575. That's how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama became President at noon on January 20, 2009, according to the icasualties.org website, which tracks U.S. soldiers' deaths using reports received from the Department of Defense -- and which is widely cited in the media as a source of information on U.S. deaths.
According to the same website, 575 is also the number of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Afghanistan war during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Therefore, total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have doubled in Afghanistan under President Obama, and when the next U.S. soldier is reported dead, the majority of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan will have occurred under President Obama.
This grim landmark should be reported in the media, and White House reporters should ask Robert Gibbs to comment on it. It is quite relevant to Gibbs' implicit attempt to marginalize critics of the war in Afghanistan by claiming that they wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than the abolition of the Pentagon. The majority of Americans - including the overwhelming majority of Democrats, and at least 60% of House Democrats - are deeply skeptical of the Administration's Afghanistan policy not because they are knee-jerk pacifists - obviously they are not - but because the human and financial cost of the war is rising, we have nothing to show for the increased cost, and the Administration has not articulated a clear plan to reach the endgame; indeed, Administration officials, led by General Petraeus, have just launched a public relations campaign to undermine the substantial drawdown in troops next summer that Democratic leaders in Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said that they expect.
This grim landmark is not reported directly by the icasualties.org website -- you have to have to go to the right places on the website to retrieve the data and then calculate it from the data given. The data retrieval and arithmetic is straightforward, but I will carefully explain it here so that any reader - and particular any reporter and news editor -- can easily reproduce it.
The top-level organization of the icasualties.org website is divided into two parts, according to the designations previously given to the "two wars" by the Department of Defense: "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Enduring Freedom." The latter designation includes not just U.S. deaths in Afghanistan, but also non-Iraq U.S. deaths in the conflicts formerly known collectively as the "Global War on Terror"; for example, it includes deaths in the Philippines and Djibouti, far away from Afghanistan.
But you can find in the database U.S. deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 by year and month by first going to this link, and then, underneath the table that initially appears under "Fatalities by Year and Month," choosing in the pop-up menus, "US" for nationality, "All Fatalities" for Fatality Type, and "Afghanistan Only" for Theatre.
You should then see a table that looks like this (view as web page) (download excel spread sheet).
As shown beneath the table, when you sum the yearly totals you get:
Total: 1150
2001-2008: 564
2009-2010: 586
But this wouldn't give the right figures for Bush and Obama, because it would allocate all of January 2009 to Obama, when he was only President from noon on January 20.
Subtracting the 14 deaths of January 2009 from the total for 2009-10 gives:
2001-2008: 564
2009-2010 (not counting 1/09): 572
You can find the daily data for January 2009 by going to this link:
Scrolling down to January 2009, of the 14 deaths in Afghanistan (there was a January 30 death in Djibouti), 11 took place before January 20 and 3 took place after January 20.
Adding 11 to 564 and 3 to 572 gives:
Totals:
Bush: 575
Obama: 575
News media generally like landmarks as a way to visit and explain the U.S. death toll from the wars.
This landmark is surely a worthy candidate for consideration.
I expect Robert Gibbs to be asked about it.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: Obama's Wars (And That's Just at the Office)
All of us who are eligible should focus on the coming November Elections, work in your own local neighborhood to make it better and get involved in what is going on around you. At the same time, let us have a keen awareness of what is going on in other countries and oppose all manifestations of Amerikan Empire building! Be for real! Take a stand against Afghanisnam! ~Che Peta
~ http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
America, this was never Bush's war.
America, this is not Obama's war.
America, this is your war.
America.
So if you ignore the preceding 7 years of the war before Obama was inaugurated...Then sure.....
If the Taliban had not been allowed to become resurgent and regain strength and numbers, there might have been a different situation on the ground when Obama took office.
Clearly Bush's criminal neglect of Afghanistan was due to his obsession with toppling Saddam Hussein. The article should have placed the Obama administration's recent "surge" of troops into Afghanistan, and the increasing death toll, within this proper historical context. Ultimately what it does is blame the current administration for the years of maladministration that preceded it.
That being said, I opposed the war from the beginning. I remain in opposition to it no matter who is in the White House or how it is conducted.
Bush ignored Afghanistan, and allowed the Taliban to regroup and reorganize and regain territory!
If Bush had taken Bin Laden at Tora Bora in 2001, this would have been moot!
We get to share Israel's enemies and experience the endless war that Zionists crave.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger83.1.html
2. Fact:Arabs in the Jewish state have access to more freedom of speech and democracy than Arabs do in most of Arab states.
3. Denial of the right of Jews to national self-determination on ANY basis,.is the domain of antisemitic propaganda..
Get over yourself. Claiming that Israel's crimes are forgiven because it's a "jewish state" is just religious fanaticism as bad as the "Islamofascists". Until you can express your position WITHOUT using bigotry you're the bigot, not your critics.
Come on now, Mr. Naiman. Last I looked the president who decides to pull a fast one on the American people and start a war under false pretenses, is the "owner" of that war.
And for all the conservatives who agree with this bullpuckey, let's imagine either Bill Clinton did or Obama does exactly the same thing. I.E., start a war under false pretenses and then can't even WIN the freakin' thing (even under ANY definition of "winning" that that brain-damaged administration cares to spin it as) after SEVEN YEARS for Afghanistan and FIVE YEARS for Iraq, and just dumps it on the doorstep of the next president. And let's imagine that president is a REPUBLICAN president (even though it is horrific to do so).
Ya ever think ANYone on the right would EVER just say, all mealy-mouthed and such, "well... after all... it's been long enough now and there's been X number of casualties during OUR administration, so... well... I guess it's OUR war now."
Instead of FOR. EV. ER. blaming Clinton or Obama up one side and down the other for the REST OF FREAKIN' TIME.
THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DEBATED.
The issue is whether we can just cavalierly and comprehensively tag President Obama with Iraq being "Obama's War" (with, it seems to me, a related corollary that it takes some - even if just a little - responsibility for that war OFF the previous president).
The point I was making was when a president like GWB commits such mindboggling crimes such as starting a war under false pretenses (and not even being able to "win" it on TOP of that), then THAT president (who is arguably a war criminal, no less) owns it FOREVER. You screw up THAT bad, you don't GET to slough it off on your successor. In ANY way. EVER.
Go read the info at http://bushcrimes.net/ and then just TRY telling me otherwise.
Unofficially, this is Petraeus' war.
When, exactly, did General Petraeus decide to run for the presidency in 2016?
it is a war of profits.
designed to be another american colony like iraq.
what is it about americans that they are unable to see their war machine and its imperialism?
these are wars for corp profits and the military has to use it or lose it.
these wars are a win win for both the industrial military complex and the military funding to keep up it supply of money coming from congress.
most americans love their war machine liberals and conservs alike.
the only difference is the repubs take pride in their war mongering like a badge of honor.
mc war wanted to invade and bomb iran so bad he could taste it.
wars make money for the capitalist: war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on illegals, everything is a war to repubs.
at least they know where the money is./
next war: war on education to take over educationfor corp profits.
next privatize the social security. wall street is licking its chops over that one.
do you realize how many scams they can run with that kind of money. oh my.
wall street is so good at scams even when they fail they win. huge bonuses with taxpayers money even after they robbed the taxpayers. that is brillant pure genius even for a capitalist pure genius.
Maybe I should get a "Captain Obvious" costume to go with my special superpower of stating the obvious. What would it look like? Would I have a cape?
Advocacy, I suppose, can be successful through repetition. The interesting aspect of your labeling exercise is that numerous advocates are busily applying glue to President Obama. The right, for an anticipated unsuccessful prosecution of the war, and the let for an attempt to bring it to a successful conclusion. In these cases my sympathies go to the people trying to get the task done.
As for the costume....I really should advocate for it as so few of us look good in Spandex.....but maybe a tastefully monogrammed polo shirt would do :)
In short, yes.
It is the cross on the flag of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, a result of the First Crusades, during which Jerusalem, was recaptured. It is still currently found as the national flag of Georgia as well as the flag of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. This is still an order existing today out of the Vatican and Jerusalem. In fact, at our local Bishop's installment this week, the head of the Order, who happens to be American, will be in attendance. Similarly, the Franciscans use this same cross in several of their symbols, as custodians of much of the remaining church properties in the Holy Land.