11 ms·

It establishes him as a reliable source for verification of civilian casualties, even relied on and confirmed by the U.N. From the director of strategic commun

by pp19dd 11y ago

It establishes him as a reliable source for verification of civilian casualties, even relied on and confirmed by the U.N. From the director of strategic communications, UNAMA: "Verification of civilian casualties is a painstaking, long and often extremely difficult and sensitive process, involving multiple sources and sometimes conflicting data and reports." What he said is an understatement. The 2011 casualty numbers for aerial strikes in Afghanistan started at 305 at end of 2011, rose to 353 by end of 2012 and then rose to 415 by end of 2014. It took four years to get to that "415" number and this highlights that it can take years to get accurate counts. This year's UNAMA report, due soon, is bound to raise this number.

ethbro 11y ago
Four years and how many person-hours. Is an accurate count really that important? Couldn't 300 with some statistical bounds be used? Don't get me wrong. I think every life is sacred and a single loss is an incredible tradgedy. But I tend to think spending effort on the living is more useful.
- pp19dd 11y ago
  Yes, it really is important. I don't mean that in the sense that it's dehumanizing to replace a human being with a number and then round up or down, but in the sense of determining things like: are civilian casualties caused by Allied Forces' aerial strikes rising or falling over the years? I'll argue that this IS spending effort on the living. UN report is a credible figure, which CENTCOM can't ignore, and that hopefully will result in strategy or tactics change that result in fewer civilian casualties. Take a look at this infographic, and you'll hopefully spot 2011 in it at once on the top/bottom graphs: http://projects.voanews.com/aircraft-weapons-released-in-afghanistan-2010-to-2015/ http://projects.voanews.com/aircraft-weapons-released-in-afg... It's 2010 that appears like it has greater number of aerial strikes, but that's not the case. Yes, it has some big spikes, but it's actually 2011 that cumulatively has more strikes. Below is the corresponding number of civilian victims of aerial strikes as determined by the UN. The bottom numbers, the casualty numbers, are going down after 2011. Note that the last "15" number came from a preliminary UN report and will be updated soon. Back to the person-hours you mentioned. Was it worth it to keep counting 2011 statistics, four-five years later? I think yes, because otherwise it's really easy for CENTCOM or anyone else to either miss the correct numbers, or cherry-pick them. If anyone had only cited the 2011 UNAMA report (which was initially reported as 305), it would imply that number of casualties remained the same instead of rising sharply like it did.

by pp19dd 11y ago

ethbro 11y ago

Four years and how many person-hours. Is an accurate count really that important? Couldn't 300 with some statistical bounds be used? Don't get me wrong. I think every life is sacred and a single loss is an incredible tradgedy. But I tend to think spending effort on the living is more useful.

pp19dd 11y ago
Yes, it really is important. I don't mean that in the sense that it's dehumanizing to replace a human being with a number and then round up or down, but in the sense of determining things like: are civilian casualties caused by Allied Forces' aerial strikes rising or falling over the years? I'll argue that this IS spending effort on the living. UN report is a credible figure, which CENTCOM can't ignore, and that hopefully will result in strategy or tactics change that result in fewer civilian casualties. Take a look at this infographic, and you'll hopefully spot 2011 in it at once on the top/bottom graphs: http://projects.voanews.com/aircraft-weapons-released-in-afghanistan-2010-to-2015/ http://projects.voanews.com/aircraft-weapons-released-in-afg... It's 2010 that appears like it has greater number of aerial strikes, but that's not the case. Yes, it has some big spikes, but it's actually 2011 that cumulatively has more strikes. Below is the corresponding number of civilian victims of aerial strikes as determined by the UN. The bottom numbers, the casualty numbers, are going down after 2011. Note that the last "15" number came from a preliminary UN report and will be updated soon. Back to the person-hours you mentioned. Was it worth it to keep counting 2011 statistics, four-five years later? I think yes, because otherwise it's really easy for CENTCOM or anyone else to either miss the correct numbers, or cherry-pick them. If anyone had only cited the 2011 UNAMA report (which was initially reported as 305), it would imply that number of casualties remained the same instead of rising sharply like it did.