U.S. casualties in Afghan war soar

Once again this administration demonstrates that it bears more resemblance to the Keystone Cops than it does to a functioning government. Today i watched C-SPAN, Sec. Robert Gates and Adm Mullen held a press conference where they both stated that the information leaked to Wikileaks was "not harmful" then did a 180 degree turn in saying that the leaks "endangered troops in the field", do these guy have a clue? Also we had Senator Levin D-MI, who gave a litany of comment about his visit to Afghanistan and how impressed he was with the regional governors in that nation, when they courageously spoke out about halting corruption in Afghan government, yet Levin never spoke a word about the corruption in Washington DC. Apparently, Senator Levin, is more concerned with the government of Afghanistan than he is with the US government, perhaps he should move his citizenship there.

You know we heard the same thing during Viet Nam, 60 this month, 30 more next month, in the end it was 58,236, so how many are really getting killed? We know this Government lies every time it opens it's mouth, so how are we to believe them when they say that 66 were killed in July.This MADNESS needs STOPPED NOW. Let's get our own streets and borders safe. Semper Fi.

Now, the pundits are arguing the US has a humanitarian commitment to bring peace and stability to the poor and oppressed in Afghanistan. It is the same rationale for the US immigration policy on the Arizona border with Mexico.
In fact it is the same strategic policy that explains why Citigroup executives were given $100 million in performance bonuses after the TARP bailout. It all comes under the umbrella of humanitarian aid.

HI,

THis is i response to gp698 . i guess i agree that American troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their back since they have to worry about so called human rights for terrorists , they have to worry about international opinion and to satify all this it is ok if a few lives are sacrificed. I come from India and our Army also faces the same issues with liberals and commies running our country as is yours . i am also sure that a lot of people are going to die and the liberals will strike a peace deal with those who have killed american soldiers /civilians and say that they have succeeded in their agenda.

New User...our troops are more than willing to kill the enemy. its the collaborators in the white house and congress that
are making it impossible to win. read your history! the liberals (LBJ) did exactly the same thing in Vietnam. we won nearly every battle "we" (i was stationed at a base on the coast) fought there. but we still lost the war. how? just as we were about to actually win, (the N. Vietnamese general in charge...i forget his name...said that at the tail end of the
second round of B-52 honoi bombings...they were two weeks away from asking for an end to the war.) just as victory loomed large, LBJ...recalled the bombers. he decided to feed the communists in the street here a victory instead of to
our own troops. and now these....(i can't use that word in here) are going to do the same dam thing.

The picture should win a Pulitzer Prize
Those are American treasures wrapped in those body bags -- someone's children, father, son, brother, sister or mother.
The only thing in Afghanistan worth the life of an American soldier -- us the American soldier standing beside him.
If we aren't willing to kill as many as it takes to win - regardless of where we find them in the world - we need to quit now.

HI,

why cant the CIA recruit the networks that exists there aka private armies to bump off the talibanis and their paki promotors rather than losing those brave kids and also pumping hundreds of billions as bribes to this pakis . the present strategy does not make any sense at all .you can get enough mercenaries all over the world to do this stuff right .

I think it's time to do a Hiroshima in Afghanistan and get out.

Bush constantly used the one word Obama does not have in his vocabulary - WIN. Bush knew what it meant and how to do it and he did it in Iraq. All Obama is doing in Afghanistan is getting good Americans killed. He has no idea of what to do or how to do it and couldn't WIN in a one handed poker game. What I want to know is who is he hiding in his closet and what is her name?

Maybe I'm too old school but it seems to me the whole "surge" has been a giant SNAFU since it's inception and may be part of the back story as to why McChystal and staff hit Rolling Stone's IED. This surge was suggested further back than December? If it should have been a military secret it is proof we are incapable of doing so in a society conditioned to know as much about everything as is the US public. Dispersal of 30,000 troops seems an unrealistic goal if the analysis in the media is accurate. Lincoln conceptualized the necessity of straining the confederacy by attacking many points at once requiring a "hard war" approach. We obviously have stepped up the hardness of the war as told by casualty tallies but are the casualties a result of trying to take the war too many places so many we can not sustain reasonable risk? The book War a good read by an embedded journalist in Afghanistan and notes that some Afghani's live so remote that when they first encountered US forces they took up Jihad believeing US troops were stay behind Soviet renegade forces! We should be cautious in questioning the decisions of our key leaders but I want to hear more from the lower ranks, the BN commanders, their company and platoon leaders and then the NCO's who carry much of the fight forward. If there is one thing we should not wish to duplicate from Vietnam is having the REAL war run from a bunker in the corners of a DC office. Or officers who fly to the field to get a look and then return to their offices with the urgent mission of having themselves written up for medals for the effort to find the war. So far Obama has avoided the LBJ complex of trying to run the battle of Khe Sanh from a sand table in his basement. His remoteness from the battle at this point may be a good thing. But I also can not help but remember how Lincoln spent many a day visiting the amputees and battle casualties of His army and not for for the photo op or press release but because his heart was genuinely with the troops. Prep to my deployment I remember a three star who came through the building and had us locked down in our "cells" so he wouldn't have to see us. He spoke to a few soldiers who had been selected in advance and it was a big hoo-aah! A big Hoo-aah of something laying on the ground behind the tee-pee. President's want wars fought in such ways as will make them look good and sometimes Generals think the troops are there just to make them look good. I don't think this is the case, but we should always be on guard to hold our leaders to account especially when the butcher's bill get's steep.