March 05, 2013
ISAF: No Statistics No Lies
Last year ISAF regularly reported
a decrease of "enemy initiated attacks" (EIA) in Afghanistan:
NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has said attacks by anti-government armed groups against foreign forces declined by 17 percent in the first seven months of the current year, as compared to the same period in 2011.
This January ISAF claimed that EIA in 2012 were down 7% compared with 2011.
But in February the ISAF press releases hailing this "progress" somehow vanished from its webpage. Someone noticed that and AP asked
ISAF what had happened to those reports:
The U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan incorrectly reported a decline in Taliban attacks last year, and officials said Tuesday that there was actually no change in the number of attacks on international troops from 2011 to 2012.
A coalition spokesman, Jamie Graybeal, attributed the miscounting to clerical errors and said the problem does not change officials' basic assessment of the war.
A "clerical error" is what one usually calls a lie. "But as ISAF practically says: "7% more or less killed and wounded - why care for that anyway?"
It was a big cake in the face moment for ISAF and as such numbers work against the now enshrined cut and run policies that require some triumphant victory declarations ISAF decided that the public is no longer interested in such numbers:
The U.S.-led military command in Afghanistan said Tuesday it will no longer publish figures on Taliban attacks, a week after acknowledging that its report of a 7 percent decline in attacks last year was actually no decline at all.
ISAF's silly excuse is that Afghan troops are now the ones who mostly get attacked. It seems to believe that this
is something no one should count or be concerned about.
"Additionally, we have come to realize that a simple tally of (attacks) is not the most complete measure of the campaign's progress," Graybeal said. "At a time when more than 80 percent of the (attacks) are happening in areas where less than 20 percent of Afghans live, this single facet of the campaign is not particularly accurate in describing the complete effect of the insurgency's violence on the people of Afghanistan."
If that is the case why then was ISAF so happy to report
such numbers as successes in every month of 2012?
The way out of "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is obviously not to publish any statistics at all.
Meanwhile the way out of Afghanistan seems to be in transferring the war to the United States. With Homeland Security now serving warrants (video) with Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicle filled with its special ops like "operators" it is only a question of time until some insurgent will considers measures against such.
Posted by b on March 5, 2013 at 12:10 PM | Permalink
Hugo Chavez RIP. Retrospective
Posted by: Maracatu | Mar 5, 2013 6:02:39 PM | 1
french scum newpaper Libération instantly titled "Chavez : from failed putsch to autocratic excesses"
that's a very peculiar way to sum up his presidents' jobs
Posted by: rototo | Mar 5, 2013 6:29:28 PM | 2
And Libération is a left-wing newspaper. Well, is supposed to be.
Posted by: Rhysa | Mar 5, 2013 6:59:20 PM | 3
And Libération is a left-wing newspaper. Well, is supposed to be.
Yeah as much as Hollande is supposed to be a Socialist President. Guess the catchphrase for French left wing politics is "hijacked".
Chavez death is very disheartening. A crime to think he was set to rule until 2018 after the recent election, and now he is dead at 58. The only bright spark is that the coalition of nations he championed are still thriving. Rousseff in Brazil, Correa in Ecudaor, Morales in Bolivia, Kircher in Argentina, Ortega in Nicaragua and more. To much to hope that his successor will be as great but hopefully he can continue Chavez's legacy.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Mar 5, 2013 7:39:12 PM | 5
Victory for Henrique Capriles Goldstein, or whatever the opposition candidate is called, will be the death of the revolution.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Mar 5, 2013 8:01:40 PM | 6
Yeah, I never had much faith in humanity, but the comments I read by US commentators was sickening. What makes people insult a country they've never been to, a man they know nothing about, and a system they've never experienced.
For what it is worth I visited Venezuela in 2009. I saw the conditions they are fighting down there, and I saw a lot of people working hard and building real lives with the tools the wealth of the country gave them - everything from political tools to tractors to video cameras. Chávez is dead but I think he is going to live on in a big way. He was a huge personality, but it wasn't just him at all. The revolution is very deeply felt by the majority of people down there.
This whole 4th Generation War thing is getting to extreme. People are driven out of their minds with lies about things that have no relation to their lives at all. It's getting too crazy - all this bs... it is going to end badly for us.
Of course the neocon/neolib scumbags will try to see what they can get by burning the country, I'm sure.
Posted by: guest | Mar 6, 2013 12:19:08 AM | 7
@ rotot [#2],
Here's another quip "Critics saw Chavez as a typical Latin American caudillo, a strongman who ruled through force of personality and showed disdain for democratic rules. Chavez concentrated power in his hands with allies who dominated the congress and justices who controlled the Supreme Court."
It's my understanding that the coup against Chavez was instigated by members of the Fedecámaras.
How did he have the audacity to 'waste' all the oil riches on the poor. So..., so..., socialist :o)
Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 6, 2013 12:21:47 AM | 8
The Yankees are in deep shit in "AfPak."
This hasty realignment of media interest in Afghanistan is designed to pave the way for under-reporting of ISAF casualties when they begin closing bases as part of the withdrawal scheme. The effect of these closures will be to increase the 'radius of security' for the remaining bases to cover the absence of the abandoned bases.
What's going to make it entertaining is that the 'Taliban' stood aside while ISAF built up its AfPak presence - and the Yankees would probably have attributed the success of their 'surge' to local fear of overwhelming military might. But that's not the way things are, or have ever been, in Afghanistan.
It's going to become very obvious, at least to the boots-on-the-ground folks, that the vast majority of Afghans HATE Yankees and their asleep-at-the-wheel friends and will try to kill as many as possible.
And there will be many, many, many opportunities to do so with Jubilation T Cornpone (Yankees) in charge of the SNAFU.
Payback's such a bitch.
The only upside for the US is that combat casualties will soon outnumber suicides by a healthy margin.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 6, 2013 9:47:05 AM | 9
"Meanwhile the way out of Afghanistan seems to be in transferring the war to the United States. With Homeland Security now serving warrants (video) with Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicle filled with its special ops like "operators"
Welcome to freedom and democracy, Israeli-American style.
Posted by: вот так | Mar 6, 2013 12:42:47 PM | 10