Skip to main content

UN Report trashes all the hype about successes in Afghanistan

One can only be indebted to the alternate media for picking up and reporting on all manner of things, especially politically directed, which the mainstream media simply doesn't.

Take a bow WIRED which reports on a UN Report, which as WIRED rightly says, "trashes" all the hype of successes in Afghanistan coming from the USA and its allies in NATO.

"So this is what “fragile and reversible” progress looks like in Afghanistan: violence is up 51 percent since this time last year, thanks to a hurricane of insurgent suicide attacks, assassinations and bombs, undermining U.S. military claims that it’s breaking the momentum of the Taliban.

The closest thing the war has to a report card comes in the form of a new quarterly report from the United Nations. And the American troop surge appears to be dangerously close to flunking. According to the U.N., not only is violence on the rise, but so are civilian casualties. Compared to the spring of 2010, civilian deaths and injuries are up 20 percent, with 1,090 dead and 1,860 wounded. Over 435,000 Afghans are displaced by the war, a 4 percent rise.

The U.N. report directly contradicts an emerging talking point in the U.S. military. Lt. Gen. John Allen, the incoming war commander, told a Senate panel on Tuesday that “violence is five percent lower so far this year in comparison to last year,” (.pdf) a statistic that David Ignatius attributes to Gen. David Petraeus in his Wednesday column. Not only is violence not going down, if the U.N. is to believed, it’s going way up — far from a war effort that’s arresting Taliban momentum.

The silver lining for the U.S.: its proportion of civilian casualties continues to decline. Only 10 percent of casualties, 292 since March, were the responsibility of U.S. and allied military action. In 2010, the U.S. was responsible for 16 percent of 2,777 civilian deaths.


But whatever counterinsurgency strategy remains in Afghanistan wasn’t premised on bringing down the proportion of U.S.-caused civilian deaths. It was premised on protecting the population from insurgent violence. Despite a fierce fight to clear out the insurgency from Helmand and Kandahar for the past 18 months, Kandahar accounts for the “majority” of security incidents, the U.N. finds, “with a quarter of the overall attacks and more than half of all assassinations recorded countrywide.”

And the uptick in violence isn’t just attributable to the U.S. fighting the Taliban out of Kandahar. Homemade bombs are up, though the U.N. doesn’t specify by how much. April alone saw 17 suicide attacks. Five of those “complex attacks,” which combine suicide bombing with small arms fire or other insurgent tactics, a total higher than any month in 2010. Then come insurgent attacks targeting convoys, government buildings, civilian contractors — and political assassinations.

One interesting fact from the perspective of the way Petraeus has prosecuted the war: he’s increased air strikes significantly, which the Afghans associate with indiscriminate civilian deaths. But the U.N. doesn’t find any appreciable increase in civilian deaths due to the escalated air war.

But if the report is correct, then the U.S. military’s biggest effort to rescue Afghanistan — the troop surge — failed. Now that the surge is ending, the best the U.S. can do is hope that drones, commando raids, trained Afghan soldiers and some sort of peace deal can end the war."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...