Afghan death toll doubted

The other day, I read that the United Nations voiced concerns about civilian casualties in U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan, citing "unconfirmed but reliable" reports of 52 civilian deaths. My surprise came, not from the article\'s content, but from its appearance in The Washington Post. Hearing similar reports on television, I had to wonder, is the Pentagon releasing death tolls in its press packets?\nNot that we haven\'t been receiving accurate reports on the war. Early on, The Los Angeles Times offered the exact and telling assessment of \"at least dozens\" of civilian deaths. I\'m surprised that intense bombing of highly populated areas has resulted in so few innocent deaths. Our smart bombs at work, no doubt.\nYet there are others who share my disbelief over the intelligence of inanimate objects. One of those skeptics is Marc Herold, an economics professor at the University of New Hampshire and author of an independent study of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. These civilians did not elect the repressive Taliban, had nothing to do with the atrocities of Sept. 11 and did not ask the United States and United Kingdom to bomb their country for 90 days. That is who we are killing. While some say we\'ve killed "dozens,"perhaps a more accurate word would be "thousands." Professor Herold estimates that between Oct. 7 and Dec. 10, U.S. bombs have killed at least 3,767 civilians -- a figure higher than the now 3,234 deaths from the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.\nMore shocking than the estimate itself is its assumed conservativeness. Meticulous research and cross-checking of data from major newspapers, official news agencies, eyewitness accounts and non-governmental organizations offers a figure that refers only to individuals killed instantly by the bombing raids. So, yes, Herold\'s is only an estimate. The death toll would be dramatically higher if he accounted for civilians who died later of bomb-related injuries; or were killed in the 28 days following the report; or had died from exposure or starvation endemic to ill-supplied refugee camps. \nOf course, supporters of the war will write off civilian deaths as tragic, but necessary, in this just fight to root out the "evil doers" of global terrorist networks. And as for comparing Afghan deaths to those of Sept. 11, they will claim that the motivations are starkly different. The U.S. never intended to kill Afghans. \nSuch distinctions are difficult to make, as Herold argues, once we consider that Afghan civilian deaths result from U.S. and British military strategizing. Tactics that require repeated, high-altitude air attacks on heavily populated towns and villages suggest a blatant disregard of Afghan life. Mistakes happen, some may say. But what about the mistaken bombing of the U.N. de-mining agency in Kabul? The Pentagon claimed the offices were located near a military radio tower. U.N. officials said it was a medium and short wave radio station abandoned over a decade ago. And what was the strategic nature of Chowkar-Karez, the farming village where US AC-130 gunships killed at least 93 civilians? \nWhen asked, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that he "[could not] deal with that particular village." An unnamed Pentagon official who could deal with it remarked "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." There\'s the stunning logic of this just war for you.