500: Deadly U.S. Milestone in Afghan War

Not long after Staff Sgt. Matthew D. Blaskowski was killed by a sniper's bullet last Sept. 23 in eastern Afghanistan, his mother received an e-mail message with a link to a video on the Internet. A television reporter happened to have been filming a story at Sergeant Blaskowski's small mountain outpost when it came under fire and the sergeant was shot.

Since then, Sergeant Blaskowski's parents, Cheryl and Terry Blaskowski of Cheboygan, Mich., have watched their 27-year-old son die over and over. Ms. Blaskowski has taken breaks from work to watch it on her computer, sometimes several times a day, studying her son's last movements.

"Anything to be closer," she said. "To see what could have been different, how it -- " the bullet -- "happened to find him."

For months, the Blaskowskis felt alone in watching their son die in an isolated and nearly forgotten war. And then, in June, the war in Afghanistan roared back into public view when American deaths from hostilities exceeded those in Iraq. In the face of an expanding threat from the Taliban, the conflict is becoming deadlier and much more violent for American troops, who three weeks ago reached their highest deployment levels ever, at 36,000.

June was the second deadliest month for the military in Afghanistan since the war began, with 23 American deaths from hostilities, compared with 22 in Iraq. July was less deadly, with 20 deaths, compared with six in Iraq. On July 22, nearly seven years after the conflict began on Oct. 7, 2001, the United States lost its 500th soldier in the Afghanistan war.

(The Pentagon says that 563 American service members have died in Operation Enduring Freedom, the umbrella term for the global American-led antiterror campaign that has the Afghanistan war at its center and includes deployments in the Philippines and Africa. Of those deaths, according to an analysis by The New York Times, 510 have occurred in Afghanistan or are directly linked to the war there.)

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Sarahjan]

ErikW65

I have no way of knowing if and how Al Qaida are linked. But as an ordinary person who reads newspapers and other media reports, I can say that Al Qaida issues are primarily Arab issues such as US presence in Saudi Arabia and about Palestine. The Taliban 's issues and concerns are localized. However, it might be the case ,as it was during the USSR occupation of that country, that they are getting foreign elements coming to help them.But talking new war on the Taliban"s the US is playing right into the Al Qaida hands!
The US needs to learn local cultures, local issues and local dynamics and deal with local people to gain their trust and that is the only way the US can defeat terrorism. Will the US learn? No, because the US has not learned the lessons of past failed policies including the US habit of setting up puppet regimes and calling them democratic, which often result the local people quickly becoming anti-American!

[ErikW65]

Please inform yourself about the Taliban, and their relationship with bin Laden, and his destructive cult, Al Qaeda.

Any online encyclopedic site should do; it's common knowledge, but here is a footnoted exerpt from the wikipedia site's entry on the Taliban:

"After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[92] The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,[93] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[94][95] Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[96][97] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.[98]

[Canukistani]

This is the war that should have been fought and won by now, not that criminal enterprise that was started in Iraq. The real enemy, the ones who should have been hunted down and their supporters were there.

The fact that the war in Iraq is still an open sore that is still killing American troops and others is a consequence of the Bush cabal having the hots for invading Iraq. If the resources that were committed to Iraq had been used in Afghanistan it's very likely the war would be over and America would still have the good will of most of the world. Instead, you are where you are.

[LawrenceL]

Mary Andrews said it had been easier to deal with her son"s death because it came as a result of an accident rather than from enemy fire.

"We were thankful that he died at the hands of his own men that he loved, and not at the hands of those who hated him and hated all Americans," she said. "If someone out of hate killed him, it"s kind of a double grief. But it wasn"t someone out of hate. It was someone who loved him, someone who cared about him."

"I"m not saying it"s easy getting along without him," she continued, "but it"s easier to think about it that way."

=============

Mrs. Andrews,

I respectfully disagree. "Even if" "someone out of hate" killed your son, it would not be because they had KNOWN what a decent, fine person he sounds like he is.

"They can't take that away" from you, regardless of the circumstances.

Sincere condolences.

[BigLib]

The Afghanistan War was "forgotten" only by the media because it was, until recently, going rather well with few casualties. It was "forgotten" because a successful war conflicted with The Narrative on Bush, and war as a general matter.

Now that Iraq seems all but won, it is Iraq's turn to be "forgotten" so that the NYT can bring its special brand of doom and defeatism to the newly-remembered Afghanistan War.

The media has all but stopped covering Iraq. Just as the media refused to cover the "forgotten" Afghanistan War during the previous years.

They're so transparent about it. It's a cliche, but I can't help but say it again: They're not even bothering to hide it anymore.

[Curdleberg]

I don't know why no one ever feels the need to point this out, but I will...why does everyone always have to make a point of praising the troops? Even those most adamently opposed to all these wars. I'm sure most of them are nice people, good sons and daughters and friends, etc. But they are the ones doing the work that has killed probably tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghantistan and probably not far from a million in Iraq. Don't give me the line about how they mean well or are just following orders - we've heard all that before. Even if they weren't responsible for the policies, they are responsible for implementing them.

I'm ready to get cursed out now.

[Nyland8]

May the sons of your enemies live in luxury!

LOL

Seriously, since Vietnam, it has become politically correct to preface every observation about the failure of our wars by praising our troops and absolving them of blame. That's because everyone knows that our ongoing overseas failures are failures of policy, NOT military failures. The troops have been put in a no-win situation and are making the best of it, but even Bush himself has admitted that, at least in the case of Iraq, there can be no military solution. Our very presence there cultivates radicalism, so nothing short of genocide can "win" - at least in a military sense.

8

[LawrenceL]

Because it provides immunization against the venom of those who try to make the false connection: hate the war => hate our troops.

I remember the Vietnam War well, and people who opposed the war were (and have since been) demonized as "wishing death on our soldiers," which is a despicable lie.

[swooge]

Because most of us feel that, despite our opposition to the war, the grunts on the front lines are merely disposable pawns to the current administration and not the perveyor of evil.

[meanguy]

you have my eternal pity...

[comacoma]

You have an extraordinarily poor grasp, or perhaps no grasp at all, of the manner in which the military functions and its place in the hierarchy of the US government. You should make an attempt to learn something about it before you display your ignorance.

[Sarahjan]

ErikW65
I am not sure that it is accurate that Al Qaida and the Taliban and are one and the same or that they do have similar aims. Even if it is the case that Al Qaida and the Talibans are now working together, the US needs to decouple them rather than conflating the two!

The US needs to isolate Al Qaida but to do so requires not shock and awe bombing of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somali and panicky response to all the allegation against any and all socalled Islamists states, but to study Al Qaida and , find their hide out and eliminate them. But the US has a zero credibility in the Muslim world and as long as that remains to be the case the US will never defeat anti-Americanism and those who feel marginalized will use the weapon of the weak, which is terrorism. But you already know this.

[ErikW65]

Sarahjan,
I don't find myself disagreeing with your general drift, but I do think you're denying the Taliban/AQ linkage, which is simply historical knowledge at this point. One was in power of a sovereign nation, and the other was a flourishing destructive cult being openly supported by that governent.

Why make a big deal about decoupling the two? Why is the coupling such a strategic problem? The Taliban are the remnants of a government that was deposed by the US, for supporting bin Laden and allowing AQ training camps to exist. Thay are the enemy of Karzai's weak government, and could easily regain power of Afghanistan, perhaps even democratically.

[Furby]

Here's an excerpt that puts things in perspective. Any death be it a soldier or a civilian is unacceptable, but consider another milestone that is also worth mentioning in this context: "What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
An excerpt from text by Professor Marc W. Herold, Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc.
Departments of Economics and Women's Studies
McConnell Hall
Whittemore School of Business & Economics
University of New Hampshire

[lornejl]

I can't think of a single issue that O has in his platform that will change anything to any great degree.

[DrJimmy]

I'm a NEW YORKER......Hey George....where is the guy who attacked my home town? Where is the guy who knocked down the towers just blocks from where this post is coming from. Hey George remember when you stood on that rubble of the with that fireman and made that speech.....always remember George there were dead bodies under your feet when you gave that speech. Hey George where is Osama....this New Yorker would like to know.....

[happycat]

This New Yorker would like to know too!

[FredCDobbs]

He's in Pakistan and all things considered, things are going swimingly for him. Not to worry though, the old wrinkly white haired guy has a plan to smoke him out.

[Bobrobert]

Time to leave Afghan.

The killing is getting us no where.

The deaths are getting us no where.

Bring the troops home and let the troops and their families heal.

Pray for all the troops.

[ErikW65]

You'd let the Taliban retake Afgh and kill Karzai. Soon the AQ training camps would be reestablished. Foolish pacifism can provoke attack.

[meanguy]

"it's HARD...run away, run away..."

[marymansour]

While the GOP obsess about the surge working in our war of choice in Iraq, the real front is exploding. Afghanistan is where we should have focused if our prez had not wanted the oil for his cronies and had a burr up his butt about his 'daddy and Saddam'.

[CostaMesaJoe]

Hey! The surge did work in Iraq!!
All the rats left and moved back into Afghanistan.....great work!

Maybe BradPittsburgh is willing to head over there and lead the charge quelling the violence.....

[beboy]

No need for Brad to go since Sen. Obama appears ready to lead the charge. Obama's poised to be the new LBJ, but without the good parts.

[BigLib]

He's got the ears.

[happycat]

While the United States sleeps, the situation in Afghanistan is growing grimmer by the day. The Bush administration and John McCain have the audacity to tell us that the surge worked. Obviously it didn't. By putting most of our soldiers and resources into Iraq, Afghanistan is being put on the back burner all the while our soldiers are dying there.
It really is a sad day and a very desolate situation.

[OgreDaddy]

"Operation Enduring Freedom" is nothing more than a code word for "Operation Enduring Funding" or maybe "Operation Enduring Fleecing" 'Operation Embezzled Treason":

As others have mentioned, this so called WAR is in itself a deception when The Taliban and AQ are nothing more than a heavily armed group of international criminals.

Congress granted the use of military force IN SUPPORT OF A POLICE ACTION, to capture those responsible for 9/11.

This was not good enough for the Bush administration since they were counting on Executive War Powers to push through the Neo-Con agenda.

We are not 'at war" with the nation of Afghanistan and never were.

The Taliban is legally nothing more than a heavily armed drug cartel.

The Bush administration has deliberately twisted the legal definition of Terrorism and
The War of Terror to be seen as an act of war, when legally they would fall under international
law as an international crime.

It continues to amaze me how the media has ignored this fact and that our brave troops are
being mislead as to what their role should be.

[ErikW65]

We were never at war with Afgh, huh? That nation's government harbored the training camps set up by bin Laden to indoctrinate Muslims into his destructive cult!

[Sarahjan]

ErikW65

You've raised a chilling historical parallel between the path the US is current on in Afghanistan and one which led the defeat of USSR a decade or so ago. However, I am utterly amazed by little Americans pay to the US military repeated air strikes which have been killing Afghani civilians for the last 7 years. The US is hated by the society as a whole in Afghanistan because of US military disregard for the lives of the Afghani civilians. That is the real reason why the will fail to defeat Al Qaida in Afghanistan.The US needs a new paradigm shift in how the US military seeks to fight war on terror. Coupling Taliban with Al Qaida is both false and will lead the to the ultimate US military defeat in that country.

[ErikW65]

Thanks for the reply. As well for mentioning the Afghan civilian deaths. I agree that this has had a huge effect, and hurts our efforts to help rebuild Afghan infrastructure. It hurts our fight against AQ as well.

But the coupling of the Taliban with AQ is not my doing. They coupled themselves.

I think having a rational policy toward poppy cultivation would go very far toward blunting the effect of civilian deaths and would represent a real paradigm shift.

[meanguy]

"a rational policy toward poppy cultivation "

and THAT would be??????????????????

[marymansour]

".....which have been killing Afghani civilians..."

Ditto for the Iraqi civilians.