Black People : inrcreased civilian casualties in Afghanistan, future of Africa under AFRICOM?

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Putney Swope, Jul 31, 2009.

  1. Putney Swope

    Putney Swope Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +139
    We are well aware of the real agendas of oil (http://www.mediamonitors.net/stephaniekirmer1.html) and drugs (http://lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm) in the BS war against terror in Afghanistan.
    Now that Cheney had made the statement in 2007 that 30% of US oil will come from the western African nations, here comes AFRICOM all of a sudden and a needed war against terrorism in Africa.
    A look at what is happening in a few Asian nations may be a wake up call to what may take place all over the Motherland.


    Published on Friday, July 31, 2009 by Reuters
    Afghan War Spreads to Residential Areas: UN Report
    by Laura MacInnis

    GENEVA - The Afghan battlefield is spreading into residential areas where more people are being killed by air strikes, car bombs and suicide attacks, according to a U.N. report published on Friday.

    The U.N. Assistance Mission to Afghanistan said that 1,013 civilians were killed on the sidelines of their country's armed conflict from January to the end of June, compared to 818 in the first half of 2008 and 684 in the same period in 2007.

    Commenting on the report, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said it was critical that steps be taken to shield Afghan communities from fighting.

    "All parties involved in this conflict should take all measures to protect civilians, and to ensure the independent investigation of all civilian casualties, as well as justice and remedies for the victims," the South African said.

    Taliban fighters and their allies were named responsible for 59 percent of bystander deaths, caused mainly by roadside blasts, and Afghan government and international forces were also faulted for errant air strikes that claimed hundreds of lives.

    "Both anti-government elements and pro-government forces are responsible for the increase in civilian casualties," the human rights report said, arguing that tactical changes in the war had put more innocent people in the cross-fire.

    Insurgents, who previously targeted the Afghan military and NATO troops with frontal attacks and ambushes, are now employing "guerrilla-like measures" in residential zones "to deliberately blur the distinction between combatants and civilians."

    This shift, it said, is "what appears to be an active policy aimed at drawing a military response to areas where there is a high likelihood that civilians will be killed or injured."

    FURTHER CASUALTIES LIKELY

    Afghan and international forces have launched more operations in areas where ordinary Afghans live, killing people and damaging homes, assets and infrastructure, the report said.

    The United Nations warned that resistance to a U.S. troop surge and efforts to disrupt August elections could lead to more loss of life in Afghanistan, where war has been waged since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 for having sheltered al Qaeda militants.

    "Given the pattern of the conflict so far, further significant civilian casualties in the coming months are likely," the human rights report concluded.


    full article;
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/31-2
     
  2. Putney Swope

    Putney Swope Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +139
    In Afghanistan, U.S. May Shift Strategy
    Request for Big Boost in Afghan Troops Could Also Require More Americans

    By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, July 31, 2009



    The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is preparing a new strategy that calls for major changes in the way U.S. and other NATO troops there operate, a vast increase in the size of Afghan security forces and an intensified military effort to root out corruption among local government officials, according to several people familiar with the contents of an assessment report that outlines his approach to the war.

    Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama's national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments.

    Senior military officials said McChrystal is waiting for a recommendation from a team of military planners in Kabul before reaching a final decision on a troop request. Several members of the advisory group, who spoke about the issue of force levels on the condition of anonymity, said that they think more U.S. troops are needed but that it was not clear how large an increase McChrystal would seek.

    "There was a very broad consensus on the part of the assessment team that the effort is under-resourced and will require additional resources to get the job done," a senior military official in Kabul said.

    A request for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan could pose a political challenge for Obama. Some leading congressional Democrats have voiced skepticism about sustaining current force levels, set to reach 68,000 by the fall. After approving an extra 21,000 troops in the spring, Obama himself questioned whether "piling on more and more troops" would lead to success, and his national security adviser, James L. Jones, told U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan last month that the administration wants to hold troop levels flat for now.

    One senior administration official said some members of Obama's national security team want to see how McChrystal uses the 21,000 additional troops before any more deployments are authorized. "It'll be a tough sell," the official said.

    full article;
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003948_pf.html
     
Loading...