In a column published last Friday in Student Life, T. Eugene Day takes issue with last Monday’s posting on campus of hundreds of red fliers with the message, “Since October 7, 2001, one year ago today, US military action has killed 3,959 innocent Afghan civilians.” As one of the students responsible for this massive posting, I would like to respond to Day and challenge some of his analysis.

To begin with, the title “Misleading death counts” is itself misleading, because he does not dispute the reality of civilian death in Afghanistan or even the count of 3,959. Indeed, it would be hard to deny in light of the detailed research of, among others, Marc W. Herold from the University of New Hampshire, whose lengthy database provides detailed analysis of Afghan casualties since Oct. 7, 2001 (see http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold). Contrary to what Day argues, the death count of about 4,000 does not include enemy “combatants or terrorists.” Take, for instance, the bombing of a wedding party on July 1, 2001, in the southern province of Uruzgan. This United States mistake killed 20 and injured 60 Afghan civilians.

Rather than disputing the accuracy of the civilian death count on the flier, Day instead seems to be concerned with what he construes as the “naked attempt to cast the [American] military. as evil.” My reason and other students’ reason for posting these fliers was to raise awareness about Afghan casualties in the U.S.-led War on Terrorism, a reality largely ignored in the mainstream press. Moreover, it was intended to open up campus wide discussion at the beginning of a Peace Week organized by the Washington University Green Party. Any conclusion drawn from the flier about the purported evil of the U.S. government has more to do with the receiver than its writers.

Day’s selective analysis of Afghanistan after the Taliban raises many questions. Barbershops might be open in Kabul and soccer playing on the rise, as Day points out, but what about larger political and economic concerns? Has democracy been delivered as promised? Interim President Hamid Karzai was handpicked by the U.S. and voted in by a grand council (loya jirga) full of U.S.-friendly warlords and recently returned Afghan expatriates from the West. Karzai no more represents the interests of the Afghan people or reflects their wishes than did the Taliban.

Day rightfully mentions the improvement in conditions for Afghan women since the removal of the Taliban. It should be noted, however, that the U.S. government has failed to deliver promised aid not only for overall structural rebuilding but more specifically aid designated for women’s issues.

Recently, the Bush administration blocked the giving of $134 million in Afghan humanitarian aid, $2.5 million of which was intended to go towards constructing women’s centers across Afghanistan. This begs the question, how concerned is the U.S. with nation building and fulfilling its promise of a “Marshall Plan” to Afghanistan? Of the $15 billion needed for reconstruction, the U.S. and other Western countries have pledged only $4.8 billion. Of that sum, only $1.8 billion has actually been received, almost all of which has been spent on hunger relief. One can recognize positive change while still being aware and critical of how much still remains in disarray. The picture Day presents of an Afghanistan freed from tyrannical rule by the U.S. military needs to be tempered by knowledge about ongoing civilian casualties, political violence, and widespread famine.

I am equally appalled by the violence Day mentions against women in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. In a discussion about a U.S.-led regime change in Afghanistan, however, these examples raise more questions than they provide support for his argument. The U.S. government has not adequately addressed or challenged the systematic violence and injustice perpetrated in these countries, both of which are strategic allies. In fact, the U.S. government had little to say about widespread human rights abuses in Taliban-led Afghanistan before September 11.

Leaving the complicated world of U.S. foreign policy aside, the important point is to realize that a substantial number of civilians have died in Afghanistan since last October. Just as we remember the lives of those lost on September 11, so should we remember those who have died as a result of U.S. military action abroad as a consequence of the War on Terrorism. Day writes that the tragedy [of the loss of 4,000 Afghan civilians] is “palatable.” I hope I never reach the point where the loss of even one innocent life is acceptable, however far away or faceless a victim is to me. If that makes me a member of the “idealized population of youthful academia,” so be it.

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 15th, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.