Community | August 31, 2010 | 11 comments

Fourteen more US troops killed in Afghanistan: What are they dying for?

Image
JanforGore
Another 14 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Saturday, with the death toll so far this year already rising to the level reached for all of 2010.

A pair of roadside bombings took the lives of seven soldiers on Monday, five of them dying in a blast that tore apart a Humvee in which they were riding. Bomb blasts took the lives of four others in southern Afghanistan over the weekend, while three were killed in clashes with armed groups resisting the US-led occupation.

These latest deaths bring US fatalities for the month to nearly 50, after the record 65 killed in July.

NATO has announced that it is investigating yet another report of civilians killed in a US bombing. The air strike last Thursday hit children who were collecting scrap metal on a mountain in the province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan. A local police commander said that the six children killed by the US bombs were aged six to 12. Another child was seriously wounded.

After a much-reported decline in US air strikes, attributed to orders from sacked US senior commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal that were designed to reduce civilian casualties, such strikes are back up again. According to figures released by the Air Force, US warplanes flew 5,500 "close air support" missions in June and July of 2010, compared to 4,600 in the same months last year.

With the Obama administration's Afghanistan surge having brought US troops up to the full strength of nearly 100,000, together with another 40,000 troops from NATO and other allied countries, fighting has intensified and casualties among both US troops and Afghan civilians are up sharply. New revelations of rampant corruption and CIA payoffs to the US-backed Kabul government raise the inescapable question: What are they dying for?

Among the bodies shipped back to the US through Dover Air Base in flag-draped coffins this past week was that of a 20-year-old from Elizabeth, New Jersey, Army Specialist Pedro Millet, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Afghanistan.

"I feel like someone ripped my heart out. I have no heart. My baby is gone," the soldier's mother, Denise Meletiche, told reporters outside her home after making the painful journey from the base in Delaware. She said that her son had joined the Army without telling her, explaining only afterwards that he did it to get money to go to college. "I was against the Army," she said. "I'm against war."

The soldier's stepfather said that Army recruiters had been allowed into Pedro's high school and enticed him into joining the military. "We're losing kids in a war, and what are they doing about it?" he said. "This is ridiculous."

What can justify such human sacrifices? Obama, like Bush before him, has tried to frighten the American people into supporting this brutal war by claiming it is necessary to defeat terrorism. This is just as much a lie coming out of the Democratic president's mouth as it was when uttered by his Republican predecessor.

US military and intelligence officials have repeatedly acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in all of Afghanistan--compared to 100,000 US troops. Moreover, the 91,000 classified documents released by WikiLeaks, most of them battlefield reports, make virtually no mention of American troops pursuing terrorists. On the contrary, they are fighting to suppress resistance to foreign occupation, a resistance that enjoys broad support from the Afghan people.

A recent poll taken in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by the International Council on Security and Development, a London-based think tank, bears this out. It found that three quarters of the male population believed it was wrong to collaborate with the US-led occupation forces. Roughly the same share said that the Afghan government officials in the area were connected either to drug traffickers or to the armed groups opposing the occupation.

These figures are essentially in sync with those reported by the Pentagon itself in the spring, indicating that less than a quarter of the people in the areas where US forces are battling to suppress Afghan resistance support the government of President Hamid Karzai.

Another study released by the United Nations last January provided a vivid illustration of why Karzai and his cronies are so hated. It found that 52 percent of Afghan adults had been forced to pay at least one bribe to a public official in the previous 12 months, and that, collectively, Afghans had paid out $2.49 billion in bribes in 2009, an amount equal to nearly one-quarter of the country's gross domestic product.

In a television interview broadcast at the beginning of this month, Obama admitted to the American people that "Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy."

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Current Tonight,   US Politics,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Politics War Energy Geopolitics 6 more
  3.     
    |

11 comments // Fourteen more US troops killed in Afghanistan: What are they dying for?

  • oppressed1
    • -1
      oppressed1  
    • Jan you would die for the planet so how about them dying for each other and the comradery that goes along with being a soldier. Im sure you and your hemp sandal hippie friends would die for a water powered car. Get off your high horse for a split second.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • oppressed1:

      I don't wear hemp sandals nor do I have any "hippie" friends and I think water cars are wasteful. What decade are you living in BTW? Stupid comments like that truly show you have nothing else of substance to offer to the conversation. At least I have conviction. What have you got besides your partisan bitterness? So tell us, what would you die for? And I would then assume you condone these soldiers being manipulated, used, and lied to? That is the substance of their presence in Afghanistan. And I think their families would rather see them home ALIVE rather than playing out your romanticized war movie scenario.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • So what do we do? Stay there another decade at the expense of another trillion dollars worth of our children's future hoping all of the "civilians" killed are really Taliban, since for all of their sophisticated intelligence and weaponry they don't know? Perhaps they need to ask the Russians about how successful that was. Matter of fact, the longer we stay the more recruits they make. But then, that is actually the perfect scenario for those seeking to make the most profit from this. An enemy you cannot even distinquish, no army, no specific targets... also makes a great excuse to explain away killing civilians that challenge your presence. Still doesn't explain why this is still going on after TEN years. The pipeline however, does.

    • 1 year ago
  • DogBoy
    • 0
      DogBoy  
    • "fighting has intensified and casualties among both US troops and Afghan civilians are up sharply." I find it interesting how many of these articles focus on U.S. and civilian casualties and no one talks about Afghan Taliban casualties much. During Vietnam many of the civilian casualties were actually Viet Cong casualties disguised or posing as civilians. I think many of the Taliban are militia farmers so when they need to plant thier poppy crops they stop being Taliban and turn into poppy farmers or whatever else they grow over there. So I have a tendency to think that many of these civilian casualties could actually be Taliban.

      .

    • 1 year ago
  • imogazzi
    • +2
      imogazzi  
    • My brother's over there. Jesus. I don't want the next news story to have him in it.

      I want them all out of there and I really don't care about anything else.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • imogazzi
  • controlusplease
    • +2
      controlusplease  
    • They die for each other, as Brothers in Arms have always done, and always will. People forget that soldiers don't give a shit who or what "cause" they fight for. All they care about is the man next to them, those around him. It's a beautiful thing, in a twisted sort of way. Race, religion, creed, political stance... they all melt away on the battlefield, replaced by the overpowering urge to get everyone out alive. Soldiers don't die for some politician, some agenda, or even some country. They die to keep each other alive. Ask any Veteran that. When it comes down to it, you aren't thinking of who or what your fighting for, your thinking about doing your job, while keeping yourself and others alive. It's a sad statement that soldiers feel more respect towards their enemy than they do to the politicians back home. Why? Because the enemy shares the risk of dying, just as they do, while the politicians who sent them to fight in the first place live their lives in comfort back home. Gone are the days when Kings led their men into battle, replaced by cowardly politicians who send braver men to die for them.

      This is why people who have no military experience should ever be allowed to make decisions that could cost men their lives.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • They are dying to keep the US a hypocrite when it comes to truly dealing with climate change. They are dying for a geopolitical strategy that is using terrorism as a smokescreen to the true agenda. Don't wonder why a climate bill will not pass in this Congress. If there is still money to be made from exploiting the resources of another country, we will never progress to where we must in order to truly be free of fossil fuels to protect our national security. Embracing a true clean energy policy would mean there would be no reason for us to be in Afghanistan. No real need for lucrative wars. So when Obama gets on TV tonight to tell us he pulled out all "combat" troops from Iraq, all it means is that they will be deployed elsewhere in the future to the resource fight while those left in Iraq watch over the investments. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Timing however, just like that lame DC rally Sunday does. It's simply both political sides playing tit for tat for votes. And it's disgusting.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:

top videos