| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold |
| 2011-06-23 |
| h/t Instapundit The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. 1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7,2001, when U.S. forces began action in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists. During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties--a rate of 6.5 deaths per month. During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties--a rate of 33.3 deaths per month. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #12 Agreed, imagine a football team losing its 1st and 2nd quarterbacks, especially so without free agency. I do agree that with basically unlimited grunts they could just throw people at it until something works, eventually creating a middle group by sheer trial and error alone. Without the Coalition performing a real war of attrition and/or discouraging recruitment for real it is easy to question what the point is. I have had concern that by pulling punches we actually improve their chances of learning from their mistakes, and I mean no slight to coalition troops who are the baddest mofos on the planet. The story here is that there is no story according to the msm, as compared to other coverage. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-06-23 14:32 |
| #11 TW Would not make a difference if the Pak Army/ISI are doing the training/logistics in Pakistan |
| Posted by: Paul D 2011-06-23 14:19 |
| #10 Likewise a mid-term goal of attriting their middle managers and any upper leadership also fails, because any nitwit can become the new boss if he pulls off a few fast ones and doesn't get killed. I disagree, Anonymoose. Men can be promoted, yes, but get within the training cycle and the level of skills and knowledge transmitted before the predecessor requires replacement drops steeply and continuously -- this is basic management stuff, why small businesses fail when the founder retires or dies. We did this in Iraq, and saw a change in tactics and execution as Number Fours were moved up too quickly -- perfectly good specialists but not able to do the planning and leadership tasks a properly trained Number Threes are expected to do. In general it's not about wiping out raw numbers of middle managers, but repeatedly emoving the trained before they can train their potential successors. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-06-23 13:50 |
| #9 I second that. The Taliban has, and will continue to have, mass production jihadis coming in from Pakistan for the foreseeable future. It was noted that years ago, their number of fighters was between 10-30,000. And despite killing thousands of them, their basic enemy force composition hasn't changed, still 10-30. What's worse is that in 07-08, our guys killed the Taliban at roughly the same rate as Obama's first two years, 09-10, but friendly deaths tripled. The kinder/gentler strategy is losing us more GI's without killing more Taliban. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-06-23 12:21 |
| #8 I second that. The Taliban has, and will continue to have, mass production jihadis coming in from Pakistan for the foreseeable future. It was noted that years ago, their number of fighters was between 10-30,000. And despite killing thousands of them, their basic enemy force composition hasn't changed, still 10-30. So a short term goal of grunt attrition won't work. Likewise a mid-term goal of attriting their middle managers and any upper leadership also fails, because any nitwit can become the new boss if he pulls off a few fast ones and doesn't get killed. Since at the start we tried to be "sensitive" to Afghan feelings by letting them keep a primitive and worthless form of government, instead of forcing an efficient and modern variety on them, they will never have even the possibility of a functional country. So all we can do is help what factions there are in Pakistan that wants to put down the fanatics and unify their country. This is a suck scenario. It may be too late for a major rewrite, as well. And since Pakistan now has 188 million people, about all we could hope for is that they piss off India so much that they reduce the Pak population by 3/4ths. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-06-23 11:47 |
| #7 fatalities this June are going to be well below what they were in June 2010 and the US 'aggressive kill' strategy has taken an enormous toll on the Taliban the horrible thing is that after nearly 10 years, the Afghan army has only a few moving parts that are worth much and the Afghan govt is corrupt, double dealing, deceitful and incompetent. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2011-06-23 10:55 |
| #6 How much of this might be attributed to the war in Iraq winding down and the bad guys redeploying, combined with our own surge. Not really an Obama issue the way I see it. Just the ebb and flow of a multiple theater conflict. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-06-23 10:39 |
| #5 please. Do not mention Andrea Mitchell and any form of the word orgasm in the same sentence. TYVM |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-06-23 10:29 |
| #4 Funny how you don't see the MSM report each and every casualty anymore. I still remember Andrea Mitchell's reporting them from the White House with almost orgasmic glee back when Bush was president. Of course it has nothing to do with who's in the White house now.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-06-23 10:11 |
| #3 It's not surprising, given that the level of operations has increased. |
| Posted by: Gloria 2011-06-23 09:36 |
| #2 Is that what he meant by 'Hope and Change'? |
| Posted by: Louisiana Steve 2011-06-23 09:27 |
| #1 What a disappoinment! I was sure this was on the front page of the New York Times, or the Washington Post. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-06-23 06:07 |