| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| US, NATO deaths in Afghanistan pass Iraq toll |
| 2008-07-01 |
| KABUL, Afghanistan - Militants killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban's growing strength. The fundamentalist militia in June staged a sophisticated jailbreak that freed 886 prisoners, then briefly infiltrated a strategic valley outside Kandahar. Last week, a Pentagon report forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the Pakistan border. Some observers say the insurgency has gained dangerous momentum. And while June also saw the international community meet in Paris to pledge $21 billion in aid, an Afghanistan expert at New York University warns that there is still no strategy to turn that commitment into success. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that more international troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May, the first time that had happened. While that trend — now two months old — is in part due to falling violence in Iraq, it also reflects rising violence in Afghanistan. At least 45 international troops — including at least 27 U.S. forces and 13 British — died in Afghanistan in June, the deadliest month since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban, according to an Associated Press count. In Iraq, at least 31 international soldiers died in June: 29 U.S. troops and one each from the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan. There are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 4,000 British forces in additional to small contingents from several other nations. The 40-nation international coalition is much broader in Afghanistan, where only about half of the 65,000 international troops are American. That record number of international troops means that more soldiers are exposed to danger than ever before. But Taliban attacks are becoming increasingly complex, and in June, increasingly deadly. A gun and bomb attack last week in Ghazni province blasted a U.S. Humvee into smoldering ruins, killing three U.S. soldiers and an Afghan interpreter. It was the fourth attack of the month against troops that killed four people. No single attack had killed more than three international troops since August 2007. "I think possibly we've reached a turning point," said Mustafa Alani, the director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "Insurgents now are more active, more organized, and the political environment, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, favors insurgent activities." U.S. commanders have blamed Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace deals for the spike in cross-border attacks, though an initial deal with militants has begun to fray and security forces recently launched a limited crackdown in the semiautonomous tribal belt where the Taliban and al-Qaida operate with increasing freedom. For a moment in mid-June, Afghanistan's future shimmered brightly. World leaders gathered in Paris to pledge more than $21 billion in aid, and Afghan officials unveiled a development strategy that envisions peace by 2020. But the very next day, the massive and flawlessly executed assault on the prison in Kandahar — the Taliban's spiritual home — drew grudging respect even from Western officials. U.S. Ambassador William Wood said violence is up because Taliban fighters are increasingly using terrorist tactics that cause higher tolls, but that there's no indication fighters can hold territory. He said June had "some very good news and a couple cases of bad news." "The very good news was Paris. There were more nations represented, contributing more than ever before," Wood told the AP. The scramble after the jailbreak to push the Taliban back from the nearby Arghandab valley was the other big plus, Wood said. The Afghan army sent more than 1,000 troops to Kandahar in two days. "Although Arghandab got major press for being a Taliban attack, the real news in Arghandab was that the Afghans themselves led the counterattack, deployed very rapidly and chased the Taliban away," Wood said. The worst news, Wood said, was the prison break, and the possible involvement of al-Qaida. "The Taliban is not known for that level of complex operation, and others who have bases in the tribal areas are," he said. Alani agreed: "The old Taliban could not do such an operation, so we are talking about a new Taliban, possibly al-Qaida giving them the experience to carry out this operation." Days after the prison attack, an angry President Hamid Karzai threatened to send Afghan troops after Taliban leaders in Pakistan, marking a new low in Afghan-Pakistan relations. Contributing to the increased death toll is an increase in sophistication of attacks. U.S. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, the top commander of U.S. forces here, said this month that militant attacks are becoming more complex — such as gunfire from multiple angles plus a roadside bomb. Insurgents are using more explosives, he said. Mark Laity, the top NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, said troops are taking the fight to insurgents in remote areas and putting themselves in harm's way. One or two events can disproportionally affect the monthly death toll, he said. "Sometimes it is just circumstance," Laity said. "For instance you can hit an IED and walk away or not, and what has happened this month is that there's been one or two instances that there's been multiple deaths." The AP count found that some 580 people died in insurgent violence in June, including around 440 militants, 34 civilians and 44 Afghan security forces. More than 2,100 people have died in violence this year, according to the AP count, which is based on figures from Afghan, U.S. and NATO officials. Barnett Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at NYU, said the Paris conference shows a strong international commitment to Afghanistan, but he said there is still no strategy for longterm success. "Let's focus on the essentials: creating a secure environment for Afghanistan and Pakistan to address their problems and for the international community to eliminate al-Qaida's safe haven," Rubin said. "We haven't been getting there, and we are not getting closer, pledges or no pledges." |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 2008-07-01 13:03 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-01 10:29 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 2008-07-01 07:51 |
| #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 |
| #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 |