Hard News: Watching the Watchmen
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
And then we got to "gullible liberals" and "patronising Western liberals" ...
Not that it's necessarily a meaningless category, though, eh?
-
Meanwhile, a New Zealand soldier is killed. And no one can tell me exactly what he died for.
-
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has a useful website.
Its 2009 report on protection of civilians makes troubling reading. Pardon the large copy-n-paste, but it lays out the situation quite well:
UNAMA Human Rights (HR) recorded a total of 2,412 civilian deaths between 01 January and 31 December 2009. This figure represents an increase of 14% on the 2118 civilian deaths recorded in 2008. Of the 2,412 deaths reported in 2009, 1,630 (67%) were attributed to anti-Government elements (AGEs) and 596 (25%) to pro- Government forces (PGF). The remaining 186 deaths (8%) could not be attributed to any of the conflicting parties given as some civilians died as a result of cross-fire or were killed by unexploded ordinance.
AGEs remain responsible for the largest proportion of civilian deaths. Civilian deaths reportedly caused by the armed opposition increased by 41% between 2008 and 2009, from 1,160 to 1,630. Deaths resulting from insurgent-related activities in 2009 were a ratio of approximately three to one as compared to casualties caused by PGF. 1,054 civilians were victims of suicide and other improvised explosive device (IED) attacks by AGEs and 225 were victims of targeted assassinations and executions. These make up the majority of casualties caused by AGE activities and is 53% of the total number of civilian deaths in 2009. Together, these tactics accounted for 78% of the non- combatant deaths attributed to the actions of the armed opposition. The remainder of casualties caused by AGE actions resulted primarily from rocket attacks and ground engagements in which civilian bystanders were directly affected.
Suicide and IED attacks caused more civilian casualties than any other tactic, killing 1,054 civilians, or 44% of the total civilian casualties in 2009. Although such attacks have primarily targeted government or international military forces, they are often carried out in areas frequented by civilians. Civilians are also deliberately targeted with assassinations, abductions, and executions if they are perceived to be supportive of, or associated with, the Government or the international community. A broad range of civilians — including community elders, former military personnel, doctors, teachers and construction workers — have been targeted. Other actors, such as the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also been targeted, often receiving threats, and in some cases becoming victims of violence. Through these actions, the armed opposition has demonstrated a significant disregard for the suffering inflicted on civilians. Intermingling with the civilian population and the frequent use of residential homes as bases puts civilians at risk of attack by the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and international military (IM) forces.
Pro-Government forces - Afghan National Security Forces and International Military (IM) forces - were responsible for 596 recorded deaths; this is 25% of the total civilian casualties recorded in 2009. This is a reduction of 28% from the total number of deaths attributed to pro-Government forces in 2008. This decrease reflects measures taken by international military forces to conduct operations in a manner that reduces the risk posed to civilians.
Notwithstanding some positive trends, actions by PGF continued to take an adverse toll on civilians. UNAMA HR recorded 359 civilians killed due to aerial attacks, which constitutes 61% of the number of civilian deaths attributed to pro-Government forces. This is 15% of the total number of civilians killed in the armed conflict during 2009. IM forces and ANSF also conducted a number of ground operations that caused civilian casualties, including a large number of search and seizure operations. These often involved excessive use of force, destruction to property and cultural insensitivity, particularly towards women.
In other news, World Breastfeeding Week is being marked across Afghanistan this week.
-
UNAMA Human Rights (HR) recorded a total of 2,412 civilian deaths between 01 January and 31 December 2009.
This surprises me because it is really quite a small number. A quick search suggests this number is fairly widely quoted and accepted. Without wanting to be callous, it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Far more are dying in the drug wars in Central and South America. Indeed, the murder rate in several US cities makes them more dangerous on a per capita basis.
-
Without wanting to be callous, it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but yes, I was quite surprised. The thing is that we very rarely hear about the civilian toll in the news. I recall being extremely appalled when Bush did a Christmas speech in the first year, paid tribute to the fallen -- and never once mentioned the loss of Afghan lives.
It's also impossible to know whether the casualty rate would fall or rise on exit of international forces.
-
Bush did a Christmas speech in the first year, paid tribute to the fallen -- and never once mentioned the loss of Afghan lives.
This is one of the more galling things about modern (Western?) body-count journalism. It's a bit off topic, but it bugs me that the flooding in Pakistan has come 1) after Riff Raff gaining residency in NZ and 2) Hone Harawira's latest brain explosion on consecutive nights.
And as Tom points out 'we' have now suffered our first 'combat loss' in Afghanistan, and I won't fault anyone on leading with that today, but please also appropriately acknowledge the lives of others that have been lost through tragedy, otherwise we do start to look just a little bit callous, IMhO.
-
Democracy man on RNZ just talking about value of the Afghanistan leaks.
-
Danyl cribs a New Republic chart offering some facts on whether Afghanistan is a better or worse place since the invasion.
On some counts -- access to education (especially for women and girls, who were entirely denied education under the Taliban regime), access to health care, access to information and communications -- the figures are overwhelmingly better now.
OTOH, life expectancy has fallen.
-
The chart shows that access to "some form" of health care has gone up but infant mortality, a key indicator of population health, remains exactly the same.
Surely if we were interested in getting communications, health and education to deprived people, the coalition's billions of dollars could have been more effectively spent.
-
Ya think!
-
Surely if we were interested in getting communications, health and education to deprived people, the coalition's billions of dollars could have been more effectively spent.
Indeed. And it actually seems hard to believe, given that this was the situation in the late 1990s:
Operating under the guise of Islamic law, the Taliban has prohibited women from working, attending school, leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative and wearing shoes that make noise when they walk. The windows of buildings with women inside must be painted. In public, women must be covered from head to toe by a burqa, an oppressive garment that has only a tiny mesh opening over the eyes.
In September 1997, the Taliban began segregating men and women into separate hospitals. Male doctors are forbidden to treat women unless they are accompanied by a close male relative. At one point, Kabul's half-million women were relegated to one hospital that had 35 beds and no clean water, electricity or surgical equipment. After an international uproar, the Taliban eased some restrictions on women's access to hospitals.
Horrible stories continue to emerge. Women and girls are dying of treatable conditions because they can't get medical care or can't afford a burqa. "A burqa costs $9," says Eleanor Smeal, of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which is spearheading a campaign to stop the gender apartheid. "It's a month's salary for them. They never had to wear these before." Moreover, she says, the burqas don't allow women to breathe properly and are themselves a health hazard.
-
It'd be nice to see this kind of skepticism and meta-analysis of other sources of information on a regular basis. I understand why Wikileaks gets the attention it does, and why their information needs to be critically examined, but that doesn't make them that much different to any source of "the news".
Assange deserves blame for not framing what Wikileaks does as reporting (the "Information wants to be free" angle doesn't really hold up) but he is operating within a wider framework where reporting is routinely accepted or dismissed based on the political leanings of the journalist or publication (if known.)
-
Human Rights Watch has a new report on the threat to women posed by compromises with the Taliban as part of any exit strategy.
It includes a section on women's acess to medical care under the Taliban:
The controls on women’s mobility also impaired their access to medical treatment. Women were allowed to travel to hospitals but only with a male escort, which could cause difficulties, particularly in emergency situations such as childbirth. A decree requiring women patients to be treated only by women doctors was impractical given the shortage of female medical professionals. Irfan Ahmed, an NGO worker, described to Human Rights Watch the impact on women’s access to health care in conservative rural areas such as Khost, Paktia and Zabul: “[T]here are very few female doctors, and in no way could they respond to the need of patients. Most women who get seriously ill have to go to the cities or to Pakistan. The roads are in poor condition and women die on the road. Each month, I hear about a case. In July, I saw a body of a woman who died giving birth on the road
But perhaps the most tragic part is the reference to the pre-Taliban years, in urban areas:
Prior to Taliban rule, women accounted for as many as 70 percent of teachers, and approximately 50 percent of civil servants.
It finds an improvement since:
The accounts of women interviewed by Human Rights Watch show that their freedoms are reduced as the insurgency gains strength in their areas. These women all told Human Rights Watch that they had been happy to see the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001. Most had since taken up their former employment or new jobs, including as teachers, health workers, and civil servants. While many said they already faced considerable pressure and restrictions because Afghanistan is a conservative society, the restrictions increase dramatically when insurgent groups gain more power.
I'm not quoting this to justify the abuses and lies of international forces. But I think it's glib to demand an immediate exit and not consider the consequences.
-
Human Rights Watch has a new report on the threat to women posed by compromises with the Taliban as part of any exit strategy.
And what, exactly, has this got to do with us, far off in our corner of the South Pacific? Are we part of some grand imperial scheme to enforce Western values everywhere that I am not aware of?
Was Osama Bin Laden right all along, the west DOES wish to impose itself on Islam?
-
And what, exactly, has this got to do with us, far off in our corner of the South Pacific? Are we part of some grand imperial scheme to enforce Western values everywhere that I am not aware of?
If that's how you want to see it, Tom, that's up to you. It certainly has the virtue of simplicity, I'll give you that.
-
If that's how you want to see it, Tom, that's up to you. It certainly has the virtue of simplicity, I'll give you that.
I don't expect someone from Fielding to die to make me feel better about women's rights in country we've got no right to be in.
-
While you are watching the watchmen the people the watchmen are watching are up to their of false flag operations it seems
Meanwhile, on the Afghanistan front NATO troops are still Killing Civilians
whilst the IMF could be seen to be doing the Right Thing
All the rest is "My Ideology is bigger than yours" and if someone is bored enough to wade through tax returns, I feel sorry for them. -
I don't expect someone from Fielding to die to make me feel better about women's rights in country we've got no right to be in.
It's not about your feelings.
-
collateral feminism (hat tip to the now show) is no reason for the invasion nor staying the course (whatever that is)
-
collateral feminism (hat tip to the now show) is no reason for the invasion nor staying the course (whatever that is)
This.
We went to Afghanistan to destroy Osama Bin Laden's ability to plan and execute another 9/11. This act of self defense was achieved by the end of 2001.
That was when our involvement in Afghanistan should also have come to an end.
-
And what, exactly, has this got to do with us, far off in our corner of the South Pacific? Are we part of some grand imperial scheme to enforce Western values everywhere that I am not aware of?
Well, I think we have our rationale for withdrawing from the United Nations, tearing up every international treaty and convention we've ever signed and presenting East Timor with a bill for our impertinent meddling. Get to work Murray, but stay the hell out of the mini-bar. :)
-
BTW, Tom, what does flood relief in Pakistan have to do with us? Being the token righty in these parts, surely I'm entirely the wrong person to be arguing that our foreign aid budget not only serves New Zealand's geopolitical interests but is a rather decent thing to do?
-
I don't expect someone from Fielding to die to make me feel better about women's rights in country we've got no right to be in.
I don't expect it, but I do have a small amount of gratitude for it. The fighting for women's rights, not the dying. That's a terrible shame, but also an occupational hazard.
-
I'd agree that helping out the poor and downtrodden is what we should do whereever we reasonably can, but fighting a long and expensive war seems to be a very bad way to do it. Arguing that the US and others should stay in Afghanistan increasingly seems to be about arguing for aid by war. How about they pull out asap, cut military budgets and start doing aid by aid where it'll be most effective?
-
We went to Afghanistan to destroy Osama Bin Laden's ability to plan and execute another 9/11. This act of self defense was achieved by the end of 2001.
That was when our involvement in Afghanistan should also have come to an end.
Was it?
What exactly would have happened if we had withdrawn and left the country to it's own devices?
Seems to me that it might have turned back into one big terrorist training camp. Again.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.