Between January and June 2011, the United Nations documented 1,462 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, which was a 15% increase over the same six months the year before. Anti-government forces, e.g. the Taliban, were responsible for 77% of the casualties and pro-government forces were responsible for 12%. (The remainder were indeterminate.) These and other casualty figures were compiled from published sources by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in “Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians,” September 30, 2011.
Some other recently updated CRS reports include the following (all pdf).
“Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A Summary,” October 20, 2011
“Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments,” October 5, 2011
“Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations,” October 4, 2011
“National Security Professionals and Interagency Reform: Proposals, Recent Experience, and Issues for Congress,” September 26, 2011
There is no question this is a Big Deal. If you are a university or research lab, or aspire to work in one, or are simply an enthusiast of federally-funded research, what’s next will matter.
The emerging federal metascience community is asking fascinating questions that are equally vital for democratic legitimacy: beyond “did this program work” to “how does the federal R&D enterprise itself work, and how could it work better?”
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.