Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfghanistan Spiralling Back to Days of Taliban, Say Charities
Violence in Afghanistan has reached record highs, with unprecedented numbers of civilian casualties and terror attacks spreading into areas once thought safe, a coalition of charities warns. In a damning indictment of the international community's effort to stabilise Afghanistan, more than 100 aid agencies claimed security is worse now than at any time in the past seven years.
"There has been a surge in the number of civilian casualties caused by all sides, a spread of insecurity to previously stable areas, and increasing attacks on aid agencies and their staff," the statement from their umbrella organisation Acbar said.
The group represents 64 international aid groups with projects inside the warring country, including Oxfam, Mercy Corps and Save the Children, as well as 36 Afghan charities.
There are almost 53,000 Nato-led troops across Afghanistan, trying to boost security while, "paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance". But the Acbar report states: "So far this year, the number of insurgent attacks, bombings and other violent incidents is up by approximately 50 per cent on the same period last year. The number of insurgent attacks for each of the months of May (463), June (569) and July is greater than the number of such attacks in any other month since the end of major hostilities following the international intervention in 2001."
In Helmand, where most of Britain's troops are based, the figures are even grimmer. The UK lost 13 soldiers in June, more than three times the attrition rate in the same period last year. They have already lost 28 soldiers this year and 114 since the US-led invasion in 2001. The statement continues: "This year, 2,500 people have reportedly lost their lives in the conflict and whilst exact figures are not yet available, this could include up to 1,000 civilians.
"According to initial estimates, there have been more than 260 civilian casualties in July of this year, higher than any other month in the past six years."
The report blames the Taliban insurgents for roughly two-thirds of the civilian casualties, but adds: "The increased number of air strikes by international military forces, which are up by approximately 40 per cent on last year, has also contributed to the rising civilian death toll."
Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has repeatedly warned international troops that killing innocent civilians risks eroding their fragile popular mandate. Last summer he branded the number of civilian casualties and arbitrary house searches "unacceptable". Last month he ordered an investigation after reports that 15 civilians died in a US airstrike.
Claims have since surfaced of 23 wedding guests dying under American bombs. This week, two children were shot dead when their car got too close to a military convoy.
The statement points to increased Taliban activity across the country. In the most volatile southern and eastern parts, the report warned, "insurgents are mounting an increasingly vigorous, systematic terror campaign".
It added: "Insecurity has spread to areas which were previously relatively stable in parts of north, north-west and central Afghan-istan, including to provinces close to and bordering Kabul."
The UN spokesman in Afghan-istan, Aleem Siddique, said: "The humanitarian challenge in Afghanistan continues to grow. In the past six months alone, criminal gangs have attacked 12 UN humanitarian convoys, resulting in the loss of food for thousands of the poorest families."
The Nato-led International Security Assistance force admitted violence had increased, but the spokesman, Mark Laity said: "The overall view is that we are seeing more violence, but pretty much in the same places. Some times it expands into new areas, but when it does it tends to be temporary."
He said the increase in violence was partly a reflection of Nato's increased troop levels, and partly because of Pakistan's cease-fire with insurgents on their side of the border has left them free to concentrate on Afghanistan.
"We have gone from 30,000 to 50,000 troops and we are generating more activity because we are taking on the insurgents," he added. "A large proportion of the violence has been caused by cross-border activity.
"This year, it has become even easier for the insurgents to move across the border from Pakistan, which they are able to use as a safe haven."
Figures from the Acbar report
2,500
Reported number of lives lost in conflict so far in 2008.
50
Approximate percentage increase in violent incidents from same period last year.
569
Insurgent attacks in June alone.
40
Approximate percentage increase on last year in international military air strikes.
13
Number of UK soldier skilled in June.
114
UK soldiers killed sincethe 2001 invasion.
53,000
Number of Nato-led troops in Afghanistan.
©independent.co.uk
12 Comments so far
Show AllAhmad Shah Massoud was a hero. His Northern Alliance though was as bad as the Taliban at times. They have a reptuation of raping and pillaging thier way through Kabul during the Afghan civil war following the Russian withdrawal. The poor Afghans...they need decent leaders but this alludes them. Too bad we can't bring back to life Zaher Shah....Zaher Shah's time of rule was the best every Afghan tells me. However, the Afghans even overthough the best ruler they had. SIGH which means Afghans can also be their own worst enemy.
dcbeltway -- "This discussion is much better then the other Afghanistan article. Good posts Lapaz, Gyptian and SL63."
LOL ! Sorry my friend .. my patience with rightwingers is very limited !
lapaz -- "Therefore, I don't think it is up to fogreigners to impose on Afghanistan a kind of rule that puts one ethnic group in power while other ethnic groups are neglected."
I totally concur. The last figurehead in Afghan politics who came pretty close to uniting all factions I suppose was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He led the northern Alliance but had support throughout Afghanistan for his heroics in resisiting the Russians. Osama and the Pakistani Taliban had other plans for him unfortunately.
This discussion is much better then the other Afghanistan article. Good posts Lapaz, Gyptian and SL63.
in my earlier post, i said that those governments I listed owe Afghanistan sanctions, when I of course meant to write reparations. How absurd that must have seemed to readers: Afghanistan must be sanctioned for what imperial powers have done to it. Thanks for the correction, gyptian.
Surely, reparations should be demanded in this case, as well as numerous other cases involving the US's destruction of countries (Iraq, much of Central America, Palestine, to name but a few),and the intervention of foreign governments in Afghanistan for strategic purposes must end. The US, furthermore, must pay in other ways for what it has done: namely, to be removed from the UN Security Council, to have its leaders be charged for war crimes, and to have santions imposed on IT.
Also, Pushtuns make either a majority or a plurality of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan (i have seen figures of both 43% and 63%), which is obviously a complex soceity. Therefore, I don't think it is up to fogreigners to impose on Afghanistan a kind of rule that puts one ethnic group in power while other ethnic groups are neglected. Afghans, when they are no longer suffering as a result of being part of the "Great Game" of Central Asia, will be able to make their own decisions with that regard.
lapaz000 -- "But blaming the US, Russian, British, Pakistani and Saudi governments is not enough. In additon to the sanctions that those countries owe Afghanistan, real solutions to the suffering that Afghans have endured, for decades now, must be sought for diligently."
I agree .. however I also think they owe a lot to Afghanistan in terms of reperations for destroying that country, each for their own reasons. Real solutions would of course mean coming down hard on Pakistan to squelch their support for the Taliban via the ISI to begin with. It would also mean empowering the Pushtuns politically. And of course it would also mean rebuilding that country from the ground up and providing schools and hospitals and infrastructure without having grubby U.S. corporations salivating at profits.
We have not had a study that would estimate the number of Afghani deaths. Perhaps it is about a million now.
There is more than one side fighting in Afghanistan. Before the US entered on the side of "the Northern Alliance", a group of warlords, and bombed the Taliban government forces, the rebels were not making much progress.
It's true that there were some groups, conveniently labeled the Northern Alliance, fighting the Taliban regime in '01, but they were confined to less than 10% of Afghanistan and there was no serious military confrontation in the rest of the country. There are countries (e.g. Turkey, India, many South American, and most African countries) that have lived with low-level insurgency for decades without the situation being classified as a "civil war", although there are, of necessity, shades of gray and ambiguity when comparing political situations.
The question is whether the side opposed to central authority--leaving aside the question of the legality or desirability of the latter--could ever have hoped to come to power without foreign intervention and even if due to foreign intervention it serendipitously came to power, whether it could hope to survive for long without the help of the outside patron.
There's a scene in the Academy Award winning documentary, Hearts and Minds in which the foreign policy adviser to two presidents, Walt Rostow makes the claim that, "Ho Chi Minh in '56, I don't think could have gotten elected dog catcher in Vietnam" to which Daniel Ellsberg replies, "Ho Chi Minh dead could beat any candidate we've ever put up in Vietnam."
It would have a funny "civil war" in American history, had one side been comprised primarily of foreign fighting forces from other continents--including every top military commander--and the other side to the conflict was made up of people who were born and raised here. There are always some disgruntled elements that are willing to side with a foreign occupier--even in a proud nation like France and all the more so in poor Third World countries like Vietnam or Afghanistan. But, if their puppet regime once installed cannot last independently, much less gain control of the entire country, any fighting it carries out for its own survival isn't worthy of the grandiloquent term, "civil war".
It's hardly a civil war. There are occupiers trying to keep the government they installed in power (which has practically no power) from insurgents who are multifaceted and have different motivations (revenge, nationialism, economic need, ideology). In the areas where NATO (US) has no presence, notably in the north, Taliban and Taliban-like enforcement, where schools for girls are bombed and there are public executions, predominates.
The situation in Afghanistan is so bleak and so horrible, and we all know where the blame belongs. But blaming the US, Russian, British, Pakistani and Saudi governments is not enough. In additon to the sanctions that those countries owe Afghanistan, real solutions to the suffering that Afghans have endured, for decades now, must be sought for diligently. Certainly throwing more occupation soldiers into the mix, as the Great Champion of Hope (Obama) proposes, is the antithesis of alleviating the suffering of Afghans. A real peacekeeping effort must be begun, and that doesn't include a "humanitarian interventionist" West trying to prove how greatly it improves peoples lives by brining democracy through their roofs, in the form of 500 pound bombs.
sl63: "Just like the "civil war" in Vietnam, where only one bunch of Vietnamese was interested in fighting and the other side for some reason was made up of soldiers from US, Australia, South Korea, etc."
There is more than one side fighting in Afghanistan. Before the US entered on the side of "the Northern Alliance", a group of warlords, and bombed the Taliban government forces, the rebels were not making much progress. When the Taliban drew south, to escape the aerial bombing, the US declared victory, and moved on to the next "mission accomplished" in Iraq, leaving behind a small force. The civil war, nevertheless, continues with each side having its external backers. At present, it is the Taliban that is making up ground. For example, the capital, previously out of reach of the Taliban, is now subject to their attacks.
I believe it is called a civil war.
Just like the "civil war" in Vietnam, where only one bunch of Vietnamese was interested in fighting and the other side for some reason was made up of soldiers from US, Australia, South Korea, etc. (a forerunner of the "International Security Assistance Force" in Afghanistan).
"Violence in Afghanistan has reached record highs, with unprecedented numbers of civilian casualties and terror attacks spreading into areas once thought safe, a coalition of charities warns"
I believe it is called a civil war.
The "Lords of Poverty" are not happy with their 250K-500K/year jobs? Maybe they should consider relocating to the Green Zone of Baghdad. The reasons are explained in this excerpt from a blog that "captures important facets of some (not all) ex-pat thinking" in Kabul:
Many of the professional compassion corps are feeling restless and bored; they've already been staff in Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan, and nowadays believe they belong in Iraq, that's where the real money is. In the status conscious pecking order of NGO hierarchies, Afghanistan is passe. Only the palpable danger of Iraq keeps down the flurry of resumes from Kabul to Baghdad. It's the rare NGO worker who applies for work before the shooting is over and the maximum salaries are fixed. The money has been spent in Afghanistan, the bank is closed. The UN has larded tens of millions of dollars on an enormous fleet of brand new top-of-the-line Toyota Land Cruisers, many times that on inflated salaries, mansions and the luxurious perks of occupying pashas. The needy locals are not amused. The American citizens who've liberally financed this largesse would be appalled at the waste.