Sunday, March 28, 2010

Twice as Many

On ABC News last night I heard that twice as many soldiers died in Afghanistan (57) as died in February 2009. I thought, "Wow, let's hype the deaths, shall we?" I felt this way because it is not at all surprising there have been more casualties in Afghanistan given we've begun a long, and long overdue campaign to try to re-establish stability and the rule of the Afghan government throughout the balance of Afghanistan.

Yet, I saw this same headline on CBS News. I thought, perhaps it's not just a pretty openly pro-conservative news organization like ABC News - perhaps it's just what we get when our news stories are so frequently wire copy. Perhaps the complaints of bias in fact, swing both ways.

Afghanistan is a dangerous place. It is a place with more division, and a greater population than Iraq. In Iraq we had at least the Kurds on our side, 20% of the population (roughly). In Afghanistan we have a country fully engulfed in corruption, with few consistent allies. We ignored the problem for 7 years after we initially toppled the Taliban. We kept too few places safe, we allowed the government to become exactly what it had been prior to the Taliban. In short, we allowed it to become EXACTLY what the native Afghans hated MORE than they hated the Taliban.

President Obama vowed to make a difference, he promised to provide more truth in direct opposition to the desires of the anti(any) war/pacifist element of the Democratic party. He promised to try to retake areas which have been under Taliban control for more than four years, he promised to retake the 80% of the country we gave up on under Bush. Consequently, he sent more troops and engaged in trying to win "Bush's (forgotten) War."

I served for 12 years in the Army Reserves, I knew and know many people who've served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would be beyond heartbroken if one of them were killed, yet, it IS what we know is the risk. We agree to be agents of policy, and benign and agnostic to politics in uniform. We knew Afghanistan was going south, and IF, big IF, we are going to do anything to retrench Afghanistan, then it would take sweat, hard work, and unfortunately, heartbreakingly, it will take blood.

I have to ask the press, were they asleep? Were they unaware that Obama is trying to take the fight to the enemy, and with it, greater risk exists? I have no idea (nor will I go look to find out), if the right-wing press is trumpeting up the deaths, which I would find utterly hypocritical considering the months where our deaths in Iraq routinely topped 100 yet they said nothing.

Instead, to them (and their unread blogs) and to the press, I suggest you all consider that we either must TRY to take Afghanistan back, or leave. Doing the middle ground thing, in short, being present but taking little action, does nothing but spend our money, and our blood, more slowly, but surely longer. So whether this month is twice as many, will the overall cost be twice as much as acting with conviction? I pray and hope it is not. What I mean is, it may be twice as much in the short run, but I hope and pray and believe that it will therefore be less than half as much in the long run.

6 comments:

  1. If I may return the compliment of re-stating and slightly refocussing your premise....
    the issue is that we either leave now, as is, and take our chances on how that will affect us later (risking a repeat of an equivalent event to 9/11)OR we do what it takes to win (which seems the course chosen by Obama in his current push militarily) and THEN LEAVE.

    LEAVING should alwasy be the ultimate goal just not the only goal. That was where Bush appeared to have failed completely in Afghanistan from the beginning; and for a protracted period of time in Iraq which he belatedly addressed after many Americans and too many Iraqis died: LEAVING, an effective 'exit strategy'.

    Every president makes mistakes. I hope Obama learns from those made by Bush, both the lesson of not going to war when it is avoidable - as Iraq was; and making how one gets out of a war as important as getting into one.

    If I may be indulged another statistic, not deaths but duration, to consider in considering this war, there is a fact-check of a comment made by Bob Shieffer (Face the Nation) on the anniversary in question, that examines which conflict has been our longest war: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/23/bob-schieffer/schieffers-timely-reminder-Iraq-war-has-one-tempor/

    All of us should read it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, that's not precisely my point, though yours is certainly a good one.

    My point is simply this, to win has a cost - but taking action, in the long run will be less costly than taking no action. Taking no action has virtually returned the country to the Taliban. Ultimately, our cost is likely less by acting, than by not (and staying). Leaving is something I used to advocate for, but IF we can actually help Afghanistan shake off the shackles of totalitarianism, then isn't that what we came there for anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As far as reporting on the war goes the news media (pretty much all the televised news media) always seem to report the worst no matter who is president. During the Tet offensive in Vietnam the media reported that it was a great victory for the North Vietnamese becausewe lost more soldiers in a day than we normally lost in a week, what they did not report was that the Viet Cong lost at least 20-30 times that number, took no major cities, and no longer had enough troops in the South to mount an offensive. From a military standpoint we won big. Also once Iraq began to turn around (admittedly 5 yrs after Bush said we won) there was suddenly no news about it, nothing about no longer losing 10 people a day but more like 2-3 a month, nothing about the areas we handed over to Iraqi control. Now they are doing it to Obama in Afghanistan. Yes we lost double this month what we did last month, the marines launched a major offensive in the south and removed the taliban from a couple of their major strongholds. I have gotten to where if I want to know what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq I check on blogs by military or ex-military who have friends over there. They at least tell what we gained for the 47 lives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We went into afghanistan to remove the authority which allowed their country to harbor terrorists, including training camps, not specifically totalitarianism.

    In order for them to become a stable countrt sy, I do think we need to address - more precisely to help them address - the connected problems of the drug trade and corruption. I don't see us leaving without having continuing problems if the country is not stable.

    We have never had accurate counts from Iraq. Only those who died before our government could evacuate them were counted, not all of those who have died from the conflict. There was a concerted effort under Bush to minimize the count along with denial of access to journalists to observe the coffins of those deceased as they were returned to the US. I have wondered if something similar is taking place in Afghanistan. I think the way the numbers are disguised (and it may be continuing under Obama) that the media focus balances out a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The denial of access is not a Bush thing it is a military thing and has been done in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Only the military escorts and families of those who died are allowed at the airfield where the bodies land in the US. This is not to cover anything up it is to show some respect to the families of those who died. Pen was in the military and can verify this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree with you tuck. Denial of access was a 'Bush thing'.

    This is another devil and details issue.

    Obama has changed access BACK to where it used to be - a decision to be made by the individual family members about the returning dead. Under Bush it was an absolute, and those families who felt that having photos made public of their deceased armed forces members was part of paying tribute to their service were not granted the choice.

    It was political cover, he benefitted from the decision directly.

    If Bush was so concerned about the feelings of the deceased's survivors, he would have left it up to them and not made the change.

    ReplyDelete