By Steve Hynd
Every year since 2001, the number of troops in Afghanistan has increased.
And every year the number of Afghan civilian casualties increases too. This last year has seen a 24% year-on-year jump in the number of civilian deaths. The number of deaths caused by Coalition troops has increased too, although not by as much as those caused by insurgents.
Derrick Crowe writes:
The data clearly show that escalation as a tactic to reduce civilian casualties does not work:
- U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have increased every year since 2001.
- In every year since systematic civilian casualty data collection started, civilian casualties caused by pro-government forces have increased.
- No escalation has been followed by a subsequent overall decrease in civilian casualties in the following year. To the contrary: each year following an increase in U.S. troops since we started systematic collection of civilian casualty data has seen an increase in civilian casualties over the previous year.
All of these facts, taken together, show that troop increases do not prevent increases in a) civilian deaths generally or b) civilian deaths caused specifically by pro-government forces (that�s us).
...McChrystal�s new strategy is headed in the wrong direction. We should decrease, not increase, the number of troops in Afghanistan. Troop increases do not reduce civilian deaths
And no, McChrystal's COIN plan won't help. It only works on paper, not in practise. As Fester writes, the stated goal set conflicts with the resource set and in any case as soon as the lead starts flying the unstated over-riding goal set of force protection takes over. Then come indiscriminate airstrikes, indiscriminate return fire, more civilian casualties and a "hearts and minds" epic failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment