Defense Policy Headache of the Day

JIEDDO (Joint IED Defeat Organisation) is a Pentagon agency designed and created to address the serious issue of Improvised Explosive Devices, which are the primary killers of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and caused a reported 55% of civilian deaths last year (see my post on civilian casualties in Afghanistan). Since it’s inception in early 2006, it has become huge: 1,900+ personnel and nearly $17 billion worth of projects and initiatives. But this is good, right? Because while it’s expense and bureaucracy and all that, it’s directed at something that really is crucial to the outcome of our operations over there. Without proper ways to address what is one of the most successful and pervasive guerrilla methods, we are going to continue to lose soldiers and civilians to IEDs.

Well, that would be the case if JIEDDO was actually working the way it is supposed to. As you can see in the graph above 3366 soldiers were wounded last year in IED explosions in Afghanistan.  That’s more wounded in 2010 than in all the other years put together.  

The investigations of the Centre for Public Integrity and McClatchy reveal that JIEDDO failed to evaluate its programs and initiatives, collect data on its projects, used large sums of its money for expenses that had no direct relation to the fight against IEDs, and misreported $795 million of costs. 

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., who is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan himself, said it exactly: ”So as long as the IED metric keeps going up, and as long as we keep taking the majority of our KIA (killed in action) casualties from IEDs, then they’ve all been unsuccessful. Period.”

Obviously, the fight against IEDs is not a single-solution problem, nor is it a problem that exists in isolation from others. It’s not an easy solve. It is however our biggest problem (I would argue).  We are losing lives, limbs and money, and at the very least, JIEDDO needs to dedicate itself to figuring out what’s been going wrong for the last five years and $17 billion.

Read more at McClatchy DC.

Tracking the Civilian Death Toll in the Afghan War

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in conjunction with the UNAMA logged 2,777 civilian deaths in 2010.

• That’s a 15% increase from 2009.
• 75% of those deaths are attributed to “Anti-Government Elements,” an increase of 28% since last year.
• 55% (1,141) of the deaths were a result of suicide bombers and IEDs.
• 462 civilians were assassinated in 2010.  That’s a 105% increase in civilian assassinations from 2009.  Half of those assassinations took place in the southern regions, like Helmand (experienced a 588% increase in civilian assassinations) and Kandahar (a 248% increase).
• 16% of civilian deaths came from Afghan national security forces, down 26%.  Of those deaths, the most came from air attacks, although civilian death from pro-government aerial actions decreased by a dramatic 52%.
• 9% of civilian deaths could not be attributed.
• Overall, all regions saw increases in civilian casualties, which the report indicates is a result of the increase in the use of IEDs, assassinations and intensified military action.  The north saw an increase of 76%, the south an increase of 40%.  

Civilian deaths, according to the two organisations, have increased every year over the past four, with a total of 8,832 civilian deaths in that time.

Read the full report from the UNAMA and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission here.

Above: A young Afghan girl holds a poster with photographs of the members her family who were killed in Azizabad in Shindan district, Herat in a US-led raid in 2008. Photo Credit: AP Photo/Fraidoon Pooyaa

Read the other posts published here on The Political Notebook regarding recent numbers on civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

The ISAF’s civilian casualty data, visualised by George Michael Brower.  You can notice the seasonal changes and the increases in intensity in this excellent graph.

An interactive version can be viewed here.

Science 11 March 2011: 
vol. 331 no. 6022 1256-1260

Read my accompanying posts on civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

The body of a protester after the police raid on Pearl Roundabout.  Photo Credit: AP

fastcompany:

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a big problem in the military, but a study shows that virtual reality therapy may help afflicted soldiers. From FC.com:

The idea behind exposure therapy is for people with PTSD to relive their traumatic experiences in a safe environment. Traditionally, the way therapists would help soldiers access their painful memories was by asking them to vividly imagine the sights and sounds of war. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) takes matters a step further by actually presenting those sights and sounds.

The findings are part of a four-year study conducted by the Department of Defense National Center for Telehealth and Technology, which partnered with the Defenses Center for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury and the Department of Psychology at Madigan. VRET uses 360-degree interactive computer-generated environments, according to the Army, running a program called “Virtual Iraq.” Patients wear a head-mounted display, while the doctor orchestrates the relevant stimuli—helicopters overhead, gunfire, or even a Muslim call to prayer. A typical session lasts 90 minutes.

VRET isn’t entirely new; it had been shown to be effective in Vietnam veterans and survivors of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Literature on the therapy extends back at least to 1999. But the recent study extends its relevance to active-duty populations.

Dr. Greg Reger, lead author of the study, also thinks that since this generation of soldiers was reared on technology, it makes sense virtual reality would appeal to them. Said Reger in a press release: “It is possible that virtual reality exposure therapy would provide a more appealing treatment option to a young, technologically savvy generation of service members and veterans. In addition, it is possible that a treatment option like virtual reality exposure would be viewed by some service members as less stigmatizing than traditional treatment approaches,” thereby accessing service members who otherwise wouldn’t seek treatment. In other words: while seeing a shrink is embarrassing for certain soldiers, a video game is pretty cool.