Rubbish from the Telegraph
Edward Kenney
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
Con Coughlin’s recent column for the Telegraph sets a new low for journalistic standards. Ignoring Coughlin’s main thesis that Obama’s self imposed timelines are the main obstacle to a successful end to the war—an argument which we have already addressed here—his article is rife with blatant inaccuracies.
No, the extra troops have not succeeded in “providing proper security to Afghan civilians”. Through the first ten months of 2010 Afghan casualties are up 20% according to the United Nations.
No, there has not been “a dramatic reduction in the NATO casualty rate in recent months”. Last December was the most violent December of the war with 41 coalition casualties. Last November was likewise the most violent November since the war began. True these numbers represent a modest decrease from the horrific scale of casualties during the summer months of 2010, but this most likely represents seasonal factors—since the beginning of the war, the summer months have been the most violent with December to March some of the most peaceful[1].
And no, the recent attempts by Al Qaeda to blow up cargo planes were not a response to Obama’s Afghan timetables, which are fairly open-ended. Al Qaeda remains entrenched in Pakistan—fewer than 100 Taliban remain in Afghanistan, and they are not the primary focus of our military campaign in Afghanistan. Tying a failed terrorist attack to Obama’s pledge to begin withdrawing troops, is nothing but pure demagoguery.
The news media has a responsibility to keep its readers informed. The Telegraph should not have published such an egregiously misinformed article.
[1] See Brookings Afghan Index Figure 1.16 for a dramatic illustration of the seasonal dynamic.
