When consumers don't buy a crappy product, the answer is more and better advertising, right? Same thing with war. Since the public ain't buying the war in Afghanistan maybe it's time to hire a new ad agency.
So we must find a new way to explain the civilian casualties. Those pesky women, men, and children keep getting in the way of our bombs and bullets, and for some reason, our people seem to care, and we can't have that!
The subject of civilian casualties was the source of intense discussion on Wednesday in Brussels when the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the North Atlantic Council, the top representatives of the coalition. But the conversation was less about how to reduce casualties, according to participants, than about how to explain them to European governments.
"The Europeans are worried about a lack of clarity about who is responsible for the counterterror mission," said one participant in the debate. "They are worried that if NATO appears responsible for these casualties, it will result in a loss of support" for keeping forces in Afghanistan.
But it is not only the Americans whose practices are being questioned. NATO soldiers have frequently fired on civilians on the roads, often because the Afghans drive too close to military convoys or checkpoints. (NYTimes)
Maybe we should try this messaging: it is the civilians' own fault if they are killed, see:
Do they not have the sense to GTFO of an area where there is an active military campaign?
After all:
Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make themselves refugees, especially in Africa, and all without the assistance of SUV's or any Kabul Hilton to go to. All they usually have is shank's pony, and they manage to do it. Why else are there refugee camps all over Africa? They can WALK!
Thanks to Boiling Point.
See also: A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water
