Article

2008-07-01 Afghanistan

US, NATO deaths in Afghanistan pass Iraq toll

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-07-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Republican (Optimist): The death count in Iraq has dropped below Afghanistan for the second month in a row.

Democrat (Pessimist): The death count in Afghanistan has exceeded that in Iraq for the second month in a row.

Independent: Mows his own lawn.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-07-01 01:05|| 2008-07-01 01:05|| Front Page Top

#2 MSM: The death count in Afghanistan is worse than Iraq, but we give you no perspective (like the total number killed in each arena since 9/11).

Posted by Bobby 2008-07-01 05:59|| 2008-07-01 05:59|| Front Page Top

#3 a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban's growing strength.
Yes! We have our meme back! /MSM

Posted by Spot">Spot 2008-07-01 07:51|| 2008-07-01 07:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Help me out here.
Why can't we, with billions of dollars of intelligence, laser guided weapons, a highly trained military, AIR POWER, and the absolute best of everything,
kill these damned 9th century goat herders?

What the hell is going on?
These guys walk over the mountains from Pak, they WALK, and we can't seem to flame them with all our technical goodies? I just don't get it.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-07-01 09:37|| 2008-07-01 09:37|| Front Page Top

#5 You're from Kentucky. Tell me how easy it would be to use all those high tech gizmos to kill all the UMW members and supporters in Harlan County from your base in Louisville.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-01 09:58|| 2008-07-01 09:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, you see the JAG leaning on the rulings of judges back in the comfort of their nice offices in North America, want to treat it like law enforcement. So, they write up ROEs that the alleged bad guy(s) must present a clear and present threat to life before the ~~officer~~ soldier can pull the trigger. You can track them. You can shadow them. However, you can not waste them till they do something that meets the JAG's standards. Oh, and for the love of gawd, you can't go across some imaginary border line that no one else pays much attention to and burn their base of operation out [even though the law in the form of the Hague Convention of 1907 says you can. Remember we only use international law if it supports actions against the United States.]

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-07-01 10:29|| 2008-07-01 10:29|| Front Page Top

#7 I had a sneaking suspicion that might be part of it.
So for some reason we don't want them to win, or destroy poppies, or seal the border. I wonder what their real objective really is? Just wait till they get bored and go home?
I can't believe that those illiterate, sandal wearing, hilljacks could give us this much trouble, unless I suppose, we let them to some degree.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-07-01 10:55|| 2008-07-01 10:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Don't forget, we've got UAVs flying unopposed through Pakistan, sending hellfire missiles and suchlike into selected huts at will, killing all the occupants including favoured goats. We've got Special Forces ghosting through at ground level, doing whatever ghostlike things they do, and we've got satellites or whatever listening in on cell phone and computer traffic. In one sense, the killings on the Afghan side are training exercises for the still-new Afghan army and the Afghan mind-set.

Posted by trailing wife in Lackawanna 2008-07-01 12:25|| 2008-07-01 12:25|| Front Page Top

#9 I spent a year watching the roads and trails in Laos, as the North Vietnamese sent thousands of tons of supplies south. It was hard work, and a lot depended on luck. We also had a mindset there that wouldn't let us do what we really HAD to do to stop the flow of munitions south - go in, interdict the area, and HOLD IT. It would take about five million troops to totally control the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. It would take about a hundred UAVs patrolling the border for every incursion to be detected. It's not impossible, but it's darned hard to do, especially with the military we have today and the amount of money being spent on this war. Considering the limitations on our military troops, we're doing a pretty darned good job of whack-a-mole, taliban style.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-07-01 13:03|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-07-01 13:03|| Front Page Top

#10 The cannon fodder's damaging when they're uncontrolled, but the way to win is to consistently kill the head cheeses, regardless of where they reside. They spend a lot of time being elusive.

Posted by Fred 2008-07-01 13:57|| 2008-07-01 13:57|| Front Page Top

#11 NATO is prevented from destroying the opium poppy fields and the heroin factories that finance Taliban terror. Then there is the UN phony refugee camps in Pakistan, that serve as recruiting stations.

In 1984 George Orwell predicted a future polluted with indecisive perma-wars. That future is: now. The Vietnam debacle revealed: support for military operations will be lost if a campaign is based on unwinnability.

Posted by McZoid 2008-07-01 15:21|| 2008-07-01 15:21|| Front Page Top

#12 support for military operations will be lost if a campaign is based on unwinnability.

But post surge this war does not look unwinnable. Americans only get upset when they think there is a lack of will to win. They'll accept losses if they sense it's for a purpose. Look how long the Indian wars lasted. And we can last that long again, if the people believe the leadership is trying to win.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-01 15:27|| 2008-07-01 15:27|| Front Page Top

#13 I can't believe that those illiterate, sandal wearing, hilljacks could give us this much trouble, unless I suppose, we let them to some degree.
Damn it does sound the the UMW.

Posted by .5MT 2008-07-01 16:55|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2008-07-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#14 The irony is that Afghanistan was viewed by the MSM and the Donks as the 'good' war, as opposed to Iraq.

Posted by Pappy 2008-07-01 17:38|| 2008-07-01 17:38|| Front Page Top

23:35 Crerens Big Foot7266
23:34 swksvolFF
23:17 Barak Obama
23:11 DarthVader
22:54 Craving Brown3135
22:42 Barbara Skolaut
22:40 Scooter McGruder
22:34 Old Patriot
22:30 Cleaque Sproing2285
22:28 49 Pan
22:23 Old Patriot
22:15 OldSpook
22:14 OldSpook
22:08 OldSpook
22:07 Old Patriot
21:57 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
21:52 Anonymoose
21:45 lotp
21:44 Anonymoose
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:43 Anonymoose
21:37 Don Vito Shutle6277
21:35 OldSpook
21:20 McZoid