Afghanistan Deadlier For US Troops Than Iraq

By Cernig

Brandon Friedman at VetVoice notes that Afghanistan is four times more dangerous for American troops than Iraq.

In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11.  This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.

1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire--by far.   

99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007.  The previous 12-month high was 70--between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.

2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.   

One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy.  This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.

That hostile fire death rate is comparable with many of the worst months in Iraq during the Surge, when administration officials and military leaders were telling us to expect higher casualty rates - and yet there's no Surge in Afghanistan. The outgoing commander there, General Dan McNeill, has said it would require 400,000 troops to recreate the Surge on Afghan soil, as opposed to the less than 200,000 which were committed to Iraq.

Brandon, a veteran of the Afghan and Iraq wars, writes:

while conservative pundits and Bush Republicans are patting themselves on the back for the ebbing violence (relatively speaking, of course), these idiots have managed to give away the game in Afghanistan.  Iraq is--and always has been--a distraction from the Real Global War on Terror, and now those chickens are coming home to roost.  We can see it in the casualty rates.  Osama bin Laden is still free and Ayman al-Zawahiri is too.  Extremism is flourishing in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it's something that represents a much greater threat to the U.S. than does anything in Iraq.  General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have said so themselves.  After such a deadly year, that should be plain for anyone to see.

This is why John McCain must not be elected.  We're on the wrong track now with our primary focus on Iraq, and McCain aims to keep it that way.  Because of his ignorance in terms of foreign policy and current events, McCain represents a severe threat to our national security--when we can least afford it.

Yup.