The Taliban executed some people in a village in Afghanistan. This report said it was because they were spying for the government. Earlier reports said it was for violations of religious law. They (hundreds of Taliban) then attacked and killed some nearby Afghan police and engaged Afghan and ISF troops. The troops called in an air strike. Earlier reports based on eyewitness testimony said the Taliban troops retreated through the village although this one claims the whole battle happened an hour or more away on foot. It appears likely that some civilians were killed. Earlier reports mentioned a significant number of Taliban killed in that engagement but, for some reason, every body in the world now appears to be a civilian. There is an ongoing investigation. The true number will be nothing like the 147 claim though. (Earlier claims were in the range of 20-30.) The Taliban has been conducting a major info ops campaign to exaggerate and flat out make up civilian deaths for months now. I saw a story yesterday claiming that 60 UAV strikes in Pakistan over the past couple of years had killed 687 civilians, a number which would have been difficult to achieve if every launch had been against a kindergarten. A number of Afghan officials go along with this or even actively participate because of the upcoming elections - if they throw mud at the US, they know it will stick to Karzai, which helps the election chances of their faction.
The other issue is that reporters, on the whole, suck these days. A real reporter, presented with the information in this story would do things like: - Ask for the list of 147 names so they could attempt to validate it - Ask the ISF how much time passed from the beginning of the air strike to the end rather than just picking one of the several different amounts of time presented by eyewitnesses - Ask how many Taliban were killed and attempt to determine if they were included in the total body count as civilians - Not write "often" when they mean "a couple of times". - Not write that claims that some of the civilians were killed by grenades was "disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters" when that just proves the fact that there was an air strike, which was never in dispute in the first place. (I happen to think that claim is weak and it sounds like Gates has backed off of it, but the existence of bomb craters is irrelevant to the claim.) - When an "eyewitness" tells you about what happened miles away, ask him how he knows that. - Write "He claimed their burned out vehicles still stand in the road" rather than "their burned out vehicles still stand in the road". Unless he actually saw the vehicles, in which case the reporter could state factually how far the vehicles were from the bomb craters rather than having to quote an eyewitness. - Don't write "Afghan army commanders might have been eager to call for US airstrikes" because the Taliban is "traditionally strong" in that area to imply that there was no legitimate reason for the request for air strikes when you know and have already reported in that very article that they did it because they were under attack and several of them had been killed. - When the Red Cross says "dozens of people have been killed", other sources say "more than 20" and somebody else says 147, don't just write down 147. - Is there some sort of new rule that forbids including the US response ("those numbers are extremely over-exaggerated") in a news story?
Itinerant historian, former infantry soldier, and the author of "Court-Martial: How Military Justice has Shaped America, from the Revolution to 9/11 and Beyond," forthcoming from W.W. Norton.
5 comments:
Are you questioning the military action, the effectiveness of our policy, or the comments on that article in particular?
Not that all of them don't deserve a WTF individually....
I'll take comments on all of it -- there's a whole lot of WTF in there.
The Taliban executed some people in a village in Afghanistan. This report said it was because they were spying for the government. Earlier reports said it was for violations of religious law. They (hundreds of Taliban) then attacked and killed some nearby Afghan police and engaged Afghan and ISF troops. The troops called in an air strike. Earlier reports based on eyewitness testimony said the Taliban troops retreated through the village although this one claims the whole battle happened an hour or more away on foot. It appears likely that some civilians were killed. Earlier reports mentioned a significant number of Taliban killed in that engagement but, for some reason, every body in the world now appears to be a civilian. There is an ongoing investigation. The true number will be nothing like the 147 claim though. (Earlier claims were in the range of 20-30.)
The Taliban has been conducting a major info ops campaign to exaggerate and flat out make up civilian deaths for months now. I saw a story yesterday claiming that 60 UAV strikes in Pakistan over the past couple of years had killed 687 civilians, a number which would have been difficult to achieve if every launch had been against a kindergarten. A number of Afghan officials go along with this or even actively participate because of the upcoming elections - if they throw mud at the US, they know it will stick to Karzai, which helps the election chances of their faction.
The other issue is that reporters, on the whole, suck these days. A real reporter, presented with the information in this story would do things like:
- Ask for the list of 147 names so they could attempt to validate it
- Ask the ISF how much time passed from the beginning of the air strike to the end rather than just picking one of the several different amounts of time presented by eyewitnesses
- Ask how many Taliban were killed and attempt to determine if they were included in the total body count as civilians
- Not write "often" when they mean "a couple of times".
- Not write that claims that some of the civilians were killed by grenades was "disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters" when that just proves the fact that there was an air strike, which was never in dispute in the first place. (I happen to think that claim is weak and it sounds like Gates has backed off of it, but the existence of bomb craters is irrelevant to the claim.)
- When an "eyewitness" tells you about what happened miles away, ask him how he knows that.
- Write "He claimed their burned out vehicles still stand in the road" rather than "their burned out vehicles still stand in the road". Unless he actually saw the vehicles, in which case the reporter could state factually how far the vehicles were from the bomb craters rather than having to quote an eyewitness.
- Don't write "Afghan army commanders might have been eager to call for US airstrikes" because the Taliban is "traditionally strong" in that area to imply that there was no legitimate reason for the request for air strikes when you know and have already reported in that very article that they did it because they were under attack and several of them had been killed.
- When the Red Cross says "dozens of people have been killed", other sources say "more than 20" and somebody else says 147, don't just write down 147.
- Is there some sort of new rule that forbids including the US response ("those numbers are extremely over-exaggerated") in a news story?
Well done -- very good to read.
Post a Comment