Afghanistan: The Deadliest Month

The grim numbers that used to attach to casualty reports from Iraq from 2004 to 2008 are now attaching to monthly reports from Afghanistan. At least 75 American and coalition soldiers were killed there in July (39 of them American, 22 British), by far the highest single-month tally since the Afghan war began in October 2001. The closest single-month figure to that toll was in June 2008, when 46 coalition soldiers were killed.

Since 2001, 759 American soldiers and 517 coalition soldiers have been killed for a total of 1,276. Added to the tally in Iraq, the two wars have now claimed 5,922 soldiers--a fraction of the number of Iraqi and Afghan civilians killed over the decade. But those comparisons have virtually no relevance when it comes to how the American or British public sees the wars, let alone how the two countries' respective political class sees them: Iraqi and Afghan civilians are, ironically, much more a concern to the military forces on the ground than they are either to the public or to politicians back home (to whom civilians might as well not exist).

In Britain, a majority of the British public thinks the Afghan war unwinnable. Most think even the ongoing assault in Helman Province, in the south of the country, is a lost cause despite the influx of thousands of fresh American troops.

Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and former soldier, in a contradictory and at times self-congratulatory column in the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday ("How We'll Win in Afghanistan") claims on one hand that "too few of the enemy are being killed or captured to sap their morale." He makes a weird comparison between the Taliban and Apaches in the 19th century (were Apaches wrong to have battled against genocide?). He says 100,000 American soldiers, not just 60,000, are needed. Then he goes on to say that "War is not complicated. You have to separate the guerrilla forces from the population and kill them until they no longer want to continue." If it weren't so complicated, would the United States and NATO still be in the Afghan quagmire nine years after the beginning of the war? And still, Bing claims that "A year from now coalition forces should be able to gradually withdraw," leaving the fighting to local Afghans while Congress picks up a $4 billion a year tab.

Along the way Bing drops this bit of truth: "Al Qaeda, dominated by Arabs, is finished inside Afghanistan." In that case, what on earth are American, British and other foreign troops doing in Afghanistan, if not repeating the delusional mistakes of the Soviet Union in the 1980s and the British empire in the 19th century?

See Also:

• NATO and US Troops Deployments in Afghanistan
• Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
• Video: Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
• Operation Enduring Folly: US Kills 60 More in Pakistan Air Strike