U.N.: 70% of Afghan civilian deaths caused by Taliban/insurgents

[bik0]

Civilian deaths caused by Nato/U.S./Afghan forces down by 30%.

Taliban pushes civilian losses higher
Afghans now blame extremists as the toll from blasts and cross fires soars, NATO says.

By Kim Gamel and Deb Riechmann

Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan - Taliban suicide bombings and other attacks caused Afghan civilian deaths to soar last year to the highest annual level of the war, according to a U.N. report yesterday, while deaths attributed to allied troops dropped nearly 30 percent.

Many Afghans now blame the violence on the Taliban rather than foreign forces.

A decline in NATO killings of civilians has become a key U.S. goal for winning over the Afghan people. Public outrage over rising death tolls prompted the top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, last year to tighten the rules on the use of air strikes and other weaponry if civilians were at risk.

The United Nations said 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009, a 14 percent increase over the 2,118 who died in 2008. Nearly 70 percent of civilian deaths last year, or 1,630, were caused by the insurgents, the report found.

NATO and allied Afghan forces were responsible for 25 percent of the deaths, or 596, the United Nations said, down from 828 deaths in 2008. The remainder could not be attributed to either side: civilians caught in the cross fire or killed by unexploded ordnance, according to the report.

More than half the civilian deaths were a result of suicide attacks and other bombings as well as assassinations and executions, despite an order last year by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to avoid endangering noncombatants. Afghans seen as supporting the government or the international community also were increasingly targeted, the United Nations said.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/81437667.html

[existentialist]

1. This finding, and the surprising poll released the other day

that showed more Afghans supporting US and NATO forces and fewer supporting the Taliban actually strongly support each other's credibility.


Much is made of the awfulness of Machiavelli's writings. And usually the right tends to site Machiavelli as support for their preferred methods which are really more methods of ill-considered choice and highly counter productive.

Meanwhile the left generally tends to view any mention of Machiavelli as hateful and equally ignores the substance of his writings.

The substance of his writings very strongly emphasizes the necessity of generosity and kindness to civilians, particularly to women and children but including to adult male civilians as well.

My opinion is that he was correct on the point.

If the Taliban are now killing more civilians then US and NATO forces, then maybe US and NATO forces really are gaining in popularity, and maybe there is hope in Afghanistan.

[Irish_shark]

3. if you're an Afghan. Would you feel safe confessing to a pollster that you support the Taliban?

Especially when the pollsters are ABC and outlets from other European countries. Europe and America are occupying Afghanistan. Wouldn't many people, in the fear of being detained indefinitely by a person who they see as a spy pretending to be a pollster, answer that they love the occupiers?

And trust me. It is a reality that anyone anywhere can be detained for years based on only flimsy evidence of being a "militant"

[existentialist]

4. No.

No I would not.

And, after the poll was released I expressed skepticism on the point on this site.

I'm still skeptical about it myself.

On the other hand, as far as it goes, the poll and the UN finding of the Taliban now killing more civilians in Afghanistan than the US and NATO do support each other.

That does NOT mean that either the poll or the UN findings are completely vindicated or established beyond doubt. But to the extent that they can be believed at all, they support each other.

[daleo]

5. It depends on how independent the U.S., U.N. and NATO are

If they are singing from the same songbook (more or less), then the reinforcement wouldn't mean much. Who really knows?

[bik0]

6. How they're able to classify casualties as civilian or insurgent is another issue

There are probably miscounts on both sides but overall it looks like progress is being made.

[Irish_shark]

2. Self-delete nt

[rollin74]

7. K&R