You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
US deaths spike in Afghanistan
2009-03-02
US KIAs in the Stan have exceeded Iraq 9 out of the last 10 months.
KABUL - U.S. deaths in Afghanistan increased threefold during the first two months of 2009 compared with the same period last year, after thousands more troops deployed and commanders ramped up winter operations against an increasingly violent insurgency.

As troops pour into the country and violence rises, another sobering measure has also increased: More Afghan civilians are dying in U.S. and allied operations than at the hands of the Taliban, according to a count by The Associated Press. In the first two months of the year, U.S., NATO or Afghan forces have killed 100 civilians, while militants have killed 60.

President Barack Obama recently announced the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to bolster 38,000 already in the country, increasing the U.S. focus on Afghanistan while a drawdown begins in Iraq. The latest casualty toll among U.S. forces could portend a deadlier year in Afghanistan than the U.S. military has experienced since the Taliban's ouster in 2001.

'I think that because you are going to see that additional engagement, there is a risk of greater additional casualties in the short term, just as there was in Iraq,' Obama told the Pentagon Channel on Friday from Camp Lejeune, N.C. 'That is something we will have to monitor very carefully.'

Twenty-nine U.S. troops died in Afghanistan the first two months of 2009 - compared with eight Americans in the first two months of 2008.

Part of the increase is due to the influx of troops. In early 2008 there were about 27,000 forces in the country, some 10,000 fewer than today.

But U.S. troops are also operating in new, dangerous areas. A brigade of 10th Mountain Division soldiers deployed to two insurgent-heavy provinces outside Kabul in January - Wardak and Logar. And American forces are increasingly operating in Taliban heartland in the south.

'It has a lot to do with the fact that we have a presence in places and going into places and disrupting insurgents in area where they haven't been bothered much,' Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, said Saturday. That, he said, means more battles and more attacks.

American troop deaths occurred at a much higher rate in Afghanistan than in Iraq in January and February. Thirty-one U.S. forces have died in Iraq so far this year, but there are roughly 140,000 American troops in Iraq, more than three times the number in Afghanistan.

The decreasing U.S. death toll in Iraq coincides with an overall decline in violence largely attributed to a cease-fire by anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and a Sunni decision to join forces with the Americans against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Julian said that troops in Afghanistan have 'maintained the pressure throughout the winter months' this season, though in previous years there had been a lull.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#10  This is a really tough situation. We are going to give it a real try over the coming 24 months, but I don't know how persistent our involvement can be there. Afghanistan is a tribal hellhole. The local cops are not to be trusted at this point. The national army is only starting up the curve. I just don't see it getting much better while at the same time having only a tenuous strategic importance.
Posted by: remoteman   2009-03-02 16:00  

#9  It's OK. It's the good war.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-03-02 15:16  

#8  Let's face it - the problem in Afghanistan is a tribal problem. There are several tribes that are more or less at peace. There is one tribe (Pashtuns) that are at war, on both sides of the Durand line (Not technically a border, as neither side has agreed to it). The Pakistanis want the Pashtuns to win, so that Afghanistan will be a de-facto colony of Pakistan. Pakistan is stirring up trouble throughout South Asia to keep the US from winning.

It's time for an ARCLIGHT strike or three down through the center of Islamabad. Watch how fast things quieten down after that.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2009-03-02 11:13  

#7  Shouldnt we asking the pakis the same?

Pakistan picked their side when they sent the Taliban to hold Afghanistan for them back in the 1990s, Paul. They've repeatedly taken actions since to back up that choice -- the latest being the attacks in Mumbai and running the border guards mutiny in Bangladesh. Has Pakistan any friends left other than China and Saudi Arabia?
... and I suspect the Saudis are getting wobbly. Not to mention everyone is nervous about what President Obama will do.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-03-02 09:52  

#6  "The decreasing U.S. death toll in Iraq coincides with an overall decline in violence largely attributed to a cease-fire by anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, seeing that his militia and power base were about to be annihilated by the combined Iraqi and American forces, and a Sunni decision to join forces with the Americans against al-Qaida in Iraq, rather than face certain destruction at the hands of the Shia majority and Americans."

Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-03-02 09:34  

#5  You pick your side, Afghanistan, and do it NOW.

I'd say they did it a long time ago.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-03-02 09:19  

#4  You pick your side, Afghanistan, and do it NOW.

Shouldnt we asking the pakis the same?
Posted by: Paul2   2009-03-02 09:08  

#3  U.S., NATO or Afghan forces have killed 100 civilians, while militants have killed 60.

Define 'civillian", AP. No, wait, don't bother. We already know your answer.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-03-02 08:25  

#2  You pick your side, Afghanistan, and do it NOW.
Posted by: newc   2009-03-02 03:31  

#1  US KIAs in the Stan have exceeded Iraq 9 out of the last 10 months.

Correction- Should read Coalition KIAs, not US
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-03-02 01:51  

00:00