# Afghanistan Is The New Iraq



## daftandbarmy (6 Jan 2009)

Afghanistan Is The New Iraq

January 6, 2009: Last year, 151 American troops died in Afghanistan. That's still 12 percent below the rate (per thousand troops) of Iraq between 2004-7. However, the rate is more than twice what it was last year in Iraq (where it was 2 per thousand troops, versus 5 per thousand in Afghanistan.) 

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has a major NATO participation (who have a third more troops than the U.S.) Last year, 138 NATO troops were killed in Afghanistan, a rate of 3.45 per thousand troops. However, there's a catch. Most NATO nations do not allow their troops in Afghanistan to fight. Peacekeeping (in those parts of Afghanistan where there is little violence), but not fighting (in the Taliban infested south). There, a third of the NATO force (mainly British Dutch and Canadian) do most of the fighting. This force suffers a higher combat death rate than U.S. troops. The British death rate was 6 per thousand, the Canadian rate was 11. Part of this is because the NATO combat units are operating in the most hostile areas (mainly Helmand province, where most of the worlds heroin is produced), and partly because the Taliban openly attempt to kill more of these troops. That's because public opinion in most NATO nations is hostile to the Afghanistan operations. The Taliban believe that higher NATO casualties will eventually lead to the troops being withdrawn. Canadian troops have been heavily targeted. 

That NATO nation public opinion is based on the idea that Afghanistan is "America's problem" and that the U.S. should deal with it by themselves. NATO political and military leaders believe otherwise, and remember that, since World War II, it was U.S. military power that provided the bulk of the deterrent to Russian aggression in Europe. That, however, never became a popular belief in Europe, where most people and opinion leaders tended to take the American effort for granted, or dismissed it entirely.

Afghan troops and police suffered about a thousand deaths last year, and about 5,000 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters died. There were also about 1,500 civilians killed, mostly by Taliban action or terrorist attacks. Far more civilians were killed by tribal feuds, bandits and drug gangs. This took place throughout the country, but there was more of this violence in the south, where the drug gangs are very active.

In December, 14 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was the lowest monthly total since 2003. For all of 2008, 477 American troops were killed in combat, which was the lowest annual total since 2003.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090106.aspx


----------



## FMR (8 Jan 2009)

C'est impossible de prendre possession de l'Afghanistan...voici une liste très courte et très vague des nations qui voulaient contrôler l'Afghanistan en plusieurs siècle de différence :

- L'empire perses
- L'empire romain
- L'empire Grec
- La Mongolie
- L'empire Français
- L'empire Britanniques
- L'union soviétiques 

Tous des grandes puissance qui on marqué l'histories de l'humanité militairement ou socialement, et pourtant malgré leur forces imaginable de plus de milliers d'hommes ils n'ont malheureusement jamais réussis à prendre l'Afghanistan. Ce pays est stratégiquement impossible à prendre de plus que la population ne collabore pas toujours. L'Afghanistan est perdu avant même que le canada et les pays membres de l'OTAN ou alliés de l'OTAN. Les soldats canadiens qui sont morts en Afghanistan on beaucoup souffert d'une façon tragiques comme par des bombes artisanale "IED" et des embuscade...pour augmenter la sécurité en Afghanistan les pays doit ce mètres d'accord pour augmenter le nombres de soldats et d'avions qui sont peu nombreux en fait.


----------



## Trooper Hale (8 Jan 2009)

I hate these articles. Afghanistan is the new Iraq, Georgia and Russia is the new Kashmir, Quebec and Ontario are the new Russian/Japanese border, East Timor is the new Nazi Germany. You could really say anything you like, throw in some vaguely relevant/irrelevant details, a comparison ("East Timor is populated by people, in the same way that Germany in 1932 was populated by people...") and go with the vibe of it.
The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is night and day and people need to be reminded of that before their opinions are changed by articles like this one.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Jan 2009)

Hales! said:
			
		

> I hate these articles. Afghanistan is the new Iraq, Georgia and Russia is the new Kashmir, Quebec and Ontario are the new Russian/Japanese border, East Timor is the new Nazi Germany. You could really say anything you like, throw in some vaguely relevant/irrelevant details, a comparison ("East Timor is populated by people, in the same way that Germany in 1932 was populated by people...") and go with the vibe of it.
> The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is night and day and people need to be reminded of that before their opinions are changed by articles like this one.




Okay, I can listen to that, but I'm confused, IYHO, in what ways and what opinions are going to be changed and from what ?.

Cheers.


----------



## Trooper Hale (8 Jan 2009)

Obviously the opinions of the average Joe are affected by what the media says and shows. In the exact same way the Tet Offensive became a victory for the North Vietnamese, the war in Afghanistan can go from being a justified, "Popular" (terrible word but the only one that i can find that fits here) and publicly backed war to what Iraq became which is a generally unpopular war. And that can happen purely on the back of the media bandwagon deciding to attack the struggle and take away the justification for us being there by saying its an "American war".
The name of the article alone associates it with Iraq in a negative way.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Jan 2009)

Hales! said:
			
		

> Obviously the opinions of the average Joe are affected by what the media says and shows. In the exact same way the Tet Offensive became a victory for the North Vietnamese, the war in Afghanistan can go from being a justified, "Popular" (terrible word but the only one that i can find that fits here) and publicly backed war to what Iraq became which is a generally unpopular war. And that can happen purely on the back of the media bandwagon deciding to attack the struggle and take away the justification for us being there by saying its an "American war".
> The name of the article alone associates it with Iraq in a negative way.




Yes, I can follow your line of reasoning, but the reason for Iraq's unpopularity, is because of it length, cost and Causalities. It didn't turn out to be a Wham Bang Thank You Mamm. Plus the Civil and Waring Ethnic Elements.

And if we compare or the same results occur as in Iraq, you bet your bottom dollars its going to be come a unpopular war whether or not the reason we're there is to guarantee the right for little blue eyed girls the right to attend school or not.

Its Length, continuance or termination depends solely on those factors and our Politicians. The contention of Popularity is solely the domain of the Soldier "Is this worth dying for" but when it shifts to public scrutiny and influences political outcomes, whether generally voiced as a Popular or Unpopular War, its over.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> The contention of Popularity is solely the domain of the Soldier "Is this worth dying for" but when it shifts to public scrutiny and influences political outcomes, whether generally voiced as a Popular or Unpopular War, its over.




I cannot follow your line of reasoning.

In any way, great or small, it is the "will of the people" - the home front - that determines the "popularity" of the war. If the "folks back home" _perceive_ that "our brave soldiers" are fighting and winning for e.g. "the fatherland" then the general morale, at the front and at home, will be high: witness Germany 1939 to 1944. It is, in fact, I think, the attitudes of (and letters and news reports from) the "home front" that reinforces or weakens the soldiers' morale - witness Britain in 1940 and 41.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I cannot follow your line of reasoning.
> 
> In any way, great or small, it is the "will of the people" - the home front - that determines the "popularity" of the war. If the "folks back home" _perceive_ that "our brave soldiers" are fighting and winning for e.g. "the fatherland" then the general morale, at the front and at home, will be high: witness Germany 1939 to 1944. It is, in fact, I think, the attitudes of (and letters and news reports from) the "home front" that reinforces or weakens the soldiers' morale - witness Britain in 1940 and 41.




First of all I disagree that any War is Popular. It may be a Necessary War or at least Un-avoidable.

And as far as getting it, you do, just that you are putting a positive spin on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

Nonsense.

Between 1648 - the end of a really brutal war that gave the enterprise a bad name - and 1854 - when the press began to report, honestly, on battles and blunders - there were all manner of popular wars. They were fought by relatively small, professional (even mercenary) armies and were 'reported' upon in music halls and coffee houses.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2009)

The American public has come to see Iraq as a success. The US and our allies help to liberate over 50m people from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan vs the cost in blood and treasure I think it was worth it. I remember the aftermath of Vietnam where we spent $111b and lost 58,000 service members and acheived nothing.


----------

