By Col. Eugene Khrushchev (ret.) STAFF WRITER/Editor
The Methodology section offers contradicting disclaimers that effectively negate the veracity of the 2010 mid-year report:
• “The non-combatant status of the reported victims…cannot be conclusively established or is disputed”
• “UNAMA HR …does not presume fighting-age males are civilians”
• “UNAMA HR is under-reporting civilian casualties.”
The problem is not just a margin of error of civilian casualties due to the fuzzy delineation of the non-combatant status and the blurred line between civilians & combatants.
The fundamental flaw of this methodology is a consequence of myopic vision that erroneously narrows the Afghan challenge to a mere “armed conflict”, somehow stuck in the next section of Legal Responsibilities of the Parties to the Conflict as “the position” of UNAMA HR (to be reviewed later).
If UNAMA HR top priority is to minimize the human tragedy without discriminating between the indigenous & foreign populace who have been mercilessly victimized by the Afghan Killing Fields – and to correct the whopping under-reporting of civilian casualties – they ought to come clean that “armed conflict” have been totally marginalized by “unarmed” narco-aggression.
According to UNODC reports, the Undeclared Afghan Opium War Against Humanity annihilates annually 100,000 conclusively established civilians and relegates “armed conflict”‘s combined combatant & civilian deaths to the dismal 3 per cent of the overall narco-aggression casualty rate.
UNAMA HR in a conjunction with UNODC has to incorporate armed conflict collateral damage into narco-aggression fatalities for the next semi-annual report “Protection of civilians in armed conflict”, and to title it appropriately: “The Afghan drug challenge to international security & stability”.
To be continued…