[aa-jv]

Did civilians casualties go down?

No. They went up.

It therefore doesn't matter one iota what the war criminals responsible for that murder, have to say about it. No amount of flowery 'brave' language is going to bring those kids back from out under the rubble.

Stop defending known war criminals. McCrystal belongs in chains in The Hague, as does Obama. They both worked too damned hard to justify their murder of civilians to the rest of the civilized world.

[danielvf]

While McCrystal was in command, US caused Afghani civilian casualties went quickly down from what they were and stayed down while he was in command.

However the Taliban had been killing around 400% of the number of civilians that the ISAF was. Reduced ISAF force projection and increased Taliban activity resulted in the number of civilians killed by the Taliban going up. Thus the overall number of civilians killed during those 11 months went up. But it went up because the Taliban were killing more, not because the US was.

Another way of looking at it, if airstrikes and artillery fire were the primary drivers of US caused civilian deaths, then reducing the number of times those were used by 50% would obviously cause a noticeable reduction in US caused civilian deaths.

Anyway, it appears that we are at an impasse, and both believe that the other cannot see the obvious facts about McCrystal either doing nothing, or doing a lot to reduce civilian casualties.

Have a good day, and may there be joy in it.

[aa-jv]

The difference is that I consider McCrystal a vile war criminal and have no desire whatsoever to see his fake 'honor' defended by anyone. He belongs in chains, rotting in the Hague, as do most of his seniors.