Obama's Afghan Strategy Includes Increased Civilian Casualties

[Bragi]

"Small bands of elite American Special Operations forces have been operating with increased intensity for several weeks in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan’s largest city, picking up or picking off insurgent leaders to weaken the Taliban in advance of major operations, senior administration and military officials say.

The looming battle for the spiritual home of the Taliban is shaping up as the pivotal test of President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, including how much the United States can count on the country’s leaders and military for support, and whether a possible increase in civilian casualties from heavy fighting will compromise a strategy that depends on winning over the Afghan people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/world/asia/26kandahar.html?pagewanted=2&ref=global-home


Prediction: Much spin but no good will come from this planned bloodbath.

- B

[stray cat]

1. Fighting usually involves civilian casualties - where do people get the idea war doesn't

[Bragi]

2. You make it sound like war is a natural disaster

It isn't. It's a man-made tragedy. Obama is wrong to escalate this war, and no good will come from it.

[Zynx]

3. Indeed. Even the Napoleonic wars killed over a million civilians.

A disproportionate share of that is probably the French treatment of Spain.

[Bragi]

11. Excellent rebuttal

Since the number of additional civilians killed by Obama's escalation of the war will likely be under a million, it is gratifying to think that his civilian body count will be less than that of Napoleon.

There's change we can believe in, for sure.

[MadHound]

10. True that, but it is doubly an insult when the war that is causing civilian casualties

Is an illegal, immoral war being fought for resources and empire.

[Lil Missy]

4. Misleading Title: You make it sound like more civilian casualties is Obama's strategy.

:thumbsdown:

[Bragi]

6. Disagree

The headline states that his strategy includes more civilian casualties. Which it does. And it will fail to bring this pointless war to an end.

[Lil Missy]

7. It's slanted. That's how Faux news reports.

[johnaries]

8. Bullshit. The plan is escalation. The article mentions

a possible increase in civilian strategies. It is NOT part of the plan as your bullshit headline states.

You should work for KKKarl Rove.

[Bragi]

9. I'm antiwar, so Rove isn't really my type

However, since you seem to be more concerned about possibly over-torqued headlines than about increased killing of civilians in a pointless war I think you and Mr. Rove might be a better fit.

As for whether increased civilian deaths is but a mere possibility, unless the military has invented a new way to mount combat in populated urban areas, then I think it safe to assume that there will be increased civilian casualties from Obama's escalation of Bush's war in Afghanistan.

[Oregone]

5. I learned here that this is what those civilians get for not revolting against the Taliban

[dionysus]

12. nice, lying, imaginary headline you invented.

[Bragi]

13. So perceived spin bothers you more than increased civlian casualties?

Either that or you think the US military has magically come up with a way of escalating combat in a populated urban area without increased civilian casualties.

The pro-war people here are truly pathetic.

[dionysus]

14. i'm not pro war. when you resort to lying to embellish your argument, you

lose all credibility.

[Bragi]

15. I reject the idea the headline is inaccurate

What is quite inaccurate is the notion that escalating combat in a populated urban area "may" result in a "possible" increase in civilian casualties.

I believe this planned bloodbath, when it happens, will confirm once again that escalating combat in a populated area causes increased civilian casualties.

It will also mark the end of any remaining doubt that Obama's unwise escalation of the pointless Afghanistan war is unacceptable to most Americans, and internationally.