by

Dear Afghanistan: Thanks for Gettin’ All Blowed Up.

I give up.

I’ve tried to get in the Snarkmobile, ride it to Snark Mountain, and hide out in Snark Cave for the duration of my time in this country. It’s safer there, and it’s just a lot more fun tossing spitballs from the back of junior high detention than grappling with what’s at stake here in Afghanistan.

Don’t worry, I’m not giving it up. Not, that you’re worried.

But this? Really, Gen. Allen? This is an example of a public affairs “best foot forward?”

ISAF commander encouraged by UNAMA report findings

KABUL, Afghanistan – Gen. John R. Allen, commander, International Security Assistance Force, welcomes the latest report from the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan that shows a reduction in coalition-related civilian casualties.

That would be the report referred to in this article, that also goes on to describe how 3,021 Afghan civilians died in 2011. But hey, so long as it’s not ISAF that’s killing folks, that’s a good thing, right?

Allen goes on:

“Every citizen of Afghanistan must know ISAF will continue to do all we can to reduce casualties that affect the Afghan civilian population. This data is promising but there is more work to be done,” said Allen. “Even one civilian casualty is a tragedy and I will continue to direct each member of the coalition to work to drive the number of ISAF-caused civilian casualties to zero.”

I have to assume that there’s a collective lack of oxygen happening over at ISAF HQ. That’s the only logical explanation for a press release that’s this out of touch with the fact that what they’re saying is, in essence that this report is “good news.” Because mass hypoxia would explain how an 8% increase in the number of dead civilians on the battlefield can be construed as a good thing.

Yes, he does acknowledge that the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the insurgency. Yes, he does state that ISAF is working with GIRoA to defeat the insurgency. Which brings up another interesting part of that report:

The report also points out that while casualties caused by NATO are dropping, those that were the fault of Afghan government forces rose almost 200 percent just for the six-month period of June to December.

So our Afghan partners are picking up the slack in the dead civilians department. So, goodie. Oh, and NATO, while killing fewer civilians, is still doing a bang-up job killing Afghans via death from above:

Still, aerial attacks by NATO accounted for the most civilian deaths of those attributed to government forces, with 187 people killed when NATO used aircraft to bomb houses it believed held insurgents.

In case you’re wondering, there were 410 total deaths caused by what are termed “pro-government forces,” which includes NATO, ANSF, and any/all pro-GIRoA militias. So, NATO bombing still accounted for 45% of all “pro-government” caused deaths.

Gen. Allen, sir, with ALL due respect — more dead civilians, no matter who killed them is not… I repeat NOT a good thing.

It doesn’t make military sense. It’s a terrible measure of success for  any kind of intervention, which at this point I think is a “counterinterrrorreconurgency.” And, it makes anyone who puts out that kind of statement sound like you just don’t care about the innocent civilians getting blown into little tiny bits just so YOU can tell the rest of the morons who eat up this drivel that “hey, things are going GREAT!”

I know that last part’s not true…I know for a fact that COMISAF cares a very great deal about dead civilians. But releases like this don’t convey that message. Maybe I’m just too stupid to grasp the subtle nuances of how the Public Affairs machine works. Maybe I’m not smart enough to understand how this sort of thing could be go. Maybe I think dead civilians is a bad thing. If that’s true, I’d rather stay stupid. Maybe get a job on Mitt Romney’s staff. That sort of non-logic I can handle.

This? This is just going to drive me to drink.

Related articles

3 thoughts on “Dear Afghanistan: Thanks for Gettin’ All Blowed Up.”

  1. Gen. Petraeus used to say that civilian casualties caused by the insurgents were bad for ISAF because as a security force, our job is to protect civilians. Using any civilian casualty as a “pro” is not a very solid PA practice.

    Reply

    • Yeah I’d pretty much have to go with the P4 on this one. I’m not sure why they keep beating this drum. I know I’d rather not be beating it, but this kind of messaging just drains the soul. Not, in reality, that anyone in the States is listening to it, and, at the end of the day, there are more interesting stories in this country, but still… not a good move.

      Reply

  2. Pingback: What Dead Afghans Tell Us About COIN: the UNAMA Report | Sunny in Kabul

Leave a Reply