U.S. Deaths Hit A Record High In Afghanistan

[Coventina]

Source: Washington Post

GARMSIR, Afghanistan, July 21 -- U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have surged to a record high this month and are likely to remain elevated as American and NATO forces settle into outposts in southern Afghan villages and cities where Taliban forces have traditionally been the strongest.

The rising death toll comes as the country prepares for a presidential election next month, and could erode U.S. public support for a war that is already among the longest in U.S. history.

"This is probably the new normal," said Seth G. Jones, an analyst for the Rand Corp. and author of a new book on the U.S. military's nearly eight-year-old war in Afghanistan. "I'd actually be shocked if casualties didn't continue to increase."

A confluence of factors has contributed to July's toll, which is the highest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in any month since the war began in late 2001. Among them: President Obama's new strategy ordering tens of thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, a surge in offensive operations by both U.S. forces and the Taliban, and an increase in insurgents' use of powerful roadside bombs.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072103390.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[Liberation Angel]

1. 31 U.S. Dead. And for what? Obama is wrong on this.

I happen to believe that it was the Saudis and the Bushes who were behind 9-11. The Taliban, despite their violence and suppression in their own turf, are not a real threat to the US

And as reprehensibe as I find the Taliban, war is not the answer in Afhanistan.

This is Bush's war which Obama has embraced as his own.

It is a terrible mistake.

and as long as this war continues Obama becomes the executor of an illegal and immoral crime against humanity.

Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for Obama and am happy he was elected. I do not think he is Bush lite or Bush III (altho i did feel that way about the Clintons).

But Obama is completely wrong on this and is carrying out a policy of murder and genocide which will only make matters worse globally.

What s this war good for?

Nothing.
There are better ways to deal with the taliban than turning our young men and women into fodder for the oil/gas companies and the golden triangle opium economy probably still run by Cheney and Bush etc.

[wtmusic]

2. What are better ways to deal with the Taliban? nt

[Flaneur]

3. Let Afghans sort it out. It's their country.

The Taliban are not our problem. Remember? We went there to get Osama.

[wtmusic]

20. The Taliban aren't our problem?

How soon we forget.

"in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.<18> Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[Liberation Angel]

5. Nonviolence, diplomacy, sanctions, arrest

The idea that we can "root out" the Taliban is insane.

Making this a military police action with mounting US and civilian deaths which galvanizes opposition to peaceful solutions is insanity.

I favor comprehensive human rights efforts which PROTECT civilians from oppression: safe zones run by the international community which can protect human rights and isolate fanatics and violent fundamentalists.

From my perspective this is a more cost effective way to prevent war and is more humane.

One may need a military component ( I suggest the UN) to mobilize and organize civilian populations in conflict areas to remove themselves while there is conflict.

International sanctions for theft or abuse of property or dereliction of care for property during negotiations must also take place.

For example, women who wish not to be under the domination of Taliban mysogeny should be given a way out with protection where possible to safe havens. We need to create and enlarge safe havens for civilian populations.

what is required is a new paradigm of conflict resolution which abandons aggressive offensive brute force (rooting out the enemy) and seeks to create safe environments where noncomabtants can live and thrive in peace pending resolution of these conflicts.

as in Israel/Palestine, I favor a UN presence to protect both sides.

UN sanctions will need to be in place to isolate and starve out opponents while t the same time protecting and evacuating noncombatants to nonconflict zones.

[gratuitous]

6. Outta the park!

This isn't a situation that will yield to a military solution. Not a popular idea in the land of the High Church of Redemptive Violence. We've been dicking around in Afghanistan for, what, seven years? A lot of dead bodies, missing money, and very little that can be categorized as "progress" to show for it. There will be arguments that non-violent methods take too long. Seven years of violent solutions haven't yielded a whole lot of security and community, an indisputable fact that gets waylaid every frickin' time in this discussion.

Even the Taliban rely on popular support to a certain degree. Strip that support away little by little through non-violent methods, and the violence of the Taliban will be less and less effective. Might even happen in something less than seven years.

[Liberation Angel]

9. Thanks - I think about this a lot

it could use some shoring up as a concept but it has the fundamentals.

Obama is now responsible for every death that occurs in the war there.

as are we as american taxpayers

and these are crimes against humanity and genocide so that makes us all criminals too IMHO (just as the Germans were responsible for Hitler - we are responsible)

[cigsandcoffee]

11. "Safe havens for civilian populations, " guarded by a military force?

This sounds like 2 things:

1. Towns
2. A target-rich environment for terrorism.

I'm pretty sure that's what resulted in such a high death toll for US troops and civilians in Iraq. Or maybe you think Al Qaeda won't target an international force who are segregating women (amongst others) from Sharia law and a fundamentalist lifestyle?

Sorry, but your dissertation seems a bit naive to me. It might sound fine in a classroom, but it can't compare to the reality on the ground.

[Alamuti Lotus]

15. So how's your war idea working out?

I heard it was in the shitter..

Actually, the "safe havens" idea is more of a public relations farce to make the "peace" crowd feel more at ease about the occupation they're being asked to support. See the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka or any random countryside in Vietnam for an explanation on why the "save havens" is a bullshit idea..... but not for the reasons you suggest.

[Liberation Angel]

19. Before I respond to this I'd like a little more info from you on "safe havens" you mention

I am not aware of any that we have tried in the middle east (other than refugee camps which are not really safe havens).

I am talking not search and destroy but essentially rescue missions of an international nature for people (noncombatants) whp would be protected within or near their home countries.

As I said this is a new paradigm I am speaking of or proposing as an alternative to war.

Large protected safe zones (not necessarily towns but communities o groups of communities essentially starting over.

This is admittedly somewhat utopian but also practical in the sense that war creates masses of refugees who get sent to camps where they may remain for years with no permanency.

I am saying create ew protected communities outside the conflict zones (lets see how long the Taliban last when their women and children have left and gotten educations and been on the intrnet and DU)

It would be a lot easier to protect newly created ones than existing cities or villages and they would proably have to be "gated" to keep people out (not in)

they would need police protection, but offensive war would not be necessary.

laugh if you want, but...


you got a better idea besides just leaving with no provisions for the civilians fucked over by this war?

[Alamuti Lotus]

21. You really think you can make your occupation prettier on paper?

My 'better idea' primarily involves the civilians planning their victory celebrations as your "police protectors" (i.e.--the very people Afghans need to be "protected" from!) struggle to reach the last helicopter flying out of a place they're leaving permanently.

[Liberation Angel]

22. well do you want the taliban to return to power?

nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

24. Is that really the only thing you guys ever have chambered?

I'm not for your silly "occupation lite (on utopian overdrive)", therefore I must be the Emirate's official representative in Oregonistan? I happen to be, but that's beside the point.

[Liberation Angel]

31. Chambered? Not sure what you mean.

And I am not a "guy" who is not in favor of occupation lite either.

But I am asking for a practical proposal which protects civilians from opression and murder by the Taliban and other fundamentalist extremists (including karzai who i agree is a Bush /oil industry puppet).

Any ideas?

[cigsandcoffee]

33. My war idea? WTF?

Continuing the war in Afghanistan is a dreadful idea. We won't have any better results than the Soviets did, and they had a lot more resolve for this sort of thing than we do.

IMO, Obama made Afghanistan a political football to appease the "centrists" over getting out of Iraq. His tough talk on Afghanistan was meant to make them less nervous about ending the Iraq war. That little bit of political diversion is going to needlessly cost us a lot of blood. Tragic stuff.

[wtmusic]

18. Like the sanctions in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children?

The only ones who are suffering under sanctions in Afghanistan (btw, sanctions have been in effect for 10 years) are civilians. Dying of hunger or lack of medicine is no more humane than being blown up by a bomb.

The Taliban will welcome these so-called "safe zones", and civilians will voluntarily relocate? Your solution is a pie in the sky.

[Liberation Angel]

23. no - different

snctions aginst those who practice brutality against their own people.

Not against the afghan government or people.

My proposal i better than war, which is what the poster I was responding to supports.

I do not expect the Taliban to accept this thus the areas must be protected by afghanis with international support.

civilians who wanted to go to safe zones would be evacuated from hot zones.

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. I don't quite know how to explain this, but..

those who "practice brutality against their own people" ARE the Afghan government and the international occupation propping up that facade.

[Liberation Angel]

30. So do the Taliban practice brutality against Afghanis and that is the dilemma

I do not disagree with you on this really.

I oppose the occupation and think Karzai's government is a fraud.

And this is a tough dilemma for me as a pacifist and anti-imperialist.

Maybe I simply do not know enough to have a truly fully informed or formulated opinion on whteher there should be NO international presence there to protect civilians from terrorism from extremists on all sides.

My whole point was to oppose continued offensive military action (to "root out" the "terrorists" - as Obama is supporting) even if an international presence remains to keep the peace.

Peace keeping missions i support where the population wants them or where it is required to protect civilians.

My idea is ONLY that safe zones be established to protect civilians who want to get out of conflict zones.

If offensive operations continue then we are as much to blame as the Taliban for the continued violence against civilians and I agree with you on that.

But do you have a proposal for IF we withdraw completely ho to protect the people there from fundamentalist extremists? That is what I am addressing.

[earth mom]

17. Obama is wrong on this and the wars in the Middle East are GENOCIDAL. nt

[TheLastMohican]

28. What is this war good for?

Drug-making and controlling the traffic of drugs to EU and North America.
This is a profitable business nobody in the government would like to talk about. This is where the CIA draws its "secret" funds.


No matter what happens on the Dune, the spice must flow.(c)

[bushmeister0]

4. If things really go south, so to speak, in the next six months there or so

this gives the GOP a powerful bat to beat Obama with. This coupled with the economy, and depending how the health care thing goes, this could mean big trouble in 2010 and a potentially tougher slog in '12.

[junior college]

7. My understanding is that Obama is going to withdraw

from Afghanistan after the elections. At least that seems to be what he is saying

[dflprincess]

13. Do you have a link for that?

The last I heard he was escalating. Though Australia is planning to leave in the next year or so.

[anakie]

27. Australia, unfortunately, appears to be set for the long haul

While good progress was being made improving the military skills of the Afghan National Army, it was unable to mount operations bigger than company (120 troops) level, and Australian trainers would be needed for at least another five years, Air Chief Marshal Houston told reporters during an Afghanistan update.

....

Australian Defence Force personnel including special forces were stepping up operations in Oruzgan to head off an expected surge in Taliban violence in the lead-up to August 26 national elections.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25817935-31477,00.html


All on an unwinnable war. I agree with the posters above about the need to do something different. War is not the answer. Spend the money that is spent on defence on nice things rather than pissing it away on bombs. Little things like potable water to start with.


Peace

[IndianaGreen]

8. Obama's war and quagmire

He surrounded himself with DLC neoliberals and war hawks, and this is the ruin that awaits him (and us) for listening to them.

[Liberation Angel]

10. I agree with you on this one

it is a shitty bunch who support this misery and death and now Obama has blood on his hands, thanks to Bush.

If his policy was to withdraw and the troops were coming home, then I could give him a pass on this. Bt he is sending hem into an insane conflict and damaging human lives and destroying human beings.

It is unconscionable and Obama is wrong.

I still support him on other things but this policy is murder and criminal IMHO.

[Alamuti Lotus]

14. Yes, it is his Iron Net now

And proudly defended in haunts like this quite suddenly, where narry such a word could have been heard this time last year. Aren't you for this one, though?

[IndianaGreen]

36. I am against the Taleban for several reasons, but this is not the way to deal with them

Having the corrupt Karzai in Kabul, with his pandering to the sharia jihadists, does not help at all.

We are paying for throwing our support to the Islamists when the USSR and the Afghan Marxist government had them on the run.

[Solly Mack]

12. k/r

[undeterred]

16. Feingold: Statement on July 2009 becoming deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan

7/22/2009

Contact: Zach Lowe [phone]

“I am sad that this has been the deadliest month for our service members in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago. I continue to be concerned that the troop increase in Afghanistan will lead to more grim milestones like this one and will not have a lasting impact on our ability to deny al Qaeda a safe haven in that region. Indeed, I am concerned that the so-called surge may actually make matters worse by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that country.”

Senator Feingold is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee.

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=165134

[grahamhgreen]

26. How many Americans should die for the Islamic republic Bush set up in Afghanistan?

Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three
Ch. 1, Art. 3

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

[Mari333]

29. knr a stupid idiotic occupation that needs to end now

[Liberation Angel]

32. Any idea on how to protect civilians and specially women/girls once we withdraw?

just askin'.

I agree with withdrawal but recognize the need to leave the place in a way that does not allow women and girls and civilians to fall prey to fundamentalist extremists and religious totalitarians.

[Mari333]

34. worse for women with our troops there

The fact is that life for women in Afghanistan has gotten worse since the Taliban were removed from power. Once they chafed under the slavish conditions the Taliban imposed on their daily lives. Today they suffer under the exact same conditions, this time under the rule of the regime of warlords put in place by the U.S.-led coalition. And in addition to this oppression, women in Afghanistan are forced to cope with war.











http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-afghan-women-worse-off-since-taliban-removed-from-power

[Liberation Angel]

35. Good analysis - I stand corrected

I will do some more research on this.

Sad situation.

I was under the mistaken impression that in some ways things for women were improving.

One opinion as in this link is not enough to convince me 100% that simply withdrawing all nonAfghan forces is the answer.

But I need more info

Thanks for this - it was enlightening.