The Blog

Getting the Facts Right

3:12 PM, Jun 20, 2008 • By JAIME SNEIDER
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

Despite yesterday's successful mission in Southern Afghanistan, which resulted in the deaths of several hundred terrorists, the New York Times continues to assert that Afghanistan is an utter disaster and the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy. In an editorial today, the Times claims most of the 50,000 NATO troops deployed there are American. Not true. A majority of NATO soldiers are from other countries as this handy chart courtesy of Reuters details. The United States contributes a majority of soldiers only if one counts non-NATO forces and excludes the 140,000 Afghan troopers.

The Times also undersells the contributions of Afghan soldiers in the protection of their own communities, writing that only two army units are "fully capable." This stat is of little consequence as Afghan troops play key roles in nearly all military missions--including yesterday's battle in Kandahar.

Perhaps the editorial's biggest mistake is in claiming, without evidence, that the Taliban is stronger than it was two years ago. Reports on the ground give rise to contradictory conclusions. A December 2007 poll of Afghans found "More than 40 percent said the Taliban had increased in strength in their area." The same poll, however, concluded, "There's been no meaningful change . . . in the number of Afghans who report clashes between Taliban and government or foreign forces in their area."

More by Jaime Sneider

Moreover, support for the Taliban among the general population has not increased between 2006 and 2007, and "70 percent [of Afghans] rate their overall living conditions positively, and 66 percent rate their own local security positively." Many problems for sure. Utter disaster, I think not.