U.S. Military Escalation Leads to Record Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and a newly released UN report, there were 800 civilian casualties between January and May 2009. Armed clashes between insurgents, the U.S. military, and the ISAF are up 24 percent this year, and have displaced tens of thousands more people. With over 1,000 recorded incidents of violence in May alone, Afghanistan is experiencing the worst security since the war began. And to make matters worse, the UN reported concluded, "The next period will likely experience an increase in the level of violence compared with the same period last year, including complex suicide attacks, intimidation and assassinations carried out by insurgents." That period, unfortunately, coincides with the Afghan presidential and provincial council elections slated for August.

The deadly consequences of militarizing the political crisis in Afghanistan may seem logical, but they're no less disturbing as we see staggering numbers of civilian casualties from this war. Complicating matters is the fact that insurgents have been targeting NGOs and aid workers. In the past six months, there were over 60 security incidents involving NGOs, with many aid workers reported killed or kidnapped. Such violence undercuts the chances of already underfunded humanitarian efforts, and yet the Pentagon has responded with more troops and airstrikes, creating more violence, more casualties, more anti-American sentiment, and the need for even more aid.

U.S. military leaders clearly view the precarious situation in Afghanistan in part as a PR war. That's why they were so quick to blame Taliban militants for the Farah province aistrikes that left up 140 civilians dead. But as Gareth Porter reported last week, the official military investigation of that disastrous attack revealed there were no Taliban fighters killed during second and third B-1 bombings, in which the majority of civilians died. So much for the military's human shield theory.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zp-heller/us-military-escalation-le_b_222743.html

Afghanistan has become Obama's war.
 
blackascoal said:
According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and a newly released UN report, there were 800 civilian casualties between January and May 2009. Armed clashes between insurgents, the U.S. military, and the ISAF are up 24 percent this year, and have displaced tens of thousands more people. With over 1,000 recorded incidents of violence in May alone, Afghanistan is experiencing the worst security since the war began. And to make matters worse, the UN reported concluded, "The next period will likely experience an increase in the level of violence compared with the same period last year, including complex suicide attacks, intimidation and assassinations carried out by insurgents." That period, unfortunately, coincides with the Afghan presidential and provincial council elections slated for August.

The deadly consequences of militarizing the political crisis in Afghanistan may seem logical, but they're no less disturbing as we see staggering numbers of civilian casualties from this war. Complicating matters is the fact that insurgents have been targeting NGOs and aid workers. In the past six months, there were over 60 security incidents involving NGOs, with many aid workers reported killed or kidnapped. Such violence undercuts the chances of already underfunded humanitarian efforts, and yet the Pentagon has responded with more troops and airstrikes, creating more violence, more casualties, more anti-American sentiment, and the need for even more aid.

U.S. military leaders clearly view the precarious situation in Afghanistan in part as a PR war. That's why they were so quick to blame Taliban militants for the Farah province aistrikes that left up 140 civilians dead. But as Gareth Porter reported last week, the official military investigation of that disastrous attack revealed there were no Taliban fighters killed during second and third B-1 bombings, in which the majority of civilians died. So much for the military's human shield theory.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zp-heller/us-military-escalation-le_b_222743.html

Afghanistan has become Obama's war.
Click to expand...
He did promise to do that and to get Osama. This is no surprise.
 
Damocles said:
He did promise to do that and to get Osama. This is no surprise.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a surprise, but it is the same course of needless failed war that Bush followed.

This is now Obama's needless failed war .. and it's more than a bit interesting watching all the anti-Bush war-haters run and stick their heads in the ground on this.
 
BAC I think you and I agreed before the election that Obama would be no messiah.
I wonder if Obama is still following the bush rules on reporters and journalists in the war zones?
It is all the liberal media's fault! ;)
 
blackascoal said:
No, it isn't a surprise, but it is the same course of needless failed war that Bush followed.

This is now Obama's needless failed war .. and it's more than a bit interesting watching all the anti-Bush war-haters run and stick their heads in the ground on this.
Click to expand...


We had a long discussion about this before the election. Obama made it abundantly clear during the campaign (and earlier) that he was not "anti-war" and that he planned to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.
 
Dungheap said:
We had a long discussion about this before the election. Obama made it abundantly clear during the campaign (and earlier) that he was not "anti-war" and that he planned to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Yeah some of us knew that Obama would be a dissapointment in several areas. The War being one.

However I am still convinced we are better off than with Palin/McCain.
 
Demwit said:
Yeah some of us knew that Obama would be a dissapointment in several areas. The War being one.

However I am still convinced we are better off than with Palin/McCain.
Click to expand...

That is such an intellectually lazy answer when you use it everytime Obama does something you don't like or don't agree with. Can you use it as a reason to vote for someone? Sure, lots of people do. People who may not have been happy with Bush in '04 still voted for him because they still thought he was better than Kerry.

But you use the 'McCain would be worse' everytime Obama does something bad or you don't like. It's weak because you spent four years mocking exactly what you are saying now. Just man up and say you don't like something and move on.

Edit: And BAC does have a point. Where have all the anti-war protestors gone? Even if Obama is doing what he said he would do vis-a-vis Afghanistan does that mean anti-war protestors are just going to accept it and not fight it like they did against Bush?
 
Last edited:
"Edit: And BAC does have a point. Where have all the anti-war protestors gone? Even if Obama is doing what he said he would do vis-a-vis Afghanistan does that mean anti-war protestors are just going to accept it and not fight it like they did against Bush? "

Afghanistan had MUCH more support on the left side of the spectrum than Iraq ever did. If you do some googling, you will see that 90% of the anti-war movement has been directed at the invasion of Iraq, starting with the mass protests in the beginning of 2003 & leading up to invasion.

We can have a separate debate on whether or not Afghanistan at this point deserves more attention from the anti-war movement, but the fact is, it was not the focus when it was Bush's war or when it's Obama's war...
 
Demwit said:
BAC I think you and I agreed before the election that Obama would be no messiah.
I wonder if Obama is still following the bush rules on reporters and journalists in the war zones?
It is all the liberal media's fault! ;)
Click to expand...

If he agrees to foillowing the Bush media approach to war .. AND the Bush-war-haters remain quiet still ......... there are no words.

"It is all the liberal media's fault"

That's good.
 
Onceler said:
"Edit: And BAC does have a point. Where have all the anti-war protestors gone? Even if Obama is doing what he said he would do vis-a-vis Afghanistan does that mean anti-war protestors are just going to accept it and not fight it like they did against Bush? "

Afghanistan had MUCH more support on the left side of the spectrum than Iraq ever did. If you do some googling, you will see that 90% of the anti-war movement has been directed at the invasion of Iraq, starting with the mass protests in the beginning of 2003 & leading up to invasion.

We can have a separate debate on whether or not Afghanistan at this point deserves more attention from the anti-war movement, but the fact is, it was not the focus when it was Bush's war or when it's Obama's war...
Click to expand...

I disagree my good brother.

Was it anti-war or only anti-Bush-war?

We protested against Iraq because it was an unnecessary war, not because Bush led it .. at least that's what those of us who are serious about the tragic consequences of unnecessary war did.

Afghanistan is unnecessary war, and like Iraq, has no recognizable mission. Like Iraq, most of those doing the dying are innocent and had absolutely ZERO to do with 9/11, Bin Laden, the Taliban, WMD, OIL .. OIL .. OIL, or space aliens landing in DC. They are innocent of all crimes except standing in the way of American theatre.

Additionally, there was indeed much angst about Afghanistan among the left because we knew from the very beginning that the goal in Afghanistan was PIPELINE and OIL. Words unspoken by Obama.

We could point to the very words uttered by PNAC that confirmed what the goal was. All they needed was a "New Pearl Harbor."

The reason for the silence is obvious .. now it's the democrats turn to stick their heads in the ground.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
I disagree my good brother.

Was it anti-war or only anti-Bush-war?

We protested against Iraq because it was an unnecessary war, not because Bush led it .. at least that's what those of us who are serious about the tragic consequences of unnecessary war did.

Afghanistan is unnecessary war, and like Iraq, has no recognizable mission. Like Iraq, most of those doing the dying are innocent and had absolutely ZERO to do with 9/11, Bin Laden, the Taliban, WMD, OIL .. OIL .. OIL, or space aliens landing in DC. There are innocent of all crimes except standing in the way of American theatre.

Additionally, there was indeed much angst about Afghanistan among the left because we knew from the very beginning that the goal in Afghanistan was PIPELINE and OIL. Words unspoken by Obama.

We could point to the very words uttered by PNAC that confirmed what the goal was. All they needed was a "New Pearl Harbor."

The reason for the silence is obvious .. now it's the democrats turn to stick their heads in the ground.
Click to expand...

As I said, the reality is that most of the anti-war movement was directed at Iraq, starting with the mass protests in 2003 and extending to organizations like IVAW. That's just a fact.

There were very few protests when Afghanistan started; quite frankly, though it was "Bush's war" at the time, I did not oppose it either. There was MUCH more justification for Afghanistan than there ever was with Iraq. Iraq was much more of a WTF kind of war.

Now, you can make a good argument against Afghanistan, particularly in hindsight, and that is probably the subject for another thread. The bottom line is that a comparison between the anti-war reaction to both wars, under Bush & under Obama, is a strawman, because it implies a hypocrisy which doesn't really exist.
 
cawacko said:
That is such an intellectually lazy answer when you use it everytime Obama does something you don't like or don't agree with. Can you use it as a reason to vote for someone? Sure, lots of people do. People who may not have been happy with Bush in '04 still voted for him because they still thought he was better than Kerry.

But you use the 'McCain would be worse' everytime Obama does something bad or you don't like. It's weak because you spent four years mocking exactly what you are saying now. Just man up and say you don't like something and move on.

Edit: And BAC does have a point. Where have all the anti-war protestors gone? Even if Obama is doing what he said he would do vis-a-vis Afghanistan does that mean anti-war protestors are just going to accept it and not fight it like they did against Bush?
Click to expand...


"where have all the anti-war protestors gone?
Click to expand...

C’mon Cawacko. Throw me a bone. Give me a more difficult question to answer. This one is too easy.

Riddle me this batman….did you ever see major protests against the Afghanistan war in the last eight years?

No you didn’t. The Afghanistan war was always perceived to have an air of legitimacy and the left never mobilized against that war. In short, you didn’t see afghan war protests during the bush regime, the question is, why did you expect them to start under Obama?

The left’s pet peeve was always Bush’s Iraq War. Which was clearly illegal, lacked any moral legitimacy, and was completely unprovoked and unnecessary.

I personally think, in hindsight, that the afghan war was a terrible blunder. We ended up slaughtering too many civilians, and OBL should have been pursued through other means, like covert ops, law enforcement, and intelligence activities.

But, I think you know full well that complaining that “the left” isn’t storming the gates over Afghanistan is a phony and laughable assertion by depressed, former Bush supporters.



p.s., hey bro, hope you're back in cali. :clink:
 
cawacko said:
That is such an intellectually lazy answer when you use it everytime Obama does something you don't like or don't agree with. Can you use it as a reason to vote for someone? Sure, lots of people do. People who may not have been happy with Bush in '04 still voted for him because they still thought he was better than Kerry.

But you use the 'McCain would be worse' everytime Obama does something bad or you don't like. It's weak because you spent four years mocking exactly what you are saying now. Just man up and say you don't like something and move on.

Edit: And BAC does have a point. Where have all the anti-war protestors gone? Even if Obama is doing what he said he would do vis-a-vis Afghanistan does that mean anti-war protestors are just going to accept it and not fight it like they did against Bush?
Click to expand...

You did have a bit of a valid point from your point of view. However I did not and still do not think Kerry would have been worse than Bush. And apparently many who voted for Bush in 2004 realized this as well.
 
Thanks BAC. You have given me cause to think on this more.
I agree with you on the root basics.

However how do we get out without creating a worse situation?
For me I would just say pull out now and damn all, but I know that will never happen.
And we do have some national obligation to the world to try and clean up the Bush war mess...

For me no easy answers.

A big part of the reason I do not LIKE any politicians and just view some as less destructive to America than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top