You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
Afghan casualties up again
2002-02-15
  • Of course our leaders told us to expect civilian casualties—but not this many, not the 4,000 calculated by Carl Conetta in a comprehensive assessment of the war published by the Project on Defense Alternatives. Whether Human Rights Watch, which will soon investigate the extent of collateral damage in Afghanistan, will confirm these figures remains to be seen. In any case, many died, and many others were maimed to make us more secure. Are we? What has the campaign in Afghanistan achieved?

    According to an FBI estimate cited by Conetta, al Qaeda's capacity to strike American interests has been degraded by 30 percent. Could we have accomplished that by limiting ourselves to bombing the terrorist training camps and sending U.S. Special Operations forces to capture or kill al Qaeda's leaders? The Taliban are gone, but Afghanistan is less stable than it was before the attack, riven among rival warlords.
    Yeah. Hell. We shoulda just stayed home. Probably woulda done more good to have the Berkeley City Council pass some sort of resolution. This guy's obviously on top of things - we shoulda just put him in charge as soon as the first plane hit. Everybody knows it's our responsibility to enforce order and ensure security in Afghanistan, as long as we don't tell anyboyd what to do.
    Argh. Bullshit alert! He cites Conetta, but uses Herold's numbers. Conetta's report uses a range of 1000-1300.
    Posted by lakefxdan [www.lakefx.nu/] 2/16/2002 4:51:39 AM
    Scratch that. He adds in the "indirect" deaths without being clear.
    Posted by lakefxdan 2/16/2002 5:02:52 AM
    • Posted by:Fred Pruitt

    00:00