Monday, June 28, 2010
Somebody Got Some 'Splainin' to Do...
I doangeddit
After a year of concentrated effort, NATO forces in Afghanistan have reduced civilian casualties, caused by foreign troops, 44.4 percent. There were 7.8 percent fewer battles even involving civilians, and 52 percent fewer civilians hurt by foreign troops. The most striking reduction (82 percent) was in civilian casualties from air strikes. ...
Many Afghans are not happy with this policy, with foreign troops increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that NATO act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk. This is an unexpected side effect to the change in NATO rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. The ROE change was partly in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. ...
Of course, Afghan civilians are aware of who is killing most of the civilians, and that’s why the Taliban and al Qaeda are moving down in the opinion polls. But for the media, hammering foreign troops every time they kill a civilian, or are simply (often falsely) accused of doing so, led to the ROE becoming far more strict than it ever was in Iraq. Thus one Taliban victory you don’t hear much about is how they turned their use of human shields into a powerful, and very successful, propaganda weapon against NATO and U.S. troops, and an excellent way to avoid getting attacked.
I’ve always been unclear how we determine who is a “civilian” as [in contravention to the Geneva Conventions—which they did not sign anyway] the Tally-ban wars no uniform, no insignia, no flag. The only way to tell who’s a “Bad Guy” is to check his mind for ideas. About which he can lie. Technically, they’re all “civilians.”
CIA director Leon Panetta called the war in Afghanistan “a very tough fight,” and acknowledged that “there are some serious problems.” Panetta said that the Taliban “is engaged in greater violence” now than when President Obama took office, and said that they’re stronger in some ways, but weaker in others, noting that “we’re undermining their leadership.”...
“I think at most, we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity.
Whaa? Did he say there’re just 100 Tally-ban guys in Afghanistan? rly? We’re spending lives of our military—not to mention $3.6bn a month—on 100 Bad Guys?
Yes; I realize that there are a lot of supporting Tally-ban/Tally-ban-esque across the border in Pakky-stain—and elsewhere. And lots of like-minded goat fu... erm, idealogs pretty much all over everywhere. [see: AZ border region—but not for long] But I’m trying to focus, here.
“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”
[*cringes at “sustainable"*] Nevertheless, the man has a point.
Do ya think this will change under General Petraeus? How?! How can he possible manage it?
Is there really a point in not packing up and getting out? Sure, leave behind a warning that we can—and will—glass ya over and mine your ores if another attack originates from there. But are we really making useful progress?
Especially when the goat fu... erm, idealogs feel perfectly safe putting up a ginormous mosk at Ground Zero and calling it Cordoba?
Statistics
This page has been viewed 18347049 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
