2010: Worst Year for Civilian Deaths of the Afghanistan War

Last year was the worst year for civilian deaths in the war so far, and irregular armed groups backed by the U.S. and by the Afghan government are preying on the population while recruiting and abusing children. Go team.

I'm almost numb from continually relaying reports like this, but every time I get an email update or a news alert from ISAF or the U.S. government, it contains claims of "progress," so I'm compelled to keep highlighting alternative reporting when it comes in. Frankly, I'm so disgusted by the "progress" talk that I'm having trouble holding anyone who spouts it in any regard other than the most utter contempt.

Here's the latest assessment from the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (.PDF):

Almost everything related to the war surged in 2010: the combined numbers of Afghan and foreign forces surpassed 350,000; security incidents mounted to over 100 per week; more fighters from all warring side were killed; and the number of civilian people killed, wounded and displaced hit record levels.

...From 1 January to 31 December 2010, at least 2,421 civilian Afghans were killed and over 3,270 were injured in conflict-related security incidents across Afghanistan. This means everyday 6-7 noncombatants were killed and 8-9 were wounded in the war.

...In addition to civilian casualties, hundreds of thousands of people were affected in various ways by the intensified armed violence in Afghanistan in 2010. Tens of thousands of people were forced out of their homes or deprived of healthcare and education services and livelihood opportunities due to the continuation of war in their home areas.

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are widely considered as the most lethal tools which killed over 690 civilians in 2010. However, as you will read in this report, there is virtually no information about the use of cluster munitions by US/NATO forces. Despite Afghanistan's accession to the international Anti-Cluster Bomb Treaty in 2008, the US military has allegedly maintained stockpiles of cluster munitions in Afghanistan.

A second key issue highlighted in this report is the emergence of the irregular armed groups in parts of Afghanistan which are backed by the Afghan Government and its foreign allies. These groups have been deplored as criminal and predatory by many Afghans and have already been accused of severe human rights violations such as child recruitment and sexual abuse.

Compare this with the weasel words in President Obama's State of the Union address:

In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan security forces. Our purpose is clear: By preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home. (Applause.)

This is just another version of General Petraeus' empty "taking the fight to the enemy" rhetoric that tells you nothing about the outcomes of the strategy and tactics used by U.S. forces. The ARM data above makes it clear that the president would be more accurate if he said, "fewer Afghans were living outside the crossfire." The fact is, one year after the new escalated military campaign began in Marjah, things are much worse for the people of Afghanistan. Blame the escalation for the continued increase, or be more generous and say that the escalation simply failed to prevent further deterioration. But please, spare us the lie that "progress" is being made.

If you're tired of this war that's not making us safer and that's not worth the cost, join us at Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Follow Derrick Crowe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/derrickcrowe

Comments

[ewldest]

11:30 AM on 02/03/2011

All we get from Washington on Afghanistan is doubletalk, no matter which party is in power, because the decisons concerning our continued colonial occupation there are made by corporations. Their bottomline remains profit and they care not a wit for human lives, American or Afghan.

[Jack Mahoney]

05:13 PM on 02/02/2011

Thanks Derrick. Please keep putting facts out there. Those who want this war to continue, for whatever reasons, use sweeping pronouncements, soaring rhetoric, and the emotional equivalent of presenting Afghanis as little kitties that only we can rescue. As we are witnessing in Tunisia and Egypt, people in other parts of the world will look after their own interests when they, not we, decide that they've had enough. We must do what we can to alert Americans that billions of their dollars, which might otherwise "save" Social Security, are being spent instead to pursue these hubristic adventures.

[Hayward Guy]

03:34 PM on 02/02/2011

It is frustrating to sit back here half a world away and read these conflicting reports, yet I correspond with family and friends serving over there and also hear conflicting reports. One common theme seems to be that if the local Afghan Leadership is effective, there seems to be less violence and there seems to be a closer working relationship between American forces and the local population. Even this relationship can change quickly when other American forces enter the picture and fail to use Americans who are close to the locals to help pave their entrance or they fail to pay any attention to the locals at all. I hear stories of PRT or ADT teams coming into an area without advance notification of American forces already in the area. If guys on our own team can't play together well, how do we expect to be effective in our dealings with the people we are supposed to be helping?