Afghan civilian deaths cartoon

Afghan civilian deaths, cartoon

This is a cartoon by Mikhaela in the USA, about the recent killing of Afghan children during the Marjah offensive.

Activists protest Afghanistan occupation: here.

Afghanistan: WEEKLY MORBIDITY & MORTALITY REPORT 4th Year, Issue – 06: here.

6 thoughts on “Afghan civilian deaths cartoon

  1. Three civilians killed in S. Afghanistan

    Military and Security 2/20/2010 4:32:00 PM

    KABUL, Feb 20 (KUNA) — Two Afghan civilians have been killed in a roadside landmine blast in southern Afghanistan on Saturday morning.
    A statement from the Interior Ministry here said the incident happened in Nahre Saraj district of Helmand. Around 15,000 Afghan, US and UK troops are presently carrying out a massive operation against Taliban in Marja district of the same province.
    The Afghan ministry said the bomb was planted by the anti-government Taliban militants to target the local or foreign troops, but it struck the innocent civilians.
    Meanwhile, a third civilian was killed in firing by the international troops in Nad Ali district of the same province.
    A statement from ISAF headquarters said the civilian was carrying something in his hands and the troops came to believe that it was an improvised explosive device. As the troops warned, the man dropped it and run away.
    The statement said the ISAF troops opened fire and shot him dead. However, it was revealed later that he was not carrying explosives. Twelve civilians were killed as rockets landed in populated area in Helmand a few days ago.


  2. Dutch PM: troops to leave Afghanistan this year

    Associated Press Writer

    updated 10:50 a.m. ET Feb. 21, 2010

    AMSTERDAM – Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Sunday Dutch troops will begin leaving southern Afghanistan in August, since his caretaker government has no authority to accept a NATO request to stay on.

    Speaking a day after his coalition government collapsed over the issue, Balkenende said the Netherlands will end its role in Uruzgan province, where 21 Dutch soldiers have been killed since the mission was first deployed in 2006.

    “Our task as the lead nation ends in August this year,” he said on Dutch television.



    Obama’s Pentagon Rebrands Iraq War, Rolls Out PR Offensive in Afghanistan
    By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
    Posted on February 20, 2010

    “The PR maneuverings of the Bush administration got old, fast, and they will under Obama too.”

    This week, the same week that saw the U.S. military launch a major new assault in Afghanistan — a much ballyhooed effort that is as much a PR offensive as a military one — the Pentagon decided to formally rebrand the Iraq War.

    In a one-page memo dated Feb. 17, 2010 and signed by Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense officially requested that U.S. Central Command “change the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.”

    “The requested operation name change is approved to take effect 1 September, 2010, coinciding with the change in mission for U.S. forces in Iraq,” Gates wrote to CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus, noting that this would send “a strong signal that Operation Iraqi Freedom has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission.”

    Just how strong is debatable. Outside military circles (or media outlets that print Pentagon press releases as news), it would be hard to argue that “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was ever really a household phrase. Beyond any symbolic value, renaming what is more commonly known simply as the Iraq War to Operation New Dawn doesn’t change much. But it is reflective of the increasingly accepted perception in the U.S. that American operations in Iraq are as good as over.

    Yet, in addition to the massive new U.S. embassy in Baghdad — a facility that predicts a formidable U.S. presence for years to come — and the fact that the 2011 withdrawal date is subject to conditions on the ground, things in Iraq are nothing if not unresolved. With parliamentary elections just weeks away, the past several weeks have been deadly for Iraqis, with a series of devastating bombings, the latest of which struck Thursday in Anbar province, killing at least 13 people and wounding many more. Late last month, three Baghdad hotels were struck in a coordinated bombing campaign that left at least 36 people dead and 71 wounded.

    Khari Abdul Hadi, an aide to Anbar’s governor, expressed what the New York Times described as “resignation bordering on despair” over the latest bombing this week. “I cannot blame the explosion on anyone because there are so many,” he said. “We are lost. We don’t know our enemy.”

    It’s a discomfiting contrast to the sunny picture the Obama administration is projecting about the U.S. mission in Iraq. But with escalation in Afghanistan just getting started, that’s the Pentagon’s story, and it’s sticking to it.

    It’s not the first time the Obama administration, like the Bush White House before it, sought to beautify its military endeavors through facelifts and marketing appeals. Last March it announced that it was discontinuing the tarnished term “enemy combatant” to describe those prisoners captured as part of the “war on terror” (while reserving the right to detain them indefinitely without trial). Soon thereafter it was reported that speechwriters were being asked to scrap the troublesome phrase “war on terror” altogether in favor of the more neutral, blandly technical “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

    But the more the Obama administration attempts to differentiate itself from its unpopular predecessor through rebranding campaigns, the less convincing it is, particularly given a recently unveiled military budget of unprecedented proportions. Whatever symbolic value there was in rewarding President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize did precious little to conceal the pro-war speech he gave upon receiving it, not to mention everything that followed.

    Yet the sophistication of the administration’s PR machine was on display this week, with major news outlets breathlessly documenting the U.S. military’s advance into Helmand province. The February 13 assault on Taliban forces in the town of Marja by a 6,000-member force comprised of U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers was reportedly the largest joint US-NATO-Afghan operation in history, one that has already produced several civilian casualties. In the run-up to the assault, CNN featured reporters in combat gear interviewing army officers, sporting event-style, juxtaposed with interviews of Afghans expressing support for the U.S. occupation. Video footage at shows explosions followed by clapping and cheering by U.S. troops. Over at Talking Points Memo, “We’re a Go” was the dramatic headline with subheads noting the “major strategy shift” represented by the operation.

    Long before the Marja offensive, however, came efforts by the military to publicize its coming operation, a “strategy shift” as important as what is happening on the ground. A Feb. 4 New York Times report described an uncharacteristically “upbeat” Gen. Stanley McChrystal predicting “real progress in 2010” in Afghanistan and explaining that “the biggest thing is in convincing the Afghan people.”

    “This is all a war of perceptions,” he said. “This is not a physical war in terms of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants.”

    This past Friday, the Times reported on local polling conducted by the U.S. military in Afghanistan before the Marja offensive, a move described as going “beyond traditional military goals.”

    “Perhaps no other feature of the offensive now under way in and around the town, Marja, speaks so clearly to its central characteristic: it is a campaign meant to shift perceptions as much as to alter the military balance, crush an enemy army or seize some vital crossroads,” the Times’s Tom Shanker reported, noting that, beyond convincing Afghan civilians of the legitimacy of the mission, “the operation is supposed to show Americans that the buildup ordered by President Obama can have swift and positive results.”

    But nine years after the start of the Afghan war, swift and positive are not words most Americans are likely to associate with the mission, least of all the soldiers who have left Iraq only to be redeployed to Afghanistan. The PR maneuverings of the Bush administration got old, fast, and they will under Obama too.

    As far as “Operation New Dawn,” many are unconvinced.

    “The DoD’s latest attempt to sell what we’re doing in Iraq to the people and international community simply highlights the tenuous position they’ve committed our forces to,” Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, told AlterNet. “Their latest misnomer, Operation New Dawn, has all the qualities of a George Orwell novel. Perhaps ‘Operation Imperial Sunset’ is more appropriate. No one is fooled by their attempts to spin what is happening over there, namely permanent bases, lopsided oil deals and serious breaches of international law. Let’s bring the troops home and let Iraq enjoy its sovereignty.”

    Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and World Special Coverage. Follow her on Twitter.


  4. Pingback: NATO kills Afghan civilians once again | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Australian anti-Afghan war demonstration, Sydney | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.