The New York Times published a shocking info-graphic this weekend (see below) comparing the death tolls of American and allied troupes in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010. In the graphic, each man dead from the War on Terror is given a uniform shape and are specially color coded and placed to signify where and how they died. The chart suggests an outlook of abounding violence in Afghanistan and relative stability in Iraq as the death toll in Afghanistan was more than twelve times that in Iraq. Additionally, the chart shows that the majority of deaths in Afghanistan were from “homemade bombs and small-arms fire” rather than Iraq where most deaths were not combat related.
Though it would suggest that Iraq should be seen as a positive role model for Afghanistan, it is hard to believe that the primary cause for the decrease in American and allied deaths hasn’t been the large pull of troupes. While American troupes leave, “Iraqi security forces take on more of the burden” of controlling the bombings and hostile fires. Without the total death tolls of the countries, it is hard to see whether violence has actually decreased or increased or if what has really changed is which people are most at risk.
The map of Afghanistan is somewhat misleading as more urban cities are seen as larger on the map whereas most of the deaths take place in small providences in the south and East. For example, Kabul, which is largest on the map, only suffered eleven deaths primarily to suicide bombings and non-combat related deaths. However, one of the most concentrated amount of deaths occurred in the Helmand Province “where some 15,000 American and NATO troops began a major offensive in February” the adjacent article explains.
It is hard to tell whether this graphic is trying to suggest that the violence in Afghanistan is negative or whether it signifies progress. The author of the article states that “Afghan and Western troops have made great strides in stabilizing the insecure provinces in the south and east of the country” but it is hard to look at this chart and not be struck by the sheer amount of bodies lying dead from battle. In either case, 2010 has proven to be “the deadliest year of the war effort thus far” and it is hard to believe that any end is in sight.
Greg, how do you reconcile this with what Paul Miller had to say in this month's Foreign Affairs article, "Finish the Job." As you recall, he seems to suggest that despite the escalating violence that, given all of the economic, health, education indicators etc., there is tremendous progress being made in the country. Perhaps he's correct, but if this is going to require a large presence of NATO combat troops (as opposed to simply civilian forces), will the American public stand for it?
ReplyDelete