| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| U.S. troops killed in deadliest month of Afghan war |
| 2009-07-31 |
| KABUL (Reuters) - A U.S. service member was killed as the deadliest month for foreign troops in the Afghanistan war drew to a close, the U.S. military said on Friday, with commanders vowing to continue the fight despite the toll. The death in southern Afghanistan brought to 40 the number of U.S. troops killed in July, by far the heaviest monthly toll in the 8-year-old war. The worst previous month for U.S. forces was in September 2008, when 26 were killed. The latest death occurred in a firefight with insurgents in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, the U.S. military said, without giving further details. At least 70 foreign troops have been killed in July. Britain has suffered its worst battlefield casualties since the 1980s Falklands War, with the 22 troops killed in the month taking its total losses in Afghanistan to 191, 12 more than were killed in the Iraq war. Casualties spiked after thousands of U.S. and British troops this month launched major operations in southern Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold and the center of Afghanistan's opium production. "We understood the return of security to these areas would not be achieved without sacrifice," said U.S. Rear Admiral Greg Smith, chief spokesman for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. "For some that has come at a high price." The Helmand operations are the first under U.S. President Barack Obama's new regional strategy to defeat the Taliban and its Islamist militant allies and stabilize Afghanistan. They come before crucial presidential elections on August 20. They are also the first phase of a new "clear, hold and build" strategy introduced after criticism that previous strategies lacked cohesion and direction. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 See also TOPIX > US GENERAL MAY ASK FOR MORE TROOPS FOR AFGHANISTAN WAR. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-07-31 23:44 |
| #5 Nope PS. Only so much can be done with limited assets. The present actions are the Afghan equivalent of the "Surge". More troops are required for decent results. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-07-31 23:12 |
| #4 I worry that we're going about this the wrong way, and that the increased casualties are an indicator of this. I'm haunted by that link to a comment @ Michael Yon's I read here recently: shouldn't this be handled by about a thousand special ops-types, with about 3,000 support, mostly at Bagram? Much better logistical situation, too. Hunter-killer teams in deep country with horses and air support. Train and Equip the Afghan Army. That's all we really need in Afghanistan, as the real driver of events is Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Plastic Snoopy 2009-07-31 20:06 |
| #3 Have you noted how the MSM is not trumpeting every new casualty and demanding a withdrawal? What could have changed? |
| Posted by: Highlander 2009-07-31 17:24 |
| #2 God bless their souls. |
| Posted by: A_Rovian_Disciple 2009-07-31 16:53 |
| #1 Someone can die in combat. The more combat the more casualties. Sounds like a teachable moment to me! /s Looks like the MSM is trying to "Iraq" the Afghan war now. Do we have a daily casualty count yet? Of course they aren't too concerned with the Taliban casualties (the US has stopped reporting them) as they would require work to estimate on their own. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-07-31 13:54 |