Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJuly Equals Deadliest Month of Afghan War
KABUL - The death toll for foreign troops in Afghanistan halfway through July equaled the highest for any month of the eight-year-old war, tallies showed on Wednesday, as a U.S. escalation has met unprecedented violence.
![[Mourners react as a procession of hearses carrying the bodies of eight British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in travels through the streets of Wootton Bassett, in Wiltshire on July 14. At least 43 foreign troops have died so far this month in Afghanistan, compared to two in Iraq, according to the independent www.icasualties.org website. (AFP/Carl de Souza)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/deadliestmonth_afghanistan.jpg "deadliestmonth_afghanistan.jpg")
Authorities announced a U.S. soldier had been killed by a bomb and two Turks had died in a road accident, raising the toll of U.S. and allied foreign fatalities in the first half of July to 46, equal to full month highs set in August and June 2008.
In the two weeks since U.S. and British troops launched massive assaults, Western troops have died at an average rate of three a day, nearing the tempo of the bloodiest days in Iraq and almost 20 times the rate in Afghanistan from 2001-04.
The soaring death toll was an outcome of U.S. President Barack Obama's escalation strategy, one that commanders say they predicted ahead of a decisive summer.
"It is something we did anticipate occurring as we extend our influence in the south," U.S. Rear Admiral Greg Smith, spokesman for U.S. and NATO forces, said of the increased violence.
"You're seeing a pretty intensive set of objectives being met in terms of routing the insurgents away from the population. The insurgents in many areas are pretty well entrenched."
He added that the increased violence is likely to continue for several months at least, with the last of the U.S. reinforcements not expected to fully deploy until September.
Obama, who long accused predecessor George W. Bush of ignoring Afghanistan to fight what Obama called an unnecessary war in Iraq, has diverted thousands of troops to Afghanistan as he draws them down from Iraq.
In all, 2009 will see U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan more than double from 32,000 to 68,000, along with 36,000 troops from other Western allies.
"SURGE" TACTICS
The new troops are rapidly being sent to small outposts in towns and villages, mirroring some tactics of the "surge" of additional forces that Bush ordered in Iraq in 2007, which saw months of sharply increased U.S. losses before violence declined.
U.S. commanders do not use the term "surge" to refer to the reinforcements in Afghanistan because the increase is indefinite, not for a limited time as Bush ordered in Iraq.
But they say they are employing counter-insurgency tactics which proved successful in Iraq: pushing extra troops off big bases and onto streets to show they can protect the public.
At the start of this month the new U.S. troops, along with an existing British-led contingent, launched simultaneous assaults, the biggest of the war. Thousands have moved quickly into Taliban-held territory in Helmand province, the most violent part of Afghanistan and the insurgents' opium-growing heartland.
Fighters have responded by seeding the area with roadside bombs and sniper nests, and also by stepping up suicide and roadside bomb attacks in other parts of the country. The homemade bombs are by far their most lethal tactic.
More fighting lies ahead. The U.S. Marines who launched Operation Strike of the Sword this month to seize the southern part of the Helmand River Valley have tried to take control of as large a populated area as possible with minimum confrontation.
Taliban fighters were allowed to move out of the valley into western suburbs of provincial capital Lashkar Gah, where they are now lurking in a densely irrigated canal network, U.S. troops say. Other provinces are next. U.S. reinforcements are coming to neighboring Kandahar province, the Taliban's birthplace.
Obama said on Tuesday he wanted an exit strategy that would see control of territory passed to Afghan security forces.
Thousands of extra U.S. troops are coming to train Afghan soldiers and police, but the shortfall of local security forces is acute. A country with roughly the same population as Iraq, Afghanistan has only about a third as many soldiers and police.
Only about 650 Afghan troops and police were able to join 4,000 advancing U.S. Marines on Strike of the Sword. The Marines' commander, Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, told the Washington Post his biggest concern was the shortfall of Afghan troops.
(Editing by Paul Tait)
20 Comments so far
Show AllWhile this might seem "treasonous" to some, the death toll amongst Afghani Civilians due to this escalation is a much greater tragedy.
It is THEIR Country after all and the nations with troops there ARE the Invaders.
The focus on the loss of troops on the side of the belligerent party will only mean said party will seek to minimize those losses via Air Strikes or Predator drones.
Those who invade other countries that have never done anything to the invading country are war criminals, and so are the populations at home war criminals that have allowed their politicians and militaries to take such actions. The entire German population were war criminals at the moment Germany invaded Poland. The entire population of the United States are war criminals. Sorry. There is just no way around it. Do you, as a civilian, work for any branch of the military? Then you are a war criminal? Do you build weapons at some GE installation? Do you build bomb casings at the Harley Davidson plant in York, PA? Then you are a war criminal. Do you pay taxes to the United States government? If so then you are a war criminal. Don't like it? Tough shit! What are you going to do about it? Vote?
And the Taliban said, "Bring 'em on."
Operation Graveyard Shift.
Afghanistan is becoming a world graveyard.
I wish this would just stop. But then, since when are the wishes of Afghans ever heard?
This graveyard belongs to Afghans.Let us be.
Humanity can be more creative than just resorting to war. It’s not a shortfall of troops but a shortfall of truth.
Peace (this misused word )!
Hakim in Afghanistan
http://ourjourneytosmile.com/blog
My heart goes out to you, sir. I know that a weak apology from this war criminal, and all of the other war criminals, soldier and civilian alike, in my country is worse than useless. I apologize for the atrocities that I, yes I as a U.S. citizen and war criminal, am allowing my government to do to you and your country. I am trying to get my compatriot citizen war criminals to realize that WE actually ARE war criminals by allowing our elected government to pursue these constitutionally illegal invasions and occupations to continue.
The Buddhist Monks in Vietnam had some pretty effective ways of bringing these issues to public light. I am seriously considering the same action.
Obviously, we lack sufficent troop strength. If we need 40,000 more troops to guarantee the safety of the soldiers in the field, let's go. Or 70,000. Kids want to join, need jobs.
I was outraged when Bush, in spite of public opinion that wanted to end the war(s) went ahead with his surge. What is so dangerous about Obama is that basically he has done the exact same thing and most, if not all, the middle of the road Democrats I know have given him a pass.
Are the sheeple that stupid? Yes, I am afraid they are. If the PTB didn't KNOW they could could get away with it they wouldn't do it.
Democrats are the new Republicans and the Republicans are the new Nazis.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan will have to be lands of colonial occupation, the neocons knew it from the get go, and they needed a real good reason to get the American people behind the war and invasion.
" 9/11 " was a shamfull inside job , and Bush /Cheney are traitors.
The elites are busy cultivating the imperial blowback necessary to justify the next invasion/conquest. Please be quiet and pay your taxes.
Commence Operation "Stuck in the Scabbard"!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Why do I see this as a ploy? If we send in the clones and a lot of them get killed, suddenly, perhaps, our unmanned drones will be vociferously supported by the American Sheeple, to cut our losses on the ground.
There's a lot of resistance to those video game killing machines right now, but let a bunch of our kids get killed trying to occupy a foreign country and anything goes, from drones to nukes. Wheee!
And the bucks keep rolling in to the MIC.
Who builds those drones being used in these unconstitutional wars? Who? Some poor schmuck making $15 bucks an hour trying to feed his family, that's who, and yes, I know that. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal. I worked for the U.S. Navy and I was, and still am, even though retired, a war criminal because I am taking my retirement from the same war-mongering navy. If I were to live up to my words I would commit suicide, and so would anyone else participating in these atrocities called Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you really think I am taking an extreme view? Are any of you working for military contractors? If so, you are a war criminal. Don't like it? Tough shit. Whattya gonna do, VOTE?
Yes, folks, very obviously, today in particular, I am VERY close to "the edge". I am SICK OF THE LIES, SICK OF THE ACTIONS, SICK OF THE NEEDLESS KILLING FOR OIL COMPANY AND BANK PROFITS. SICK OF IT! SICK OF IT! SICK OF ALL OF IT!
I, and YOU, as war criminals deserve to DIE if we continue to do NOTHING to stop the atrocities.
Be sure to vote, now.
I sure wish the government would issue a statement saying what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. I believe the original idea was to get a safe corridor for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Mediterranean. Am I wrong?
I believe that the Taliban were in talks with Unocal to put that pipeline through but the Bush/Cheney Big Oil Cabal could make more money by stealing Afghanistan and charging the American taxpayers for the war. Another Cheney/Rumsfeld slam dunk?
Are you suggesting that it is not about bringing freedom to poor benighted Muslims who have so little respect for women they cover them up when they should be on the porn network?
OK, sarcasm aside, just suppose a miracle happened and they did get the pipeline laid, it would be a pretty long one through some remote and inhospitable country. How many rockets do you think would be required to take it out? About one, I would think. And how many people willing to fire it? By the time the west has finished, I would say about as many as the are Afghans left alive which, granted, might not be that many.
The British soldiers, even if they were unwitting pawns in the game, at least had a choice of some sort (perhaps not an easy one) of whether they would be there. One of these days someone will learn the lesson about invading Afghanistan (in particular).
If, and that is a big if, they ever get the pipeline laid (in case you don't know what this non-war is all about), it will be painted blood red.
Oh sure, we're making great progress. Didn't one person willing to say so recently surface in Great Britain?-- he must be popular. Didn't the Russians say that, and the Brits, and Alexander's Ragtime Band?
What would progress be, in Afpakistan? The only progress I can see would be if we got out.
Supposing the American presence has one good day (has it happened yet- don't think so). Will Americans be able to sustain that progress the following day? How did the French do in Moscow? Did they have a robust economy like ours (ahem) back in France to sustain them?
Why did Obama take troops from one place and put them in the other when we had no business or legal basis for occupying either, and why didn't his friends tell him it was a specious proposal even as campaign fodder? We didn't know the language, the customs, don't have qualifications to live in that part of the world (the Peace Corps had to pay locals to shop for its volunteers, for crying out loud!). We are especially unable to identify credible targets for our blood-lust. The thing the U.S. military now does best is kill the wrong people-- no?
Why, please, are we fighting this war? The administration has offered no official answer for a while. Is it embarrassed? It should be. Something about killing phantoms? Did we get the phantoms the first week? The second? Were the phantoms too phantasmal? Is it try, try until you succeed in killing the phantoms? Wouldn't it be better just to go to a psychiatrist?
"Why, please, are we fighting this war?"
Why, indeed? As long as we allow these occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to continue, we are all war criminals, soldier and civilian alike, and we deserve any violence meted out to us by third parties. It is time to start thinking what YOU, PERSONALLY, are going to do to mitigate your own status as a war criminal. YOU, and ME, yes ME TOO, are allowing these atrocities to continue. What are WE going to do about it? VOTE? Yeah, that works just SO well. What are you going to do?
"The U.S. Marines launched Operation Strike of the Sword . . . "
There's another one of those great and mighty military monikers. Operation Srike of the Sword . . . being a subsidiary of Operation Fuck-Up and Operation Kill Civilians.