A recent headline on the New York Daily News website was blunt: "In
case you've forgotten," it read, "we're at war."
The story was about the deaths of six Americans in Afghanistan in five
separate attacks and one accidental explosion, all on the same day.
The day before, coalition forces had mistakenly killed six Afghan
civilians when an artillery strike missed its target; the day after,
the Taliban would kill eleven Afghan policemen and a district
governor.
It is the deadliest year of the war in Afghanistan, now the longest in
American history. And although for most of us it's out of sight, out
of mind, each day, the numbers continue to slowly creep up. So far
this year, 241 Americans have died, 60 of them in June, 39 in July,
according to the website iCasualties.org.
On July 12, the independent watchdog Afghanistan Rights Monitor
reported, "In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since
the demise of the Taliban regime." By the group's calculations, 1074
civilians had died so far in 2010, although the much-discussed
restrictions on rules of engagement have lowered the number of
civilian deaths caused by international forces. The majority -- 61
percent -- died in insurgent attacks.
All of which is to say, whatever it is we're trying to do in
Afghanistan -- fighting the so-called global war on terrorism, waging
a counterinsurgency, nation building -- it isn't working. And in
continuing to fight this conflict we are not only guaranteeing the
continued destruction of that faraway land but our own country as
well, lives and treasure pouring into futility abroad as double dip
financial disaster threatens on the homefront.
For an American military already stretched to the cracking point, the
human cost spreads beyond the immediate casualties of the battlefield.
June was the worth month ever recorded for US Army suicides, the
service reported last Thursday, with soldiers killing themselves at
the rate of one per day, 32 confirmed or suspected in all. Twenty-two
of them had been in combat; ten had been deployed two to four times.
What's more, by the spring of 2009, according to The Washington Post,
"The percentage of the Army's most severely wounded troops who were
suffering from PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] or traumatic
brain injury had climbed to about 50 percent, from 38 percent a year
earlier."
The one bit of good news: "Senior commanders have reached a turning
point," the Post reported on Sunday. "After nine years of war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, they are beginning to recognize age-old legacies
of the battlefield -- once known as shellshock or battle fatigue -- as
combat wounds, not signs of weakness. [Army Vice Chief of Staff] Gen.
Peter Chiarelli... has been especially outspoken. 'PTSD is not a
figment of someone's imagination,' Chiarelli lectured an auditorium of
skeptical sergeants last fall. 'It is a cruel physiological thing.'"
Yet many remain unconvinced and military medicine suffers from a
chronic shortage of money and personnel -- neurologists especially --
to provide the care so desperately needed. Like so much else
associated with this war, the solution remains out of reach.
Even among those who still publicly declare victory is within grasp
there is uncertainty and doubt, their arguments a threadbare tapestry
behind which it's increasingly difficult to hide. Despite this week's
international conference in Kabul with Secretary of State Clinton in
attendance, and despite the announcement that President Karzai has
agreed to create local defense forces that will augment the police and
military, little real progress is being made in creating any semblance
of stability in Afghanistan. The ferocity of the insurgency continues
to intensify, the size of their bombs grow larger and more deadly.
Last week's fatal attack on an Afghan police base in Kandahar was
described by an experienced US Army Airborne captain as "definitely
well-planned and coordinated much better than anything we've seen
before." A preview of coming attractions as some 10,000 Afghan and
coalition troops prepare to escalate fighting aimed at clearing out
the Taliban's Kandahar strongholds.
But even if we were to "win," what then? As Tom Engelhardt wrote last
week on the website TomDispatch.com, "We would be in minimalist
possession of the world's fifth poorest country. We would be in
minimal possession of the world's second most corrupt country. We
would be in minimal possession of the world's foremost narco-state,
the only country that essentially produces a drug monocrop, opium. In
terms of the global war on terror, we would be in possession of a
country that the director of the CIA now believes to hold 50 to 100
al-Qaeda operatives ('maybe less') -- for whom parts of the country
might still be a 'safe haven.' And for this, and everything to come,
we would be paying, at a minimum, $84 billion a year."
Meanwhile, McClatchy News reported Thursday on two Kabul glamour
spots, the Fig Health Centre and the Kabul Health Club, where the
expatriate community can relax with a hot stone massage or an Arctic
berry facial: "One spa treatment at Fig would be a month's salary for
most Afghans in a country with a 35 percent unemployment rate, a
pervasive culture of state-sanctioned corruption and constant dangers
posed by the war with the Taliban."
Abdul Farani, owner of the Kabul Health Club told McClatchy, "I
believe in the value of a peaceful environment. We can rise to the
levels of angels or sink to the level of devils and what's different
is the environment."
In case you've forgotten, we're at war.