Comments on: Foreign, Afghan Troops Allegedly Kill 6 at Rally against Western Burning of Qur’an http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:17:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Walking Wounded http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1632 Walking Wounded Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:12:33 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1632 Behnam, I think what Prof Cole is saying is that the statistic's validity has to be seen and accepted in local perceptions, if it's to have any local effect in legitimizing the US-NATO-Kabul war against a brutal Pashtun-Taliban insurgency. Gen McChrystal's staff is probably pretty limited in getting that message out.<br /><br />Prof Cole, I have to second other commentors who question the data integrity. If the UN is intent on enabling the US-NATO-ISAF's military mission to help Karzai win a civil war, their role as an honest broker of conflict mortality data is suspect. UN estimates of overall Afghan mortality have been very low, given the escalating level of US-NATO-ANA casualties.<br /><br />As an example of how numbers get misattributed, the 15 murdered citizens of Haditha, Iraq were tallied by the US as victims of the IED bomb that precipitated the subsequent murders, and persistent local calls for justice were discounted for months as a Sunni disinformation program.<br /><br />It's a sad fact of war that even 'smart' weapons, like laser-bombs or command IED mines, get used in ways that kill civilians. But most conflict mortality is due to disease, poor nutrition and displacement of impoverished populations, and it will continue long after the shooting war ends. Behnam, I think what Prof Cole is saying is that the statistic's validity has to be seen and accepted in local perceptions, if it's to have any local effect in legitimizing the US-NATO-Kabul war against a brutal Pashtun-Taliban insurgency. Gen McChrystal's staff is probably pretty limited in getting that message out.

Prof Cole, I have to second other commentors who question the data integrity. If the UN is intent on enabling the US-NATO-ISAF's military mission to help Karzai win a civil war, their role as an honest broker of conflict mortality data is suspect. UN estimates of overall Afghan mortality have been very low, given the escalating level of US-NATO-ANA casualties.

As an example of how numbers get misattributed, the 15 murdered citizens of Haditha, Iraq were tallied by the US as victims of the IED bomb that precipitated the subsequent murders, and persistent local calls for justice were discounted for months as a Sunni disinformation program.

It's a sad fact of war that even 'smart' weapons, like laser-bombs or command IED mines, get used in ways that kill civilians. But most conflict mortality is due to disease, poor nutrition and displacement of impoverished populations, and it will continue long after the shooting war ends.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1623 Anonymous Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:21:23 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1623 "The UN maintains that the general perception in Afghanistan that US aerial bombardment is responsible for most civilian deaths is incorrect. In fact, of the over 2400 civilians killed in 2009, two thirds were killed by Taliban or other radical fundamentalists."<br /><br />This strikes me as a mad justification for America's war on and occupation of Afghanistan. "The UN maintains that the general perception in Afghanistan that US aerial bombardment is responsible for most civilian deaths is incorrect. In fact, of the over 2400 civilians killed in 2009, two thirds were killed by Taliban or other radical fundamentalists."

This strikes me as a mad justification for America's war on and occupation of Afghanistan.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1622 Anonymous Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:01:58 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1622 So we smashing Afghanistan to bits we are helping a few farmers and not killing quite so many Afghans as might otherwise be thought by civilized people. I am so pleased.<br /><br />War forever is the American answer. So we smashing Afghanistan to bits we are helping a few farmers and not killing quite so many Afghans as might otherwise be thought by civilized people. I am so pleased.

War forever is the American answer.

]]> By: Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1621 Juan Cole Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:10:29 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1621 6:43 am - Sorry that was an error. The words 'is incorrect' at the end of that sentence somehow got elided, and I fixed it. Thanks so much for your vigilance.<br /><br />cheers Juan 6:43 am – Sorry that was an error. The words 'is incorrect' at the end of that sentence somehow got elided, and I fixed it. Thanks so much for your vigilance.

cheers Juan

]]> By: Matthew http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1620 Matthew Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:00:55 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1620 How do you come to the conclusion that "the UN maintains that the general perception in Afghanistan is that US aerial bombardment is responsible for most civilian deaths"? The Times article seems to report the opposite, something I note as a positive at UN Dispatch (http://www.undispatch.com/node/9409). In fact, the full report explicitly states that most deaths were caused by "anti-Government elements" and that "suicide and IED attacks caused more civilian casualties than any other tactic." How do you come to the conclusion that "the UN maintains that the general perception in Afghanistan is that US aerial bombardment is responsible for most civilian deaths"? The Times article seems to report the opposite, something I note as a positive at UN Dispatch (link to undispatch.com
In fact, the full report explicitly states that most deaths were caused by "anti-Government elements" and that "suicide and IED attacks caused more civilian casualties than any other tactic."

]]> By: Behnam http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/foreign-afghan-troops-allegedly-kill-6.html#comment-1618 Behnam Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:42:54 +0000 http://www.juancole.com/?p=4903#comment-1618 Dear Professor Cole,<br /><br /> You quote statistics about how many deaths are caused by NATO bombings.<br /><br /> But where do these statistics come from? Do they come from NATO?<br /><br /> In most previous incidents in which large numbers of civilians were killed, the United States denied the claims of human rights organizations, Afghan officials, and observers on the ground. So, it does matter where the statistics comes from.<br /><br />B. Dear Professor Cole,

You quote statistics about how many deaths are caused by NATO bombings.

But where do these statistics come from? Do they come from NATO?

In most previous incidents in which large numbers of civilians were killed, the United States denied the claims of human rights organizations, Afghan officials, and observers on the ground. So, it does matter where the statistics comes from.

B.

]]>