US-led forces killed 828 non-combatants. With high school math, the difference is meager 300, a little over 1,000 vs. a little shy 1,000. When "we" are killing almost as many as "they" are, it must be kind of hard for the locals to tell the good guys and bad guys apart, agreed?

The problems with Afghanistan are essentially the same than with Iraq; Pentagon's former super genius Rumsfeld wanted to "modernize" modern war and do it quick & cheap. Rumsfeld's vision -- not nearly enough boots (and eyes) on the ground from get-go -- led to the Operation Perpertual Chaos in Iraq. There were not enough troops to secure the peace. Thankfully Petreus brought some real intelligence to it for the first time.

Same in Afghanistan. Not enough boots & eyes meant not only that the coalition forces let Osama bin Laden walk away from Tora Bora but that the civilian casualties are too many when you try to do it cheap and bomb from air and from afar. Not enough boots means not enough ground presence and the moment "we" walk out of a village "they" walk back in. The civilians may not be on "their" side, but the civilians sure are not going to be openly on "our" side as long as they had to face the thread of "their" retribution.

What Eazy E says about Afghanistan being far more backwards than Iraq: yes, and we promised to bring civility, schools, education, bridges, water, hospitals. It's been seven years and they are still waiting. Because suddenly Iraq was the more lucrative project. So little wonder when more and more Afghans are losing their optimism and their patience with us when we fail to deliver.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Sons of Iraq anyone? This is why Iraq is really quiet now, though there is still sporadic fighting. Civilians got tired of being caught in the middle and chose the lesser of "two evils" so to speak. However, Afghanistan is completely different; most of the country isn't educated whereas Iraqis are. These people are used to living under a regime where women are extremely oppressed and neighboring a country that harbours these cowards who intentionally kill civilians.

We're going to start up in Afghanistan and I gotta say that I do believe that the foreign Al-Qaeda and the local Taliban are gonna have their hands full now.

I'm sure the Soviets thought so too...

 

[Kalevalatar]

Here is a perfect example of how it works, a.k.a. and there they go again.


Coalition, Afghan Soldiers Kill Taliban Commanders, Others in Terrorist Sweep, declares the Pentagon triumphantly, the crowd cheers, and no one asks who these "others" are.

Coalition and Afghan forces have killed 16 insurgents in western Afghanistan in recent days, including at least three Taliban commanders, military officials reported.

A coalition forces precision strike [sic!] today killed a militant commander affiliated with the Hezb-e-Islam Gulbuddin organization and other Taliban commanders near Gozara district in Herat province.

Precision strike, indeed.

Come weekend, the press is out of town, and the Pentagon quietly issues a correction: Oops we did it again and killed many more civilians than actual combatants. Good thing the crowd is gone already and will only remeber the "successful" "precision strike" that killed 16 insurgents.

Investigation Confirms Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan Strike

An investigation into a Feb. 17 coalition air strike in Afghanistan’s Herat province has confirmed that 13 noncombatants and three enemy fighters were killed, military officials reported.

 

[BlackAndy]

The anti-gov forces, according to the UNAMA report, killed 1,160 non-combatants while the US-led forces killed 828 non-combatants. With high school math, the difference is meager 300, a little over 1,000 vs. a little shy 1,000. When "we" are killing almost as many as "they" are, it must be kind of hard for the locals to tell the good guys and bad guys apart, agreed?

Well, this much is sure. When the bad guys are hiding among the good guys, having midnight meetings with their children sleeping in the room next door, etc. then it certainly becomes hard for US-led forces to tell the good guys from the bad guys, agreed?

These guys are waging an illegal, unconventional war that uses innocents as a propaganda tool. Instead of holding them responsible for this damnable tactic you let yourself be used.
Good job. You are a tool.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Well, this much is sure. When the bad guys are hiding among the good guys, having midnight meetings with their children sleeping in the room next door, etc. then it certainly becomes hard for US-led forces to tell the good guys from the bad guys, agreed?

These guys are waging an illegal, unconventional war that uses innocents as a propaganda tool. Instead of holding them responsible for this damnable tactic you let yourself be used.
Good job. You are a tool.

Except I don't kill Afghan civilians; the US-led coalition forces do.

Nothing's changed. Slaughtering a whole village in order to "save" it is still the dumbest possible way of waging the same old same old "unconventional" war that has been waged at least as long as the Europeans first developed a hankering for rich new overseas territories.

 

[BlackAndy]

Except I don't kill Afghan civilians; the US-led coalition forces do.

Nothing's changed. Slaughtering a whole village in order to "save" it is still the dumbest possible way of waging the same old same old "unconventional" war that has been waged at least as long as the Europeans first developed a hankering for rich new overseas territories.

See? You'd think you might apply that to the Taliban.

 

[BlackAndy]

Remember '98, when the Taliban went through that area of Afghanistan slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people? They then denied burial of the corpses during the first 24 hours? They wanted them to rot.
The same Taliban that oppressed women and executed people on a regular basis for petty offenses....

 

[BlackAndy]

...the same Taliban that gave aid and comfort to those individuals responsible for the deaths of over 2,700 people on September 11...

 

[BlackAndy]

...and in another thread you are lamenting the fact that constitutional rights are not extended to the very same men who are perpetuating this violence on these people?????

 

[Kalevalatar]

See? You'd think you might apply that to the Taliban.

The Taliban has been around a couple of decades, max. The guerilla-style warfare, however, has been around a little bit longer, like centuries, at least as long as there has been European conquest. It's not "unconventional war", it stopped being that, oh, about 500 years ago, and it is just as illegal as indiscriminate bombing of civilian populace from air is. Two different ways of waging war, yet with the exact same results: dead bodies on God's doorstep. And the excuse? Oh we were trying to get this one bad guy and had to kill these 13 innocent civilians to nail him. God's response? Oh surely one bad guy's life is worth 13 innocent lives. Not. Rather, one bad guy's life is worth not one innocent life.

Remember '98, when the Taliban went through that area of Afghanistan slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people? They then denied burial of the corpses during the first 24 hours? They wanted them to rot.
The same Taliban that oppressed women and executed people on a regular basis for petty offenses....

Except the Taliban never evoked my God and claimed they were doing it in my name, to "defend" "our way of life."

...the same Taliban that gave aid and comfort to those individuals responsible for the deaths of over 2,700 people on September 11...

If it's an eye for eye thing, then during the initial US-led aerial bombing campaign of Afghanistan, twice the number of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks victims of Afghan civilians were killed, and that's according to the most conservative numbers, while other analysis put the total number of Afghan civilian deaths in tens of thousands--in those first months alone. Last year, the US-led forces killed 828 Afghan civilians. It's been going on for more than seven years. You do the math.

...and in another thread you are lamenting the fact that constitutional rights are not extended to the very same men who are perpetuating this violence on these people?????

I sure do. We are not measured by how we treat our friends and loved ones who love us back. Because, you know, even the bad guys are capable of that, treating their friends with dignity. No. It's how we treat those who hate and curse us that marks us the kind of people we are. To repay evil for evil is the wrong path. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good, wrote Paul. When we treat our enemies as badly as we assume they would treat us, Satan rejoices.

 

[BlackAndy]

The Taliban has been around a couple of decades, max. The guerilla-style warfare, however, has been around a little bit longer, like centuries, at least as long as there has been European conquest. It's not "unconventional war", it stopped being that, oh, about 500 years ago, and it is just as illegal as indiscriminate bombing of civilian populace from air is. Two different ways of waging war, yet with the exact same results: dead bodies on God's doorstep. And the excuse? Oh we were trying to get this one bad guy and had to kill these 13 innocent civilians to nail him. God's response? Oh surely one bad guy's life is worth 13 innocent lives. Not. Rather, one bad guy's life is worth not one innocent life.

AYou do realize that were the US-led forces to apply the same tactics in this fight as the enemy the war would be over, right? If we were to just kill indiscriminately (the way they do) there wouldn't be a man standing in that region...
There are civilian casualties in every war - the difference being, in this conflict the enemy targets them. You are sympathizing with the wrong side.

Except the Taliban never evoked my God and claimed they were doing it in my name, to "defend" "our way of life."

Nope. They evoked the name of Allah and said they were doing it because we are the devil.

If it's an eye for eye thing, then during the initial US-led aerial bombing campaign of Afghanistan, twice the number of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks victims of Afghan civilians were killed, and that's according to the most conservative numbers, while other analysis put the total number of Afghan civilian deaths in tens of thousands--in those first months alone. Last year, the US-led forces killed 828 Afghan civilians. It's been going on for more than seven years. You do the math.

The bold type is BS. Get your facts straight. And you continue to gloss over the fact that civilian deaths are largely due to the enemy hiding in and among the civilian populace. If we are to just throw our hands up in the air and let them be because "we can't get to them without risk" then the war is lost, they win, we leave, and they overrun Afghanistan again... and the civilians CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT THAT.

Just like in Iraq, the civilian population is going to have to get involved and not allow themselves to be used by the enemy.

I sure do. We are not measured by how we treat our friends and loved ones who love us back. Because, you know, even the bad guys are capable of that, treating their friends with dignity. No. It's how we treat those who hate and curse us that marks us the kind of people we are. To repay evil for evil is the wrong path. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good, wrote Paul. When we treat our enemies as badly as we assume they would treat us, Satan rejoices.

How would you have them treated then? Give them the legal rights of an American citizen? Show me one time in the history of warfare when the captured enemy has every been given such treatment. They are being fed and housed. That's good enough.
They took up arms against Afghanistan and coalition forces. Their mistake.