Afghanistan

2,163 to 0

|

That is, how many deaths to coalition forces have been caused by the U.S. presence in Afghanistan vs. how many deaths of them, or anyone, caused by Wikileaks public release of secret U.S. documents related to that war? As Adam Serwer notes at American Prospect:

Despite widespread anticipation that the release of Wikileaks' Afghanistan logs would lead to the deaths of Afghan citizens who had helped the U.S. military, fueled by both official statements from the U.S. government and the Taliban itself, Defense SecretaryRobert Gates recently told Senator Carl Levin that the worst hasn't happened:

As far as broader intelligence gathering, Mr. Gates told Mr. Levin, "Our initial review indicates most of the information contained in these documents relates to tactical military operations." He added: "The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security; however, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure."

Also note the nearly 7000 civilian casualties of the war in just the past four years. Earlier blogging from me on relative guilt and blood on hands when military men accused Wikileaks of criminal and fatal recknessness.

NEXT: Hey Obama, the Jerk Store Called...They're Running Out of Jokes About Slurpees!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This may be the most impressive non sequitur I have ever seen.

  2. I am sure the wiki people are very disappointed to hear that. Oh well, I am sure they will get someone killed eventually. Hang in there guys.

    1. No no no. If they wanted to do that they’d sign up for the military you love so much

      1. To clarify for John, I think he meant someone undeserving of death. And signing up for the military requires gumption and fortitude that WikiLeakers just don’t have.

  3. Will these be regular updates? Or only as often as wikileaks demands them?

    And does this really matter? Let’s be honest with each other, Brian, if the leaks ever result in some mass casualty event–or even a stream of singular casualties, you’ll never say a word about it. So just post something that says ‘gloat’, and we’ll know that nothing can be directly connected to wikileaks yet, okay?

  4. And what does the 2163 number have to do with the price of tea in China? Is it now open season on Afghans as long as you don’t get as many people killed as NATO?

    1. Selective outrage was what he was getting at. I know you’re not obtuse enough to miss that

  5. It’s kind of hard to measure the latter metric. Which makes the title a hair hyperbolic. Either way anything related the US and to casualties and deaths in Afghanistan should be 0 across the board.

  6. how many deaths to coalition forces have been caused by the U.S. presence in Afghanistan

    Did it hurt twisting this like a pretzel? Did you mean coalition casualties? Did you mean people actually killed by, I don’t know, other people? As opposed to those killed by simply being there. Just trying to clarify if these people were killed in some form of combat or simply died as a result of chronic evil occupationism.

    1. I think they meant killed by friendly fire or as collateral damage to lawful kills. But that is just a guess.

  7. It loses a little zing when translated to English:

    That is, how many deaths to coalition forces have been caused by the U.S. presence coalition soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan vs. how many deaths of them, or anyone, caused by people have died because Wikileaks public released of secret U.S. documents related to that war?

    On the upside, its now understandable.

  8. I am a Gator, and so I understand that Brian is still reeling from the unbelievable homecoming loss to Mississippi State.

  9. …and we have our neocon parade on display on this thread. Awesome.

    1. “Neocon” is code for “Jew.” (I deserve part of Michael Moynihan’s paycheck this month for that contribution.)

    2. I love it when you use words the meaning of which completely eludes you Epi. It is quite cute.

      Seriously, you are not Tony. Learn what a word means before using it. Since no one that I know on here was once a leftist, no one on here could be described as a “neocon”.

      Or is it just shorthand for “anyone who disagrees with me”?

        1. Just like “hope” and “change”

    3. and we have our neocon parade on display on this thread. Awesome.

      And we have the “anarchist” troll chime in with nothing. Typical.

      As others have pointed out, at least attempt to learn the meaning of words before you use them. I was a conservative first, now a libertarian leaning one. So I have never been a neo (which means “new” since you apparently don’t know), conservative.

      Seriously, just go back to posting TEAM RED/ TEAM BLUE over and over, it isn’t any less vacuous.

      1. I guess George Will is a troll too? I consider him more qualified to speak about conservatism than you are, and he has identified “neoconservatism” as a very real and dangerous radicalism, albeit a badly named one.

        Let’s not pretend there isn’t a breed of Republican out there (Lieberman being the exception, as an independent) who fit the description. Is it over-used? Maybe. Doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

        1. I guess George Will is a troll too?

          I don’t know, is Will posting meaningless shit on a comment board?

          Let’s not pretend there isn’t a breed of Republican out there (Lieberman being the exception, as an independent) who fit the description.

          What description? I don’t subscribe to the George Will dictionary so I can’t follow who these neo-con Republicans are. Pearl and Feth, perhaps? The lifelong conservative Cheney? Lieberman remains a Leftist, even though he does favor the current wars. Were the 86 Senators who voted for the original military action, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry also neo-cons?

          Oh, you and Will think that being in favor of current wars= neo-con? Gotcha.

      2. You don’t have to be an anarchist to understand how incredibly insane our foreign policy and the debate the surrounds is.

  10. AQ (maybe) kills 3,000 innocents, they are villains and we start 2 wars costing trillions of dollars. We kill 7,000 innocents and we’re heroes.

    1. I suppose one could make a more ridiculous comparison. It would be difficult. Is paleo-moron a word?

      1. Dead is dead, ain’t it?

        1. No. We’re heroes because our government had a moral obligation to invade Afghanistan to avenge the deaths of innocent Americans and prevent further deaths. We are not responsible for the civilian deaths there. Our enemies are. Same with Iraq.

          From what I’ve seen, paleo = moron. When paleos aren’t vacillating about the ‘American Empire’ (whatever that is), they’re actually bitching about Abraham Lincoln being mean to the South for freeing those damn niggers. On second thought, really paleo = racist.

          1. Same with Iraq? Because they attacked us first, right? Saddam was gearing up to nuke Chicago?

            And if we drop a bomb on a wedding with no militants present, or our soldiers use civilians as target practice and take their ears as trophies, we have no responsibility? What a fucking pig. Invading shit-poor countries for their resources does not a hero make.

            From what I’ve seen, neocon=delusional war-mongering arab-hater.

  11. The point of this is to say government’s justification for continuing to do what it wants to do may, just may, require a little distortion, misinformation, and a dash of hysteria.
    Gee, I wonder if these tactics might apply in other areas the government trods? War on Drugs maybe? hmmmm.

  12. A Wall Street Journal editorial reported that 2,000 Americans are killed by the War on Drugs every year. I motion that we withdraw our DEA forces from America and return that country back to its citizens.

  13. If anybody is still listening on this thread. My point is, don’t be so ahistorical, and so hysterical. Look at July, 1945, and the napalm bombing of Tokyo. Look at the bombing of German cities in 44-45. And let’s not forget those two cities leveled by Abombs. The US and its allies, ruthlessly targeted civilians in order to bring the war more quickly to an end.
    One can argue about whether we should have attacked Iraq, or even Afghanistan. But our obsession with trying to prevent “collateral damage,” as killing non-combatants is euphemistically called, cannot be denied. War sucks, I’m told. So argue we should get out. But don’t try to argue the moral equivalency between intentionally killing non-combatants, and unintentionally killing them. There is a clear and distinct moral difference.

    And I will add that if you are not willing to do what it takes to win a war, which in our past most definitely included intentionally killing the population which supports the enemy, then don’t go in the first place.

  14. Personally I know a guy is gay when we meet and i feel the need to check my fly~867hg

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.