iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Afghan Legacy: More Civilian Deaths

Obama Afghan Civilians

First Posted: 03/10/11 02:01 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- There is no consensus about what good has been achieved in the two-plus years that President Barack Obama has waged war in Afghanistan. But one negative result is indisputable: the war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians.

Newly released data on civilian casualties compiled by the U.S.-led NATO forces confirm what the United Nations reported on Wednesday: That even as Obama has doubled the number of U.S. troops in the country, the insurgency has only gotten more brutal and life for ordinary Afghans has become more perilous.

Published for the first time on Thursday by Science magazine, data from the military's "CIVCAS" database show a 19 percent increase in the number of civilians killed last year, compared to the previous year.

That's more or less in line with the U.N. data, which showed a 15 percent increase during that same period -- after a 14 percent increase between 2008 and 2009.

The scale of the two databases is not identical. Critics have long accused U.S. military officials of undercounting civilian casualties, particularly those they cause. The military data show that 2,537 civilians were killed and 5,594 were wounded over the past two years, attributing 88 percent of those casualties to insurgents.

The U.N. report, by contrast, finds twice as many casualties overall, and it attributes nearly three times as many to pro-government forces. For instance, according to Science correspondent John Bohannon, the military database doesn't include hundreds of deaths by airstrikes that the U.N. counted.

Nevertheless, both sets of data indicate that there was a spike in civilian casualties in 2010. Both reports find that the spike was the result of a stepped-up anti-government insurgency, not NATO action. And both conclude the U.S.-led forces were actually responsible for fewer casualties in 2010 than the prior year, despite the dramatically increased tempo of their operations.

Civilian casualties linked to the U.S.-led forces were down 21 percent year over year, according to the U.N. report. The CIVCAS data showed a smaller drop overall, but identified particular progress in "escalation of force" incidents, most of which involved innocent civilians who simply failed to slow down sufficiently at military checkpoints.

According to the U.N. data, civilian deaths from U.S.-led airstrikes were halved in 2010, to 171. But that finding is unlikely to provide solace to a country grieving after a U.S.-led helicopter crew accidentally opened fire on a group of children last week, killing nine boys.

Similarly, in February, the Afghan government claimed that 65 civilians, including 40 children, were killed during a U.S.-led assault. Afterward, according to the Washington Post, senior commander Gen. David Petraeus shocked some of President Hamid Karzai's aides when he suggested that some Afghans might have burned their own children to exaggerate claims of civilian casualties.

British reporter Jerome Starkey, who last year uncovered a civilian massacre that NATO's Afghanistan headquarters tried to cover up, has argued that NATO goes to extreme lengths to avoid admitting its mistakes.

The military database also vindicates WikiLeaks as a source of useful information. Bohannon concluded that the official database's death toll is "93 percent identical" to the toll revealed by the raw observations that were among the 90,000 leaked U.S. military records made public last July.

U.N. officials releasing their report on Wednesday noted that civilian deaths have increased during each of the past four years.

At a press conference in Kabul, special envoy Staffan de Mistura called particular attention to the increased number of casualties among women and children.

But he said numbers only tell so much of the story. "The figures indicate that the international forces have made an effort to reduce civilian casualties," he said. "However let's not forget that the whole purpose of the engagement in Afghanistan is the protection of civilians.

"That's why we understand and we feel all together that while we are sending out one message to the Taliban and to the anti-government forces, we are also requesting and reminding the internationals that one victim, one civilian victim, is one too many."


*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON -- There is no consensus about what good has been achieved in the two-plus years that President Barack Obama has waged war in Afghanistan. But one negative result is indisputable: the war h...
WASHINGTON -- There is no consensus about what good has been achieved in the two-plus years that President Barack Obama has waged war in Afghanistan. But one negative result is indisputable: the war h...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,131
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (20 total)
07:40 PM on 03/13/2011
For me the big problem is that Obama isn't telling the truth about the real (strategic) reasons for the expansion of the US war on terror into Pakistan - nor about CIA training and funding of Baloch separatists in the tribal areas. In fact, many Pakistani analysts see Pakistan - not Afghanistan - as the real target.

The Pentagon/CIA make no secret of their desire to see energy and mineral rich Balochistan secede from Pakistan to become a US client state - just like energy and mineral rich Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the other former Soviet republics. Nevertheless the American public is totally unaware that it's impossible to distinguish terrorist acts by the Baloch Liberation Army from those by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Nor do they realize that the activities of the BLA contribute substantially to the climate of violence, as well as major political and economic instability. Especially the disruption of operations at the Chinese-built Gwadar Port in Gwadar, Pakistan (and the energy transit route for Iranian oil and natural gas destined for China. Given that both China and Iran are both major political/economic rivals, it's a pity the US media doesn't report on any of this.

I blog about this at "Our CIA freedom fighters in Pakistan"
http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/03/07/our-cia-freedom-fighters-in-pakistan/
photo
ewldest
I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now
08:12 PM on 03/11/2011
As this goes on the civilian casualties increase, more and more Afghans are going to belive his is a war against the Afghan people in an effort to establish a colonial base to assert power in the region.
When that becomes the common belief among Afghanistanis they will all become insurgents.
How do we nation-build in an environment like that?
But of course nation-building isn't what this is all about any way - just perpetual war to increase corporate profits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
douglassnow
05:56 PM on 03/11/2011
There are lies--and there are damned lies. And among the damnedest, most cowardly, and most hateful will be rated the many that are told in one brief sentence in this article: "...a U.S. helicopter accidentally opened fire on a group of children last week, killing nine boys." IN FACT: according to the one surviving eye witness, a boy 12-years-old, TWO U.S. helicopters, first scoped out the children--four of whom were seven years old, three eight-years-old, one nine-years-old--then, working in tandem, the TWO helicopters hunted the boys down, and murdered them, one after another, with machine gun fire and rockets. The age of the boys is important in this regard, because it matters, in determining whether or not these helicopters "accidentally" opened fire, to know how big their targets were: The average height of a seven-year-old boy is 3' 8"; the average height of an eight-year-old boy is 4' ; the average height of a nine-year-old boy is 4' 6" ; the average height of a twelve-year-old boy is 4' 11". "Accidental"?--In a pig's eye.
09:34 AM on 03/11/2011
The U.S. peace nobelist at work.
08:30 AM on 03/11/2011
The real question is what was the alternative. What could have Obama done differently that would have created a better outcome? Should he have just ended the war abruptly? If so, what would have been the consequence? Lots of people died when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam. Obama did not start this war in 2001. He may have supported it, but not while he was in congress and in a position to decide whether it happened. Now that he is in a position of power, he is trying to exit, but there's no easy way out.
11:22 AM on 03/11/2011
There's no easy way out when you add troops and foster random killing. Entrenchment happens out of this morass: what else can we do? There will be no pretty picture, staying or leaving. Get out, get out, get out.
06:17 PM on 03/11/2011
Check out the book "Three Cups of Tea". That's one American doing more to help Afghanistan than our entire foreign policy establishment.

Let's REALLY support our troops. Bring 'em home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabinetmaniac
Think for yourself. Question authority.
07:22 AM on 03/11/2011
End the Corporate wars!

Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

06:38 AM on 03/11/2011
Obama's war
"Afghan and NATO-led forces were responsible for 440 civilian deaths or 16 percent of all the fatalities."

http://in.news.yahoo.com/over-2-700-civilians-killed-afghanistan-2010-un-20110309-061654-644.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:19 AM on 03/11/2011
Obama is bush on steroids.
02:19 AM on 03/11/2011
I hope Americans feel safer now.
01:21 AM on 03/11/2011
I wish reporters would stop saying...ACCIDENTLLY... they Sighted a Target...Zeroed in...Fired...MURDERED....Smart weapons in the hands of Idiots...
06:39 AM on 03/11/2011
"Mistakes" happen every single day
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabinetmaniac
Think for yourself. Question authority.
07:23 AM on 03/11/2011
Like invading the wrong country in the first place.

cookcar
...talk to me so you can see whats going on...
12:27 AM on 03/11/2011
This is America. I dont know why you haters thought America would stop being America when Obama was elected. The wars were in full swing when he was elected. Both wars should have never been waged in my opinion, but that is who we are. So stop hating and blaming one person; we are all to blame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:35 AM on 03/11/2011
Fanned & Faved
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:04 AM on 03/11/2011
Obama is a blood thirsty war monger who sees our troops as nothing but cannon-fodder for the military industrial complex.
02:16 AM on 03/11/2011
No. Obama is not the one running the country. The Neocons are.
FreeAmerican7
It's hard to soar like an Eagle around Turkeys!
09:04 AM on 03/11/2011
Israel is the BOSS of the USA = USA is the SLAVE of Israel
11:57 PM on 03/10/2011
You mean sending more armed soldiers to Afghanistan has resulted in more Afghans getting killed? I'm shocked. No one told him to go a-sending more soldiers there. What a mess.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabinetmaniac
Think for yourself. Question authority.
07:24 AM on 03/11/2011
The military leaders actually did recommend more troops.

He could have gone against their wishes but that isn't what the Corporate Masters wanted.

11:44 PM on 03/10/2011
Declare victory and leave Afghanistan. The sooner the better. The Taliban will return. There is nothing we can do about it.

We can't make Karsai honest.

We can't make the Afgjam culture see the advantage to men and women in giving women rights.

We can't beat the Taliban because we are not willing to anihilate innocent people in order to get a few hundred evil Taliban. It's not a winnable situation.

Declare improvement and leave.
12:31 AM on 03/11/2011
I agree that we should leave, but on the notion that "we are not willing to annihilate innocent people in order to get a few hundred evil taliban" you have seriously miscalculated. This country has a long and distinguished history of disregard for foreign civilian life, particularly if such people can be seen (or spun) to be mere collateral in the pursuit of a more noble cause (a la Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq... This list goes on and on). You write as though the Taliban are a set, concrete organization with a limited recruitment base, when in fact they are representatives of an anti-Western ideology and thus benefit from any and all Afghani civilian casualties as such incidents very strongly stoke any anti-American fervor in the area(s). I agree that we need to leave, and quickly at that. But you're premises are very shaky, my friend.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
flabingo
07:57 PM on 03/12/2011
Great post! Poor China will lose their best banking customer. Too Bad So Sad
11:38 PM on 03/10/2011
Why don't I hear the same cry for War Crimes Trials for Mr. Obama like the left pushed for with President Bush?

God Bless
11:45 PM on 03/10/2011
Because Bush and the Republican Senate passed a law that the United States refused to honor the international crimes court.
photo
redsquirell
red squire LL
02:35 AM on 03/11/2011
Here's one cry if it means anything. What lies he told to get elected. Same old same old. " Oh my goodness the Dems screwed us, we'll teach them, we'll vote Republican"... "Oh no the Repubs screwed us. I'll vote for the Dems"... What difference? They all have the same rich masters. Different sides of the same coin...