As Afghan War Escalates, Military Expert Predicts 300-500 U.S. Troop Casualties Per Month

[laststeamtrain]

As Afghan War Escalates, Military Expert Predicts 300-500 U.S. Troops To Be Killed or Wounded Per Month
By Zaid Jilani, Think Progress
Posted on January 4, 2010, Printed on January 4, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.thinkprogress.org//144937/

Last month, President Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Shortly after the decision was made, General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, warned of increased violence in the Central Asian country as the new troops arrived. Now, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who teaches international affairs at West Point and who has repeatedly visited Afghanistan to assess the situation there, is estimating that American casualties could go as high as "300 to 500 killed and wounded a month by next summer":

"Americans should prepare to accept hundreds of U.S. casualties each month in Afghanistan during spring offensives with enemy forces.

"The dire forecast was made by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an adjunct professor of international affairs at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in a periodic assessment of political and security issues he has conducted in the war zone since 2003.

"What I want to do is signal that this thing is going to be $5 billion to $10 billion a month and 300 to 500 killed and wounded a month by next summer. That's what we probably should expect. And that's light casualties," said McCaffrey, who is also president of his own consulting firm in Arlington, Va., and has conducted numerous trips to the war zones to assess the political and military challenges at hand."

2009 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 312 soldiers losing their lives.

[FarCenter]

1. Still small compared with Vietnam

Over 1000 per month killed in the three years '67 - '69

Year Dead
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168

[laststeamtrain]

4. Oh. That makes it OK then.

What is the mission again? I forget.

Preventing dominoes from falling or defending our freedoms or what?

Something to do with the military-industrial 'welfare queen' maybe?

[avaistheone1]

5. 500 kids per month x 12 months x 10 years

= 60,000 dead soldiers in Afghanistan.

Don't think it can't happen. This same general said we could be there 10 to 20 years.

Look how the admin and the generals are already backpedaling. When Obama made his announcement at West Point we were supposed to be in Afghanistan about 2 more years, quickly we heard from the Pentagon it could be 5 years, then 10 years, now they are talking 20 years.

Hell, we have already been there 8 years.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Vietnam was nothing compared to WWII, and it was nothing compared to Civil War

There were 116,516 killed GIs in World War I, a small number when compared to the major European powers.

One dead soldier is one dead too many!

[applegrove]

2. That alot of dead kids. I don't see how they can do anything else but

fight al Qaeda and the Taliban while they grow the Afghani military. But do they have to go so far as they are planning to?

[EFerrari]

6. There is no point in growing the Afghani military.

There is no government for them to be loyal to. Karzai is widely despised and now because we endorsed his stolen election, so much more are we.

We need to bring these people home and treat this as a criminal matter. No army is going to stop terrorism. That's simply unworkable.

[applegrove]

7. I hope you are wrong. But I fear not. At least they are finally with the drones in Pakistan.

No way Osama bin Laden should have a safe haven all the while he gets kids to kill themselves while killing innocent civilians.

[EFerrari]

8. Our terror policy has killed many, many more people than bin Laden has.

He couldn't even top George Bush if he tried for the rest of his life.

We really do need to stop this. :(

[JVS]

3. Holy shit! That's far too high for public opinion to be OK with it. Obama better get ready to quit

Because if deaths break 10 a day he's toast.

[Danger Mouse]

9. Shit. I hope he's wrong.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Barry McCaffrey's command was notorious for its high casualty rate

when compared to other commanders.

The US military cannot sustain such a casualty rate in Afghanistan, and the American people won't stand for it.

[Bigmack]

12. Lemme see.....

The current guestimates put about 20,000 Taliban in Afghanistan. Figure in a bunch of Pakistanis coming in....

We've got all the technology and all the supplies we can possibly use, 100,000 troops and another 100,000 "contractors"...

If our military can't "win" against odds like that...

Maybe we shouldn't try to control the world.