And Where Exactly Would The Traditional Progressive/Leftist Outrage Be?

News that would have - had it had been generated a year or so ago - merited righteous indignation and swift condemnation of the sitting President of the United States...

The latest U.N. report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan is here.

One wonders where Code Pink, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, MoveOn, Sean Penn, Susan Saradon, Danny Glover, Markos Moulitsas and the DailyKOS Kossacks, Firedoglake, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Todd Gitlin, Amanda Marcotte, International ANSWER, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich are these days...

Beer Summit?

Evidently the interest in dead civilians is a direct function of who is (ultimately) responsible for killing them.

Another lesson learned. 

Comments

[PeterUK.]

This is a trickier problem than Crowleygate. The Taleban do not drink beer and I doubt that the Secret Service would let them picnic.

Seriously,the left has been looking for another Vietnam since the Bush Administration invaded Iraq.Obama has found one in Afghanistan.Like Vietnam,Afghanistan has been at war for centuries.Insurgents are easily supplied across the border,Iran has every reason to see a long war there.What isn't there to like for the left?

[Progressive White Liberal]

Those casualties would never have happened if George Bush hadn't invented Afghanistan. So Dick Cheney could make oil deals. For opium for the CIA to sell in ghettos.

[PeterUK.]

Wouldn't that upset the Columbians?

[markg8]

Dennis Kucinich will be in Aurora IL tomorrow afternoon for a single payer rally. If he has any sense he's home with that hot wife of his today.

[badanov]

Take the NGO civilian casualties and multiply by .1 to .3 and you will get a true casualty figure.

NGOs in Chechnya had the same practice of inflated casualty figures, often combining reports, and instead of separating conflicting reports, would add the numbers together.

The inflated numbers make for a better fundraising letter

[Dennis the Peasant]

Now, if they'd been Palestinians...

[markg8]

From the report:

As the conflict intensifies and spreads, it is taking an increasingly heavy toll on civilians, as the growing civilian death toll registered by UNAMA Human Rights each year since 2007 indicates. In the first six months of 2009, UNAMA recorded 1013 ivilian deaths, compared with 818 for the same period in 2008, and 684 in 2007 (see graph #1 below). This represents an increase of 24% of civilian casualties in the first six months of 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008. Both Anti-Government Elements and pro-government forces are responsible for the increase in civilian casualties. UNAMA Human Right figures indicate that more civilians are being killed by AGEs than by PGF. In the first six months of 2009, 59% of civilians were killed by AGEs and 30.5% by PGF. This represents a significant shift from 2007 when PGF were responsible for 41% and AGEs for 46% of civilian deaths.

Notwithstanding efforts by international military forces to implement policies and procedures to minimize the impact of their operations on civilians, airstrikes remain responsible for the largest percentage of civilian deaths attributed to PGF during the first six months of 2009. UNAMA Human Rights recorded 40 incidents of airstrikes since the beginning of 2009 in which 200 civilians reportedly lost their lives. Implementation of search and seizure operations (including night time raids) are also of concern, and there have been reports of a number of joint Afghan and international military forces perations in which excessive use of force has allegedly resulted in civilian deaths. There have been a declining number of “force protection incidents”, where civilians were killed after failing to follow instructions when approaching too close to military convoys, military installations, or checkpoints.

A continuing trend seen through 2008 and into the first six months of 2009 is that AGE tactics have shifted, from frontal or ambush attacks on PGF, to insurgent or guerrilla type activities, including asymmetric attacks such as IEDs, VBIEDs, BBIEDs, (that remain responsible for
the largest number of civilian deaths), and targeted assassinations.

...there has been sustained AGE activity throughout the winter months of late 2008 and early 2009 (unlike in previous years when there has been a lull in fighting). Other factors include, a growing incidence of military operations in civilian settings, complex AGE attacks, military operations being conducted across the border in Pakistan forcing many fighters back into Afghanistan, the troop surge by the international military forces, and the policy of ISAF and US Forces Afghanistan to intensify their military response to the insurgency through the winter months as well as intensifying operations in the summer months of May and June.

[badanov]

You can slather on the UN "facts" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that civilian casualty counts are guesses, very poor ones, and usually inflated.

[markg8]

Ok if I go by your guess badanov 101.3 to 303.9 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of the year.

[PeterUK.]

Hey Marky,This is your Master, Obama's war.

"Sshurge me one more time Masshter".

[Dennis the Peasant]

Badanov-

I don't doubt what you are saying in the least. My point is that when Bush was commander-in-chief, this sort of report would ignite a firestorm on the Left. Now that Obama is commander-in-chief, everyone on the Left seems to be busy elsewhere.

Mark-

I don't remember anyone on the Left, and certain none of those listed above, drawing such fine distinctions on the root causes of actual civilian casualties with Bush was c-in-c. Do you?

[markg8]

I thought you didn't want to talk about Bush anymore Dennis. But nonetheless I don't remember most of those people you mention being nearly as outraged by civilian deaths in Afghanistan as they were about them in the unnecessary war he started in Iraq.

I believe if Badanov is right more civilians died in Ohio falling off ladders this year than were killed in the Afghan war. If the UN is right then my guess is about the same number died in car accidents in Ohio last year as were been blown up by IEDs or caught in a crossfire in Afghanistan. OTH 100,000 Americans die every year from medical mistakes.

Feel free to organize your own protest against the Afghan war in downtown Westerville. Maybe you can get the folks you organized for the gay rights protest to join you.

[PeterUK.]

This is Obama's war,it is the war he supported. As president,Obama owns this war lock stock and barrel.

This must be a good war,a war that any decent pacifist leftist can support.

Gays against mentioning whose war it is? Absolutely!

Liberals for killing troops at home by car and ladder accidents. Right on!

Veteran Vietnam Refusniks against blaming Obama. Yo!

Democrats for sticking their heads up their arses in the hope that the war will blow over. Present.

All you need are the giant puppets and Code Pink for a Righteous War.

[markg8]

Jesus Christ Petey how many brain cells did you kill last night?

[PeterUK.]

Marky you are the nearest neo fascist,sorry liberal and Obama catamite,a long time runner from,sorry,escapee from the Vietnam war,why are you supporting Obama's War?

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark-

The folks I've listed above drew no distinction between the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan while Bush was POTUS. It was all part and parcel of U.S. imperialism. The differentiation started once it became clear Obama had every intention of making Afghanistan his Iraq.

Your position is not based on the relative merits of fighting a hot war in Afghanistan vs. fighting a hot war in Iraq. Your position is based solely on the fact that fighting (and escalating) a war in Afghanistan is what Obama is doing. Had he chosen to withdrawal immediately from Afghanistan, you would have supported him in that as well. Had he chosen to escalate the fighting in Iraq, you would have immediately come up with a rationale to support that.

And, as an example of the sort of hypocrisy that has defined the anti-war movement, yours is as good as any of those listed above. The wars, the U.S. deaths, the civilian deaths and the destruction mattered only to the extent it could be used to acquire and hold domestic political power. Now that you and yours have it, the carnage is of no interest.

[markg8]

Because the Taliban allowed their country to become a terrorist training ground for the people who murdered many people in the US and would do it again. They also cripple their country by depriving half their population of their rights and even an education. Because they are religious zealots who don't know how to govern, abuse and torture their own people, have turned to selling opium poppies again to finance their operations, and legislate personal morality right down to the length of beards and clothing.

Now you Petey are a bloodthirsty chickenhawk, who has never served, apparently from a long line of chickenhawks who never served, who nonetheless thinks killing Arabs and Muslims for any reason is a capitol idea as long as somebody, anybody, other than you, is doing it. So I ask you are you supporting what you now call "Obama's war" in Afghanistan?

[PeterUK.]

Marky,

So why don't you encourage the invasion of Iran and North Korea,or perhaps China where they execute people for their body parts?

The rest of your post is so confused.Do you have some kind of congenital defect that makes you keep involuntarily spouting chickenhawk.Tourette's Syndrome perhaps? Chickenhawk is so passe.

BTW the Taleban are Muslims,not Arabs,like the Saudis,nor Persians like the Iranians.They have beards too.

No I don't support Obama's War,but now you have found a just war you support,you can enlist with a happy heart. Go get'em tiger.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark-

Nobody's defending the Taliban here. But then again, when GWB was C-in-C, the Left was nearly as worried about the Taliban's treatment non-Muslims and woman as they were about U.S. imperialism and *gasp* GWB succeeding. Now that Obama is C-in-C, all of sudden everything about Afghanistan is nuanced and complex.

My ass.

And by the way, who's the Chickenhawk now? You off to Afghanistan soon?

[PeterUK.]

"HEY HEY OBAMAY, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY"?

[markg8]

Dennis -

The folks I've listed above drew no distinction between the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan while Bush was POTUS.

You have quotes from them saying as much? Even if you can find them from the likes of Choamsky and Kucinich so what? You don't have them from me, and I doubt you can find them from the bloggers you cited either.

Choamsky is a linguist, as is my ex-wife, and I guess knows as much about war and politics as she does, which ain't much. Though I can't say argue with him about the stupid war on drugs in South America.

Kucinich indeed rails against both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. And he drew how many votes for president in the Democratic primaries in 2004 and 2008?

I have no idea what Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Danny Glover think about Afghanistan, nor do I care what they think about it anymore than I care what Roger L. Simon, Ron Silver or Jon Voight think. To me that's like reading movie reviews written by the Joint Chiefs or the Senate Finance Committee, a waste of time.

The fact is Dennis Obama is moving more troops into Afghanistan because A. he promised the American electorate he would during last year's election and B. his generals asked him to (how many times were we told to defer to the generals by the right over the last 8 years?) and C. in order to cut down on the number of civilian casaulties and deprive the Taliban of territory and support (which as often as not is coerced at the point of a gun) boots on the ground are needed instead of airstrikes which are the major cause of civilian casualties caused by our side.

Now tell me, what do you think of that strategy? Do you want us to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately? How about Iraq? And don't tell me this isn't about you, it's only about "lefty hypocrisy" because unless guys like you want to be on the sidelines forever you'd better start offering up some sensible opinions instead of just trying to stir up shit.

[PeterUK.]

"The fact is Dennis Obama is moving more troops into Afghanistan because A. he promised the American electorate he would during last year's election".

I'm sure the American electors are ecstatic about more of their children getting killed.But why did Obama keep this promise,he hasn't closed Gitmo and he promised to do that
The Left wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq,you lefties got shafted again.
How often does Obama have to promise you he won't cum in your mouth before you wake up to reality? You have been well and truly screwed.

"Sell 'em sunshine and ship 'em shit".

[markg8]

Put your pants back on Petey.

[PeterUK.]

You aren't mentally agile are you Marky? Fifty Three,and and resorting to school girl retorts.

"Put your pants on - Chickenhawk" .Shit show some respect,this is the blog of Dennis the Peasant, feared Internet Samurai and you come up with shit like that?

[markg8]

Have you been drunk all weekend Petey or have you started in on the hallucinogens?

[markg8]

Another agile Petey gay joke in one...two...three...

[PeterUK.]

Don't drink,don't do drugs. But I do love poking a hypocrite with a stick.
Come on you Yellow Donkey,get your booming voice down to the recruiting station and offer your ass for Obama.

Or don't you believe the oppressed are worth fighting for?

"Because the Taliban allowed their country to become a terrorist training ground for the people who murdered many people in the US and would do it again. They also cripple their country by depriving half their population of their rights and even an education. Because they are religious zealots who don't know how to govern, abuse and torture their own people, have turned to selling opium poppies again to finance their operations, and legislate personal morality right down to the length of beards and clothing."

Was all this simply rhetoric?

Come on Marky this is your chance to set an example to all those you excoriated over Iraq.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark-

First of all, this isn't about you. This is about the "anti-war" progressives, leftists and Democrats who are now suddenly no longer all that "anti-war" because Barack Obama, and not George Bush, is C-in-C. As far as Afghanistan goes, there is no essential difference between what Bush did and what Obama is doing. Other than the fact that Obama is widening the conflict. And he has no more chance of winning in Afghanistan that Bush did in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Back in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 it was about keeping out of unwinnable wars, thwarting imperialism, not blood for oil, bring the boys home. It was not about how theocratic the Taliban was. It was about how theocratic GWB was. I'm just noting the obvious.

I find it amazing that the same Democrats, Progressives and Leftists who howled about GWB are giving Obama a free pass on a massive escalation of a war they stridently opposed. Or at least they said they opposed.

And for what it is worth, I notice you didn't dispute this:

And, as an example of the sort of hypocrisy that has defined the anti-war movement, yours is as good as any of those listed above. The wars, the U.S. deaths, the civilian deaths and the destruction mattered only to the extent it could be used to acquire and hold domestic political power. Now that you and yours have it, the carnage is of no interest.

[Barrack Plenty Mtoto]

The Democrat's attack of the Bush administration during war time was one of the most shameful acts I have witnessed in any western polity. Most "loyal" opposition parties can at least declare a truce during war time,but the Democrats looked as if they were on the other side.
Well,now they own the war,they better get on with it.

[markg8]

Dennis by late summer Bush had taken Iraq off the table by acquiescing to Maliki's demands on the SOFA. Demands that matched Obama's plans very well. Barack won the presidency because he was a lot more presidential than McCain in the fall as the world's economy was freezing up like a motor with no oil in it.

Bush never put the resources into Afghanistan needed to pacify and stabilize that country to make sure the Taliban didn't come back to power. He never pressured Pakistan to take them on in their own country. He just shoveled $12 billion dollars worth of aid to the military that they used to prepare for war with India. I assure you in case you haven't noticed that's not Obama's plan.

And for a guy who backed the clowns who waved away terrorism concerns prior to 9/11, lied us into a pointless war in Iraq, hid the extent of the civilian casualties and destruction there as best they could, hid the looting their handpicked contractors did in the process, lied about the trillions it's costing us and kept it off budget, ginned up bogus yellow alerts every time a Democrat threatened to take a lead in the polls, morphed a fucking war hero Max Cleland into Osama Bin Laden in tv ads, and cowed the media into repeating dissent against Bush = treason, you look kind of funny talking about wars, U.S. deaths, civilian deaths and destruction mattering only to the extent it could be used to acquire and hold domestic political power by anybody.

I mean seriously Dennis, that's your fucking argument? That we manipulated public opinion to throw out the the party that totally fucked up the country and their own favorite war just for political gain? Well frankly dude nobody needed to manipulate public opinion by 2008 and that totally fucking up the country thing had more to do with it than Bush totally fucking up Iraq and Afghanistan by November.

And now that we're trying to do something about the war Bush left undone - the war all those union firefighters in NYC were cheering him on for when they took a break from picking pieces of their friends and brothers out of the rubble of the twin towers, as he commandeered the bullhorn and said "they'll be hearing from us soon" - you think we were all just faking it. It's like we fooled you, we're not all birkenstock wearing peaceniks who want to dismantle the DoD and let the Islamofacists run city hall. Is that really the argument you're trying to make?

Welcome to the real world. You fooled yourself.

[PeterUK]

"Bush never put the resources into Afghanistan needed to pacify and stabilize that country to make sure the Taliban didn't come back to power. He never pressured Pakistan to take them on in their own country. He just shoveled $12 billion dollars worth of aid to the military that they used to prepare for war with India. I assure you in case you haven't noticed that's not Obama's plan."

The plan wasn't to stabilise Afghanistan,but to take down al Qaeda. It will take a lifetime to get even near stabilising Afghanistan,if ever.Pacify? It will be like your Indian Wars.
Sure Bush pressured Pakistan,but that country too is a tinder box. They have been to war with India several times. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and a lot of pride. They too are muslims.Pakistan is an Islamic state by design.

What is Obama's plan? Looks like the same as Bush.

[markg8]

Thank you for the 7th grade tory view Petey. Now go put your pants on.

[PeterUK]

Look Mark,if you don't know just say so outright. No wonder you never got an education,gobbing off to cover your ignorance.

What is Obama's plan? You are usually not so reticent.

[ZT]

Dennis, I really respect you for your intelligent commentary on many topics, especially accounting-related. (Your analysis on the Dubai ports deal was unmatched elsewhere). Most of the comments on your site are also worthwhile. The obvious exceptions are displayed above. PeterUK and markg8 are trolls. Why don't you ban them?

[PeterUK]

ZT

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not.Oddly most of the comments on this thread are Dennis,me,and Markg8,he is more a true believer than a troll.
But if you want to up the standard,why not make a comment on the subject yourself?

[markg8]

Put the resources into Afghanistan needed to pacify and stabilize that country to make sure the Taliban don't come back to power. That means troops on the ground dumbass, especially in the south. The marines go into town and the taliban leave. When the taliban realize the marines aren't just passing thru but actually hanging around getting on the good side of the townies they come back and attack the marines. Then the marines chase them into a house or compound.

This is where the strategy diverges from Bush's. In the past the marines didn't have time for this shit, stretched thin they'd have a couple more villages to visit that day. So they'd call in an airstrike and boom, the taliban guerrillas are martyrs. Unfortunately so was everybody else in the house or compound, even if it was the mayor's wife and kids.

Now the marines live in town so they surround the house and get the translator on the bullhorn to tell the talibani they're surrounded and to let the woman and children out. They wait 'em out and tell them they're waiting them out. And once they ascertain that all the women and children are out they tell 'em they can come out peaceably too or that drone circling overhead or one just like it will be there waiting to make itty bitty pieces of them if they try to sneak away while the marines go have some tea with the mayor.

That and pressure Pakistan to deprive them of sanctuaries in that country. And stop shoveling billions dollars worth of aid to the Pakistani military with no strings attached.

A lot depends on the Afghani elections. But it's a hell of a lot better plan than Cheney's.

And fellas you know it too.

[PeterUK]

You don't actually know who the Taleban are.You move in, they go back to being farmers and laying the odd IED,terrorise the inhabitants so they don't cooperate and wait until you leave Afghanistan,which you will,because your country is broke,you can't afford a long haul or the boots on the ground. You have to pay back the debt and finance Obamacare.Guns or butter Marky?

[markg8]

I'm being lectured by the clown who touted cell phone sales in Iraq in 2006 as a sign of economic stabilization not realizing that cell phones make the best IED triggers. Sorry Petey, as you've no doubt been told many times before, you have no credibility.

Soldiers are cheap to hire and train, especially in this nightmare economy, as long as we don't waste billions on Halliburton's logistics. We already have a Bush holdover aide recommending we withdraw all our troops from Iraq in 2001 so there's 50,000 that don't necessarily have to be redeployed to that hellhole.

Afghans have learned after decades of war that cooperating with whoever shows up in town with guns is a good way to stay alive. Between you Brits and the Russians fucking up over the last few centuries that's practically in their DNA. They'll lay IEDs for the taliban for $5 a day or sell 'em out for $3 because the marines don't give a shit how they shave their faces, don't keep their women from working the bazaar stalls or get all pissy about everybody getting together for the Saturday night dance or watching Indian soap operas on the town tv.

Even my ex-wife had to admit that the Vietnamese she met in Ho Chi Min City preferred the Americans to the Russians because we blow money like it's going out of style, even when we don't have it to spend. As imperialists we suck, as tourists who tip well and can lay down really impressive amounts of ordinance we're still #1.

[Dennis the Peasant]

ZT-

Mark and Peter have inhabited this site for quite a while. It is only lately that they've come to really grate on each other.

Mark is my in-house liberal Democrat, and while I often find him exasperating, I've never found him offensive.

Peter has been here is Day One, or so it seems, and I often find him quite funny.

Besides, when you have the sort of traffic I have here, you can't afford to ban folk at the drop of the hat.

[Dennis the Peasant]

That said, I expect the boys to stop snipping at each other and play nice.

As Robert Klein once said, playing a typical elementary school teacher, "There will be no talking during the nuclear holocaust. I'll be taking names!"

[markg8]

It is only lately that they've come to really grate on each other.

Oh Dennis, you don't know Petey. He thinks he's been my Moriarty for years now. He once to tried to harass some poor Garrity upstate I don't even know cuz he thought it was me. I still think of him as PD (stands for Phil's Dog), a Jack Russell terrier owned by a friend of mine who thought everyone with a penis was a threat to the household if not the Republic.

[Barack P;lenty Mtoto]

More Sherlock Holmes than Moriarty Marky. Interesting how you would know if a Garrity upstate was harassed,.Are you some kind of hive mind?
If I were PD,I wouldn't regard you as a threat then,would I?

But getting back to the subject of the thread,why isn't Mark using Operation Yellow Donkey to get Democrats to volunteer in Afghanistan,the same way he used Operation Yellow Elephant to harass young Republicans? After all this is Obama's war,the war that Marky believes in.

[Barack P;lenty Mtoto]

"I'm being lectured by the clown who touted cell phone sales in Iraq in 2006 as a sign of economic stabilization not realizing that cell phones make the best IED triggers. Sorry Petey, as you've no doubt been told many times before, you have no credibility. "

That is a bare faced lie. With our experience of the IRA,we knew that cell phones used as remote triggers way before you knew the name Iraq.

[PeterUK.]

Looks like you are in for the long haul in Afghanistan. No doubt the Taleban will get more effective weapons and the death toll will rise. Will there be the "Grim Milestones" beloved of the left,or will the supreme sacrifice of these young people be ignored?

[markg8]

You posted his name and address on a blog thinking it was me in an attempt to get people to harass him Petey. It was a particularly pathetic episode of goonish behavior and it's one reason why I think of you as a small barking dog.

And Petey if you're so enamored of the idea of an Operation Yellow Donkey knock yourself out. You might get an education. You sure could use one.

Somebody in the UK might have experience with the IRA, cellphones and IEDs Petey but that wasn't you. You thought it was wonderful that Iraqis were chitchatting away on their cellphones.

And Petey, try to stick to one ID will ya?

[PeterUK.]

Do yo mean Nark Garrity of New Jersey where you claimed to live. Ice cream salesman?( Failed)
Or Russian plywood salesman ?(failed).
Or Operation Yellow Elephant where you impersonated a recruiting officer to harass young Republicans into enlisting? Particularly despicable.
Watched you many a time trying to browbeat somebody on line you thought was young. To be quite frank it looked like grooming.You tried it with me,disgusting.

Marky anyone with knowledge of devices that can transmit and receive know they can be can be used as a trigger for anything. Sheesh what century are you living in? The Army used jamming devices across the spectrum to prevent this.Easy to find the frequency with a scanner.

Anyway,back to Obama's war,you support it,you will let young people die in it,but you won't fight it.The classic definition of a Chickenhawk.

[markg8]

What was Dennis's line, proofreading seems to be your enemy, Petey.

I used to live in NJ. Moved back to IL take care of my elderly dad when my mother was dying. I never sold ice cream, but I have sold lots of ice cream equipment. I had some Russian contacts in the 1990s who wanted to sell plywood. So what?

I never impersonated a recruiting officer as anyone knows who read my little screeds to the College Republicans. They are available here:

http://tinyurl.com/og357m
http://tinyurl.com/npvgsz
http://tinyurl.com/nyh7q3
http://tinyurl.com/mpe862

What's so disgusting about joining the military Petey? Are you some kind of commie peacenik now?

Sure anybody who knows anything about devices that can transmit and receive know they can be can be used as a trigger. That didn't stop you from mindlessly parroting some other idiot's claim that cell phone sales were evidence Iraq's economy was "booming" so to speak.

I see no one here has bothered to answer my question. Do you support an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan or not. I await your answer fellas.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark and Peter-

Enough. Alright?

1) You've highjacked my web site, and
2) You're both acting like assholes.

Here's the way it is going to be from now on:

Neither of you are allowed to directly respond to the other. I don't want to see a single "Petey" or "Marky" on any thread at any time from now on. You've both been good commenters in the past, but what's going on now doesn't cut it. I tried hinting, but that doesn't seem to be doing the job.

You talk about the post and leave it that; there will be no further warnings. The next step is a ban, and I'll ban both of you in a heartbeat.

Am I understood?

[markg8]

Just don't ask me to have a beer with him and it's fine with me Dennis.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Don't worry about that. Believe me, I'm not into "teachable moments".