by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 12, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

           Promising to end the Iraq War, Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)  offered a stark contrast to GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who hitched his wagon to former President George W. Bush.  Bush and McCain argued that pulling out of Iraq would cause Armageddon, handing the Middle East to Osama bin Laden.  While it’s too early to tell whether Bush and McCain’s prophecies are true, it's becoming inescapable that Baracks’ new Afghan offensive ratcheted up U.S. and British casualties.  While only one U.S. soldier lost his life in Iraq, 39 U.S. troops have gone down in Afghanistan in July, a reversal from when Iraq produced the most casualties.  When Barack ordered U.S. forces off the battlefield and out of Iraqi cities June 29, U.S. casualty rates dropped precipitously, though the civilian death toll spiked.   Casualty rates have dramatically moved up in Afghanistan.

            After the Nov. 4, 2008 elections, Iraq operations have been scaling down, while the Afghan theater has heated up.  Contrary to Bush and McCain’s dire predictions, Iraq hasn’t spiraled into chaos, despite recent the up-tick in violence.  No one knows what will happen in the North, where the Kurds seek control of Kirkuk’s oil fields en route to an eventual Kurdish state.  Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has shown the kind of toughness needed to keep some type of federalist control.  Obama supported ending the Iraq campaign but now seems poised to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan.  Since deploying an additional 30,000 marines and starting the spring/summer offensive, U.S. death rates have reached comparable levels to those seen in Iraq.  Going after the Taliban has proven costly to coalition forces, especially Britain who’s watched significant increases in deaths.

            Obama’s new offensive in the Taliban’s Helmund province stronghold has been mostly costly to U.S. forces.  Military analysts expect an up-tick in death rates while coalition forces battle for control.   Seven U.S. troops died Friday, July 10, signaling the same kind of spike that happened when Bush started his troop surge in Dec. 2007.  In 2009, the U.S. has witnessed at 40% jump in deaths up to 103 over the same period last year and a 75% increase since 2007.  As Afghan President and U.S. ally Hamid Karzai has found, Afghanistan is a far more hostile and primitive battlefield than Iraq.  Whether the U.S. likes it or not, Saddam’s regime brought some modernity to most corners of Iraq.  Afghanistan, on the other hand, remains tribal and deeply controlled by the warlords and opium farmers.  While violence eventually abated in Iraq, the same scenario may not occur in Afghanistan.

            Russian soldiers spent 10 disastrous years trying to win a ground war in Afghanistan, eventually falling in 1988.  While there’s no comparison with the skill and sophistication of the U.S. military, there’s an old lesson to learn:  It’s difficult, if not impossible, to win a ground war in Asia.  “There are more troop operating in more areas where [the] enemy is located compared to last year,” said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Clarence Counts Jr., spokesman for Bagram Air Field, the main U.S. military base near Kabul.  Since al-Qaida in Iraq shifted operations to Afghanistan, there’s been an increase in Improvised Explosive Devises or roadside bombs, causing more injuries to U.S. and coalition forces.  Since Karzai controls only parts around Kabul, it’s going to be more difficult to payoff warlords closely tied to the opium trade.  Future military operations will meet stiff resistance.

            More IEDs require specialized armored vehicles called MRAPs or Mine Reistance Armored Protection.  Coalition forces, especially the British, lack such vehicles, needed to conduct operations without serious casualties.  Humvees and foot patrols are especially vulnerable to roadside bombs, now the favorite line of attack for al-Qaida and the Taliban.  Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have grown more impatient with war, especially the recent spate of coalition losses.  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose government has been under siege in recent months, faces more criticism for exposing British forces to more casualties.  Coalition forces hope to keep al-Qaida and the Taliban in-check in advance of national elections in August.  Eight British troops were killed Friday, July 10, leaving Brown more vulnerable to growing political criticism.

            After Afghan’s elections, Obama and Brown must re-think the current strategy that exposes coalition forces to increased death rates.  Rising casualties have upped the ante, giving the White House and Number 10 Downing Street second thoughts about growing uncertainty.  Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a different animal, requiring a far bigger commitment of U.S. blood and treasure.  While the U.K. goes along for the ride, Brown must also re-visit the advisability of an open-ended conflict.  While there’s some gains in Helmund province, the Taliban will continue to be a slippery enemy, currently fighting a dirty guerrilla war.  Both the cash-strapped U.S. and British governments can ill-afford another blank check.  Neither the U.S. nor Britain can afford to go the same route as Russia, watching its investment—and indeed the nation--in Afghanistan go down in flames.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.