AJC: Nation at war loses its interest

[laststeamtrain]

Nation at war loses its interest


By Frida Ghitis

8:42 p.m. Thursday, July 16, 2009

As Americans followed the news about Michael Jackson’s death with an interest bordering on obsession, the situation for American forces fighting in Afghanistan became deadlier than ever.

The day before Jackson’s memorial service extravaganza — watched by more than 30 million television viewers — brought the worst one-day losses for the United States in almost a year. Seven soldiers died that day in Afghanistan, and the deaths have continued to mount for the U.S. and its allies.

<snip>

By some counts, July is already the deadliest month in eight years of war. According to icasualties.org, a Web site keeping track of US and allied casualties, 737 Americans have died in Afghanistan since the war started a few weeks after Sept. 11. At this writing, 45 coalition soldiers had already died in July alone. By the time you read this, the numbers may have grown.

And yet, the New York Times lists of most searched, most e-mailed and most blogged stories in the last seven and 30 days does not even show Afghanistan in the rankings. As I write this, the list for the most popular searches of the past 24 hours, shows Afghanistan at No. 42, far behind queries such as, “Palin,” “iPhone” or, of course, “sex.”

<snip>

As the deadly summer continues to unfold, Americans will eventually, if reluctantly, begin to cast their attention to Afghanistan. Sooner or later we will ponder the key question: Is this war worth the cost?

<snip>

If Obama faces difficult challenges today, what will happen if the current strategy to push back the Taliban fails. Then what? Obama already ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. By the time the country holds elections this fall, 68,000 Americans will stand on Afghan soil. If the country begins unraveling, Obama will have to decide whether to double down or accept defeat and withdraw. Withdrawal could hand the Taliban a base from which to attack the West and achieve their stated goal of seizing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. If Obama decides to pour more American forces into the war effort, he could risk the same fate as presidents before him, who have seen their presidencies consumed, almost destroyed, by increasingly unpopular wars.

<more>

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/nation-at-war-loses-93423.html

[madmom]

1. Well, I guess now we know what news we missed when the msm was MJ 24/7