Interesting article in The Guardian today....

bugler

Unfortunately I haven't been able to devote as much time as I like to these boards lately, but sometimes 'real' life must come into consideration.

Now I know the guardian is an evil conspiratist against the US, on account of it running stories that do not shine favourably on the home of the brave/the land of the free, but I thought you might like to peruse this, it's a good read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,622000,00.html

It's about an independent study to determine how many civilians were killed in US bombardments etc.

For those fond of the US media when it comes to these matters:

in·de·pen·dent (nd-pndnt)
adj.
Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.

What does everyone think of this?

JustHalf

I think the articles is rather opinioniated and unbalanced.

For a start, it refers to the war as a "Coward's War" without actually showing that it is one.

The case against the methods used by the US-led coallition only extends itself as far as is convenient for the author's political leanings... tell me, what would happen if the US invaded the country with a land army (as several people have suggested)?

Oh yeah, the casualty rate would be even higher overall, the stream of bodybags coming home would make public support wane, and the war would probably come to an end without acheiving it's objectives.

It would also last longer, meaning that precious humanitarian aid would arrive later than the current "method of warfare" will allow.

But perhaps people are forgetting what had to be done to get aid in while the Taliban were in power.

Sand

Yeah I agree, the information might be an independant estimate, but its written in such a fashion as to remind me of those Judean Peoples Front posters.

Ive got to say though- even if 3500 or whatever died, that is far far far less than wouldve died had ground troops gone in. That number is a mere fraction of those who died in air raids on WW2 Germany. Seeing as it can be argued that the afghan war was unjust due to the fact innocent civillians suffered, would there be anyone willing to argue that WW2 was unjust because innocent civillian died in winning it? After all the US and UK had even less legitimate cause for engaging in it- the UK declared war on Germany and the US was never bombed or attacked domestically by Germany.

I dont think anyone will argue that war was unjust because civillians died in it. I think theyll agree the benefits of defeating Nazism outweighed the consequences of those civillian deaths. Given the threat that Bin Laden poses and the fact that 25 million afghans will be better off without the Taliban in control - Why oppose this particualr war on the grounds of civillian casualties then?

Gargoyle

Well, I'd start by saying that this is a highly biased article, even for the Guardian.

Aside from that, I'd say if those estimates are true (and the is a huge "if"), they are tragic to be sure. When, however, you have Taliban intentionally using their own civilians as human shields, I'd say the auther should reconsider which side is fighting a "cowards war".

PS- I'd also tell the author that when throwing an accusation like that out in the very beginning of a piece, he should at least make some effort to back it up.

bonkey

Originally posted by bugler
[BWhat does everyone think of this? [/B]

The Taliban have had an estimated 10,000 killed. This report is alleging an additional civillian loss in excess of 3,000 people. Thats over 25%. Over 1 in 4 people dying in Afghanistan as a result of the incursion has been civilian.

This was supposed to be an efficient war. Efficient in terms of US lives, and US cash, maybe, but in terms of lives? No - I dont think so.

As for the allegations of the Taliban using civilians as human shields..any source of information on that, other than the daily propaganda coming from those nice Pentagon boys?

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey


As for the allegations of the Taliban using civilians as human shields..any source of information on that, other than the daily propaganda coming from those nice Pentagon boys?

jc

There have been numerous pictures of Taliban equipment being moved closer to residential areas. The alliance have refrained from attacking convoys on several occasions because it was thought that the Taliban or Al Queda had brought along civilians to protect itself.

Unfortunately, the Taliban/Al Queda aren't stupid enough to not use this great advantage - namely the fact that we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein used the same tactics in the Gulf war. Sadly, this is what it has come to.