October the bloodiest month for US troops since Afghan war began

[IndianaGreen]

October the bloodiest month for US troops since Afghan war began

By Bill Van Auken
28 October 2009

The deaths of eight more soldiers in two separate bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan Tuesday have made October the bloodiest month for US occupation forces since the war began in 2001.

With the month still not over, 55 US military personnel have been killed, more than a third of them in a 48-hour period. On Sunday, two soldiers died in a bomb attack. This was followed Monday with the crash of three helicopters—two in a midair collision and the third, a Chinook troop carrier, the result, according to the Taliban, of hostile fire. Eleven US soldiers and three agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration were killed in the crashes.

Tuesday’s casualties were attributed by US military spokesmen to “multiple, complex” bomb attacks. Seven American soldiers and their Afghan interpreter were killed in Afghanistan’s southern Kandahar province when a large bomb struck their armored Stryker vehicle and they were hit with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The eighth soldier died in a separate roadside bomb attack in neighboring Zabul province.

The second biggest monthly death toll for US occupation forces came last August, when troops were deployed to provide security for Afghanistan’s presidential election and 51 were killed.

Given plans to hold a November 7 runoff vote—in an attempt to erase the massive fraud in August’s first-round election—it can be anticipated that next month will also see a heavy death toll.

The spike in US casualties comes as the Obama administration continues its month-long deliberations on the proposal submitted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, to send at least 40,000 more US troops to the war.

The White House confirmed that Obama has invited the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House Friday to discuss the proposal and the impact that different levels of escalation will have on the military as a whole. It is not clear that the Pentagon has at its immediate disposal the additional 40,000 troops requested by McChrystal, and elements within the US military command have voiced concerns that this level of deployment, combined with the continued US occupation of Iraq, can strain the US all-volunteer armed forces to the breaking point.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/afgh-o28.shtml

[ixion]

1. gee, that's some change...

not. :(

[PurityOfEssence]

2. It's like watching a terrible school play where other parents are smiling hopefully that you agree

that it's actually okay, when it's excruciating to watch.

That is, except for the deaths, dismemberments and broken hearts.

This is the epitome of the un-winnable war, and traipsing down the path of propriety, our President presses on in his need to prove himself "tough" in an un-liberal way and not the least bit muslim, taking the middle of the middle road whenever presented: not bringing in the maximum troops (which would be to no avail) or the minimum number (which would just sustain the status-quo window-dressing), but always the middle amount that will neither satisfy anyone nor accomplish anything.

History is very clear about conflicts like this: foreigners propping up corrupt puppet regimes are hated, and even if the local option is loathed, the people will still prefer them over the invaders.

Mr. Obama is a great campaigner, but campaigning should merely be a means to an end; the end is the focused use of power.

We really need to withdraw. If the UN needs to hold some bridgehead for the Karzai Government, I suppose we should entertain participation, but even that would be foolish and morally wrong. It is colossal stupidity and will bring nothing but ill upon us. Lest we forget in all the strategic parsing, too, it's just plain WRONG.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. A kick to keep the flame flickering

Reactionaries have truly found the key to imperialism: repeal the draft and use patriots and the economically disadvantaged to provide the manpower along with mercenaries, then claim unprovables like "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" to slap down any dissent.

Reading the news is like having a bad dream and constantly throwing up in slow motion: so many things are teetering on the brink, and even inherent optimism has a hard time beating back my sense of broad-spectrum foreboding. We cater cravenly to a right wing that's all but powerless, thus giving them credibility and helping resuscitate them. The only thing helping forestall global warming is global economic cooling. The banking system is going to fall again in a big way, with commercial real estate, personal real estate and personal credit combining for a nasty storm. Afghanistan will be an ongoing disaster, sapping people's spirit, lives, national treasure and any claim of moral high ground we may try to continue to foist off on the rest of the world.

It's all as pointless as typing something heartfelt on a languishing thread about something people should care about: a grinding reminder of the torpor and fecklessness that feed our zombie world.

[winyanstaz]

4. Stop the wars, bring our troops home NOW!

It looks like no one really cares if we see the chains now or not.