Civilian Deaths Undermind Allies' War on Taliban

[Cavguy]

Kip over at abu muqawama is dead on.

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008...-fight-in.html

Money Quote:

So why do we look like a deer in the frieking headlights...again?

Well, the first step is acknowledging you have a problem. It's a vital step, and everyone has acknowledged the problem. But it can't be the only step--and we have fallen far, far off the wagon.

Our efforts to inform the Afghan populace, to respond to events, and to execute influence operations within the enemy's decision cycle require the kind of organizational innovation akin to these task forces that so successfully eliminate our enemies with great violence. It requires organizing the best, brightest, and most capable people, developing SOPs, and developing "actionable" information initiatives, just as surely as we would respond to "actionable" intelligence. How many uniformed spokesmen are speaking in Pashto and Dari to the Afghan press? Why don't we have a press release released at the same time we have a bomb released? Where is the footage from the scene on iReporter, YouTube and a half-dozen other places (vetted just as rapidly to protect OPSEC)? Where is the reporting on Taliban intimidation, moral corruption, and civilian casualties? How many Pajwok or Tolo reporters embed into Afghan Army or Police units? Where is our effort to influence the mosque? Where are the Afghan National Security Force DVDs to counter the Taliban-produced propaganda? How much effort and responses is expended on an ISAF newspaper generally used to wrap kebabs in lieu of tackling these far more difficult issues? How are we coordinating tailored messages for each of the ISAF contributor nations? What's our influence strategy into FATA, Baluchistan, and Waziristan?

Kip doesn't have all the answers, but he is certain that if we don't make developing these answers our most urgent priority, we may rapidly reach a tipping point with the Afghan population, regardless of our best (and approaching meaningless) efforts to ensure we don't kill civilians.

It just pains me to watch this.

[Ken White]

Afghanistan is not Iraq and FATA, Baluchistan, and Waziristan are not Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. I think Kip forgets that...

I bet Dave McKiernan is far more pained than you are.

[Rex Brynen]

U.S. Inquiry Is Said to Conclude 30 Civilians Died in Afghan Raid

By ERIC SCHMITT
New York Times
Published: October 7, 2008

WASHINGTON — An investigation by the military has concluded that American airstrikes on Aug. 22 in a village in western Afghanistan killed far more civilians than American commanders there have acknowledged, according to two American military officials.

The military investigator’s report found that more than 30 civilians — not 5 to 7 as the military has long insisted — died in the airstrikes against a suspected Taliban compound in Azizabad.

[milnews.ca]

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) issues two reports on the same day:

"From Hope to Fear: An Afghan Perspective on Operations of Pro-Government Forces in Afghanistan"
http://www.aihrc.org.af/2008_Dec/PDF.../Eng_Pro_G.pdf

and

"Insurgent Abuses against Afghan Civilians"
http://www.aihrc.org.af/2008_Dec/PDF...Eng_anti_G.pdf

Which one do MSM focus on (at least in initial coverage)?
http://in.reuters.com/article/southA...37161620081223
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...an-report.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...LdXhBtWyWLz8OA
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10549607.htm

<sarcasm>I'm shocked.... </sarcasm>

[William F. Owen]

This report has caused a great deal of discussion in Israel, for very obvious reasons.

[milnews.ca]

....at least ONE outlet mentions the report now - at the very bottom of the story.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

....A second commission report -- also released Tuesday -- claims there have also been a litany of Taliban abuses. They include kidnappings and executions against Afghan civilians.

"Attacks against government civilian officials and institutions have increasingly chipped away at the government's ability to provide services to hundreds and thousands of people," the report on the insurgency says.

"It is often the poorest people of Afghanistan who are being threatened, kidnapped, and executed because they work on government or international construction or development projects."

Let's see, two sides to a conflict (50:50 involvement), and only 83 words out of a total of 730 of the article deals with criticism of what most would consider the bad guys (11:89 coverage) - fair and balanced?

EDIT ADD: On the other hand, here's something showing a bit more of both sides....

[TheCurmudgeon]

It is not news that bad people do bad things, it is news when good people do bad things - a modification of the more famous statement -"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." John B. Bogart, New York Sun editor.

[William F. Owen]

It is not news that bad people do bad things, it is news when good people do bad things -

Wallah! Makes it all a bit of a challenge for the Information Ops folks.

[Old Eagle]

in theater.

Forget what western MSM does with these, although it does have an impact.

What's killing us is the fact that the president of Afghanistan has bought into the bias. Screaming/threatening about coalition killing innocent civilians, but giving a bye to the bad guys. Tell me how this ends...

[milnews.ca]

What's killing us is the fact that the president of Afghanistan has bought into the bias. Screaming/threatening about coalition killing innocent civilians, but giving a bye to the bad guys. Tell me how this ends...

is electioneering?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Wallah! Makes it all a bit of a challenge for the Information Ops folks.

You bring up a great point. Much of what was in the article had to do with collateral civilian deaths due to indirect fires. Under current doctrine IO is part of Fires and Effects, the guys making the targeting decisions. You would think that they would have input into these decisions, or, at the very least, be preparing the damage control PR from the start. I realize they are not allowed to "spin" the story (like say, claiming there are no civilian casualties) but they can be as truthful about it as possible. Primacy in getting out the correct information can be a strong weapon in the fight for public opinion.

[milnews.ca]

I realize they are not allowed to "spin" the story (like say, claiming there are no civilian casualties) but they can be as truthful about it as possible. Primacy in getting out the correct information can be a strong weapon in the fight for public opinion.

All we have to do is make sure journalists report THAT information too, and present it in its proper context - hey, I can dream, can't I?