The Afghanistan Rights Monitor’s (ARM) mid-year report on Civilian Casualties of Conflict (pdf) blasts the happy-talk coming out of the Obama Administration about the deteriorating security situation and its effect on civilians:
Despite the high-profile spin in Washington and Kabul about progress made in Afghanistan, the Afghan people have only witnessed and suffered an intensifying armed conflict over the past six months. Contrary to President Barrack Obama’s promise that the deployment of additional 30,000 US forces to the country would “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” Taliban insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies in the region, the insurgency has become more resilient, multi-structured and deadly. Information and figures received, verified and analyzed by Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) show about 1,074 civilian people were killed and over 1,500 were injured in armed violence and security incidents from 1 January to 30 June 2010. This shows a slight increase in the number of civilian deaths compared to the same period last year when 1,059 deaths were recorded.
…In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since the demise of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Not only have the number of security incidents increased, the space and depth of insurgency and counter-insurgency-related violence have maximized dramatically. Up to 1,200 security incident were recorded in June, the highest number of incident compared to any month since 2002.
The administration and their allies have continuously that "we’re making progress," "we’re turning the tide," or "we’ve begun to reverse the insurgents’ momentum," but the data doesn’t support their assertions. As ARM’s report shows, civilian casualties continue to climb even as more troops flood into the country — troops executing a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy supposedly premised on "protecting the population." The rise in troop levels and civilian casualties has been accompanied by an increasingly large and sophisticated insurgency and a widening lead in sympathy or support for the insurgents in key districts of Afghanistan.
Even the portion of the report that blasts the insurgent factions for their outrageously immoral tactics is bad news for the U.S. The report slams insurgents use of IEDs and suicide bombings as weapons of choice. A number of news outlets have noted this portion of the report along with the drop in U.S./NATO-caused civilian deaths, but it’s a safe bet you won’t find too many honest-to-God COIN-lovers cheering about the stats noted in this report. COIN doctrine asserts the importance not just of the protection of civilians from killings by counterinsurgents (in this case, U.S. and allied forces), but the protection of the people in general. Counterinsurgency doctrine says that people aren’t going to switch to your side if they think they’ll get killed for it, no matter how few cause civilian deaths your team causes.
ARM was similarly blunt when it came to the issue of the corruption and abuse rampant in the Afghan government and their police force:
Amidst widespread concerns about rampant corruption and abuse of power by the police, NATO has not only continued to recruit ill-qualified people to swamp police numbers but has reportedly reduced the training period to only four weeks.
An overwhelming majority of the police is illiterate and lack adequate knowledge about the basics of civil policing and human rights. Many police officers are addicted to drugs, have notorious criminal backgrounds or maintain allegiance to powerful militia or criminal commanders…Pervasive corruption and abuse of authority by the police have devastating impacts on individuals and communities that desperately need a sense of security, protection and the rule of law. Corrupt and abusive police also contributed to widespread criminality, criminal impunity and denial of peoples’ access to justice and other essential services.
If you can’t protect the population generally, from the perspective of COIN doctrine, you lose. If you lack a legitimate host nation government as a partner, you lose. And guess what? According to that doctrine — the doctrine used as the rationale for the troop-heavy American strategy in Afghanistan — the United States is losing. Badly.
If you’re tired of seeing blood and treasure wasted on a brutal, costly war that’s not making us safer, join Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and sign up for a local Rethink the Afghanistan War Meetup.



19 Comments




I’ve read also in that ARM report that the daily averages have been 14 civilians a day… Basically 6 killed and 8 wounded…! 8-(
The deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle have vowed that these pointless and very brutal colonial wars in collaboration with Britain, et al., are strictly and unequivocally off the table in perpetuity ad nauseam, blah, blah, blah, and so on.
BushCo bullshit has become ObamaCo bullshit. It’s still bullshit, despite all the parsing by Spencer Ackerman and his fellow apologists for Obama:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100714/D9GUSP8O0.html
What is black-humor funny is listening to people all the way from Obama down to Ackerman, etc., as they desperately try to make the same arguments that Bush, Cheyney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, etc., made, without sounding like
Bush, Cheyney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.
If any of you are old enough, you can black out the dates in the news and you will swear that you are reading stories and headlines from 45 years ago. I know that people will say that there are major differences with what happened in Viet Nam, but does “turning the tide,” “government corruption,” and “being killed for helping the Americans” sound very familiar?
Yes. And we thought Nam was the “longest war.”
A year ago I actually hoped that reinforcements sent to Afghanistan could quickly regain the initiative and convince key Taliban elements to take a deal so we could get out. That was naive, the Taliban mounted their own “surge” exactly as they threatened to do. They are still winning.
I suppose the latest hope is that because we announced a pullout of American troops a year from now, the Taliban will get complacent and the level of violence will go down. That doesn’t seem to be happening either.
I guess in terms of “one enemy” we could call everything since WWII wars, even though undeclared by Congress. I continue to maintain, however, that the longest war was, and continues in some respects, the fighting against the American Indians or First People or whatever works for you.
I am not sure when the Taliban became the enemy that we need to destroy. Our “war” was with al Qaeda. We were going to “destroy, etc.” them. Al Qaeda has long been gone except for a few stragglers. Why don’t we declare victory and get out? Oh, yeah, minerals, pipeline, and drug materials. What was I thinking?
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post up: Reid Sets Tentative Late July Debate for Climate and Energy Bill
After the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and the PENTTBOM investigation, the United States delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban:
1. Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of Al Qaeda;
2. Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3. Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.
Over the course of the investigation, the United States petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the campaign as self-defense against armed attack.
Thank you. My question exactly: when oh when did the Taliban become the enemy? Nice how that happened – eh? Yeah, yeah, I don’t like them, either, and their treatment of women and kids is beyond atrocious, abysmal and appalling, but the Taliban is/was mostly in power because of Team USA, who left a power vacuum behind when we mostly skipped away from Charlie Wilson’s War and the Afghani defeat of the Roooskies (the spies who love us). We didn’t do much to nation build, and the Taliban, who we armed, etc, stepped up and the rest is history.
Sadly I see too many bloggers (at other sites) who are progressives/lefties and anti-war and all that, but they get confused and have the very misinformed belief that Afghanistan was somehow involved with and responsible for 9/11. If those who are basically pacificists and leftists believe that, woe betide us.
One thing you forgot in list of why Team USA is still there is that the MIC is making beaucoup bucks outta of unending War Inc. At this point, the heroin sales and the minerals, etc, are all small potatoes in comparison to lining the pockets of the MIC fat cats with YOUR and my tax dollahs! Can we say: unending wars?? Cha-ching!!$$$!! Big Daddy WarBuck$$$ has spoken.
How to get out of Iraq: give the US military everything it asks for (even though won’t work), surge the troops, force the Repugs to agree it worked (they can’t admit the sacred military option failed), then declare victory and get out on the timetable.
Afghanistan: repeat same. Declare victory and get out on the timetable. Realpolitik, baby.
Aside: Recall when Secretary of State Colin Powell went through with US foreign aid to the Taliban in the amount of something like $50MM — after they blew up the Buddha statue? People are crazy and times are strange.
BearCountry, I sure am old enough to remember those phrases. Lately, I’m quoting Tony Soprano more and more: “It’s all bullshit.”
Orwell’s 1984 revisited
Paying the Taliban is something General Petraeus will probably try, like he paid off Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Cheaper to bribe them to stop fighting than keep deploying U.S. soldiers at an annual cost of $1 million each. Anyway, we’ll never have the half million strong force that COIN doctrine requires to secure Afghanistan’s population.
There’s a difference and it’s important:
The Taliban are not in the situation that the Sahwa were. The groups who became the Sahwa were fighting:
Groups of fighters loosely defined as al-Qaeda in Irak.
The Americans.
The Shia revivalist government led by the Dawlat al Qanoon.
Assorted Shia militias and death squads in particular the Badr Brigades and other militias associated with SCIRI.
The most important of these fights was the one with the green zone government forces and the badrists.
There was a real possibility that the (mostly) Sunni community from which the Sahwists came would either be rendered completely impotent politically or would be ethnically cleansed from their strongholds (as had happened in Baghdad).
So they allied with the Americans to get guns and money and most of all political protection.
What will happen when their protectors leave is a damned good question ….
The Taliban are not facing extermination. They’re managing to grind the invaders down. If matters continue as they are now it looks to me like the only thing they’ll negotiate is the terms of an absolute surrender by the Americans.
Most of us here see the ongoing exercise in Afghanistan as futility. In about a year we will see a helicopter taking off from the top of a building in Kabul carrying the last of the Americans and getting away from the Afghans who supported us. I think I’ve seen something similar in the past.
BearCountry, I look forward to that image. :o)