KABUL (March 27) - The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban's momentum.
Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.
U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.
"We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.
In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March, an average of about 0.8 per day, compared to 13, or 0.4 per day, a year ago.
The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties last summer and fall, which undermined public support in the U.S. for the 8-year-old American -led mission here. Fighting traditionally tapers off in Afghanistan during winter months, only to peak in the summer.
After a summer marked by the highest monthly death rates of the war, President Barack Obama faced serious domestic opposition over his decision in December to increase troops in Afghanistan, with only about half the American people supporting the move. But support for his handling of the war has actually improved since then, despite the increased casualties.
The latest Associated Press-GfK poll at the beginning of March found that 57 percent of those surveyed approved his handling of the war in Afghanistan compared to 49 percent two months earlier. The poll surveyed 1,002 adults nationwide and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.
Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the poll results could partly be a reaction to last month's offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province, which the Obama administration painted as the first test of its revamped counterinsurgency strategy.
Some 10,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan forces seized control of the farming community of about 80,000 people while suffering relatively few deaths. But the Taliban continue to plant bombs at night and intimidate the locals, and the hardest part of the operation is yet to come: building an effective local government that can win over the loyalty of the people.
"My main thesis ... is that Americans can brace themselves for casualties in war if they consider the stakes high enough and the strategy being followed promising enough," O'Hanlon said. "But such progress in public opinion is perishable, if not right away then over a period of months, if we don't sustain the new momentum."
A rise in the number of wounded - a figure that draws less attention than deaths - shows that the Taliban remain a formidable opponent.
The number of U.S. troops wounded in Afghanistan and three smaller theaters where there isn't much battlefield activity rose from 85 in the first two months of 2009 to 381 this year, an increase of almost 350 percent. A total of 50 U.S. troops were wounded last March, an average of 1.6 per day. In comparison, 44 were injured during just the first six days of March this year, an average of 7.3 per day.
The increase in casualties was partly driven by the higher number of troops in Afghanistan in 2010. American troops rose from 32,000 at the beginning of last year to 68,000 at the end of the year, an increase of more than 110 percent.
"We've got a massive influx of troops, we have troops going into areas where they have not previously been and you have a reaction by an enemy to a new force presence," said NATO spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.
The troop numbers have continued to rise in 2010 in line with the recent surge. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that a third of the additional forces, or 10,000 troops, are already in Afghanistan. They plan to have all 30,000 troops in the country before the end of the year.
U.S. officials have said they plan to use many of the additional forces to reassert control in Kandahar province, where the insurgents have slowly taken territory over the past few years in an effort to boost their influence over Kandahar city, the largest metropolis in the south and the Taliban's former capital.
Many analysts believe the Kandahar operation will be much more difficult than the recent Marjah offensive because of the greater dispersion of Taliban forces, the urban environment in Kandahar city and the complex political and tribal forces at work in the province.
The goal of both operations is to put enough pressure on the Taliban to force them to the negotiating table to work out a political settlement to end the war - a process the U.S. believes will only gain momentum once the militant group has lost traction on the battlefield.
"Until they transition to that mode, then we will have fighters ready to take shots at us and plant IEDs (improvised explosive devices)," said Lt. Col. Calvert Worth Jr., commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines Regiment in central Marjah. http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...istan/19416920
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
It's always a tragedy when the youth of one's country go off to fight in a foreign war that concerns people most Americans neither care nor know anything about.
Nevertheless, and however harsh this sounds, those US casualties are just a drop in the ocean, and microscopic compared to Vietnam.
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
the only reasons the 'forces of good' are anywhere at all is to rob sovereign nations of their sovereignty and wealth while bringing plagues, destruction and moral decomposition!
2: [11] When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!" [12] Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
True! Though a lot of soldiers don't want to be there and hate what they are doing.
pardon my vulgarity when I say 'screw 'em' they deserve all that they have coming to them and may it be a hundred times worse than what they do to others in this life and hereafter insha'Allah
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
2: [11] When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!" [12] Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
SubhanAllah can't rep you, but you have to teach me how you come out with these verses, they can't get more relevent than this
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
The U.S. NEVER wages war to "benefit" other nations (maybe with the possible exception being European nations because they are part of"the "West").
I disagree. Falling levels of violence will lead to a similar situation as in Iraq, there it was agreed between the Iraqi and US government that US forces will entirely leave the country by the end of 2011. I also am not convinced that Afghanistan, one of the poorest and least developed countries on this planet, is such a great economic prize for US capitalism.
More violence will not induce the US to leave Afghanistan. A stronger Afghan government that has authority over its own territory will.
SubhanAllah can't rep you, but you have to teach me how you come out with these verses, they can't get more relevent than this
Islam the true religion of Allah swt is always relevant and hence all their hatred and war mongering for as advanced as they think they are, they are nothing but naked monkeys who fancy themselves civilized!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
the only reasons the 'forces of good' are anywhere at all is to rob sovereign nations of their sovereignty and wealth while bringing plagues, destruction and moral decomposition!
2: [11] When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!" [12] Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
I disagree. The US has no more chance to 'rob' Afghanistan of its resources than it did to rob Iraq of its oil. Despite spending billions and losing thousands of men in Iraq the US doesn't even have a privileged position in the Iraqi oil business. It is paying market prices and the field is dominated by non-American oil companies!
Just don't see how it would be any different for Afghanistan, never mind the fact that Afghanistan has hardly even started mining this supposed "wealth of mineral resources".
I disagree. Falling levels of violence will lead to a similar situation as in Iraq, there it was agreed between the Iraqi and US government that US forces will entirely leave the country by the end of 2011. I also am not convinced that Afghanistan, one of the poorest and least developed countries on this planet, is such a great economic prize for US capitalism.
More violence will not induce the US to leave Afghanistan. A stronger Afghan government that has authority over its own territory will.
Afghanistan was the final nail in U.S.S.R's coffin soon to be the final nail in the U.S.A's coffin.. you said it yourself, you shouldn't estimate age old stoics who can live on water and tree leaves, especially when you are sending over hooters frequenting, pig skin consuming liquor chugging sexually deviant school drop outs!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I disagree. The US has no more chance to 'rob' Afghanistan of its resources than it did to rob Iraq of its oil. Despite spending billions and losing thousands of men in Iraq the US doesn't even have a privileged position in the Iraqi oil business. It is paying market prices and the field is dominated by non-American oil companies!
Just don't see how it would be any different for Afghanistan, never mind the fact that Afghanistan has hardly even started mining this supposed "wealth of mineral resources".
and the white dudes are in south Africa for oil too or diamonds?
it really doesn't matter which lala land news you listen to that has formed or shaped your opinion.. facts are facts and from where we are standing these are the facts, the U.S will stand to lose more troops and I say let 'em!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I disagree. Falling levels of violence will lead to a similar situation as in Iraq, there it was agreed between the Iraqi and US government that US forces will entirely leave the country by the end of 2011. I also am not convinced that Afghanistan, one of the poorest and least developed countries on this planet, is such a great economic prize for US capitalism.
More violence will not induce the US to leave Afghanistan. A stronger Afghan government that has authority over its own territory will.
Those who have invaded Afghanistan surely know why they are there. It's extremely illogical to believe that they are there to benefit the Afghan people and nation. There might be other "strategic" reasons you and I are not aware of. Do you really believe they are losing thousands of soldiers and billions of $$$ because they want prosperity and peace in Afghanistan? Hahaha!
Last edited by Argamemnon; 03-28-2010 at 12:28 AM.
I disagree. The US has no more chance to 'rob' Afghanistan of its resources than it did to rob Iraq of its oil. Despite spending billions and losing thousands of men in Iraq the US doesn't even have a privileged position in the Iraqi oil business. It is paying market prices and the field is dominated by non-American oil companies!
Just don't see how it would be any different for Afghanistan, never mind the fact that Afghanistan has hardly even started mining this supposed "wealth of mineral resources".
Those who have invaded Afghanistan surely know why they are there. It's extremely illogical to believe that they are there to benefit the Afghan people and nation. There might be other "strategic" reasons you and I are not aware of. Do you really believe they are losing thousands of soldiers and billions of $$$ because they want prosperity and peace in Afghanistan? Hahaha!
No of course not. The US is there because it considers Afghanistan a threat to its national security. The solution to that problem is to set up a capable and strong Afghan state. Whether they will succeed in doing that is another matter.
Nevertheless, it was the state of anarchy and civil war that made it possible for enemies of the US to seek refuge in Afghanistan in the first place. That problem has not been resolved.
It is in the US strategic interest that oil keeps flowing at good prices. It is not in the US strategic interest, let alone worth hundreds of billions of tax money and thousands of dead soldiers, to make Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP rich. Three of these aren't even American companies! Iraq has signed a lot of oil contracts, the majority of them with non-US companies. If they are indeed a US client state they aren't very good at it! Perhaps you can explain how that contract with Exxon Mobil is going to recuperate the more than $700 billion spent on the war?
You can say a lot about Saddam, but he had absolutely no problems just selling his oil on the world market. The invasion of Iraq did nothing to help make cheap oil available to the US. It certainly is NOT a cost-effective way to gain access to cheap oil.
Btw, a lot of the information in that article is very much out of date. There is already a new SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) that explicitely states that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. The political situation in Iraq makes such bases pretty much impossible.
No of course not. The US is there because it considers Afghanistan a threat to its national security. The solution to that problem is to set up a capable and strong Afghan state. Whether they will succeed in doing that is another matter.
Nevertheless, it was the state of anarchy and civil war that made it possible for enemies of the US to seek refuge in Afghanistan in the first place. That problem has not been resolved.
Let's assume you are right and that the Taliban was a major threat to the U.S. This still doesn't change the fact that this war led to unimaginable destruction and death and suffering of civilians. It turned major urban concentrations into 'ghost towns'.
Some obvious questions arise: for example, have Cuba and Nicaragua been entitled to set off bombs in Washington, New York and Miami in self-defense against ongoing terrorist attacks? If not, why not? As always, the perpetrators are well-known and act with complete impunity.
What about Palestinians, would you agree that they are entitled, for example, to bomb Dutch, British and American cities to punish those governments for supporting Israel's terror and warcrimes and illegal occupation? If not, why not?
Does only the U.S. have the right to "retaliate" when faced with terrorist attacks? If you take into account the scale of crimes, undoubtedly U.S. state terror causes far more destruction and death and suffering throughout the world. But of course since those people are not Americans but Nicaraguans, Cubans, Chileans, Afghans or Arabs, they don't matter.
Last edited by Argamemnon; 03-28-2010 at 09:16 PM.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Text Size
[/BANANA]
*
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks