US Iraq Deaths Reach 2,500; Afghanistan STILL Doesn't Matter

Published on June 15, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

Some time ago, I wrote an article on "the deaths that don't matter", noting that EVERY "body count" that has been released has focused on deaths in Iraq while virtually ignoring the conflict that continues in Afghanistan. I saw it continued on Memorial Day, when a church in the area listed military deaths in the "War on Terror" using only the deaths of those service men and women in Iraq, and it continues further today as the Pentagon announces 2,500 dead in Iraq.

The servicemembers in Afghanistan have given no less to their country than those in Iraq. Those who died did so with as much honor and integrity as their counterparts in the Middle East, and they deserve the same recognition. As the propaganda machine continues to ignore this conflict, I have to keep asking myself WHY, and I believe I've found the answer.

You see, there is virtually no yardstick by which we CAN'T consider Afghanistan a success. Sure, there was the short lived (pardon the pun) story about the man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, but the simple fact that the government rectified the problem and listened to the international community shows that we have established a government that cares about its place in global politics. Afghanistan has quickly come from a third world haven of terror to the place of being an emerging democracy, even if they might not always fit our conventional, Western definitions of such a government. By contrast, Iraq, a nation that was at war with itself long before the first American tank ever rolled across its border, is still struggling among its factions for control and to create a stable democracy. It is far from a failure, and our casualty rates are well within the range of acceptable for a military operation of that size.

We need to stop falling into the traps the media sets and count the deaths of those servicemembers in Afghanistan as well as those in Iraq. They gave as much, and they deserve equal recognition for their unselfish service.

Comments

on Jun 15, 2006

Nice job. I've not looked at things this way before, but seriously, nice job.

kingbee

on Jun 15, 2006

i totally agree.

As the propaganda machine continues to ignore this conflict, I have to keep asking myself WHY, and I believe I've found the answer

You see, there is virtually no yardstick by which we CAN'T consider Afghanistan a success

except for the yardsticks used to analyze the extent to which afghanistan's economy depends on harvesting opium for conversion to heroin which is then exported throughout the world. or those capable of gauging systemic corruption so massive afghanis fight each other for an opportunity to bribe officials in hope of receiving a permit to scavage rocks for home building. on the other hand, no device is needed to determine the area directly controlled by the afghan government...it's somewhat smaller than that circumscribed by the kabul city limits. admittedly surveying tools aren't yardsticks but it don't really matter seeing as how noone seems capable of detecting where afghanistan begins and pakistan ends along the latter's northwestern tribal frontier.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 15, 2006

I find it VERY interesting that the minute the bacteria decided to head to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, the press decided that Afghanistan doesn't matter.

Strategically and Idealistically, the bacteria had far more reason to move to defend Afghanistan than Iraq. However, there was very little chance of beating the U.S. in Afghanistan (either on the battlefield or on the propaganda front).

By engaging the U.S. led coalition in Iraq, the bacteria could mold the press in their image. Feeding propaganda films, statements and accusations to those who put their party politics ahead of our troops.

Bottom line, the bacteria chose the battle we would fight for them, instead of the one the one they'd have to actually face us. The press were more than happy to play along.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 15, 2006

Once again: "Press = Participation" Those who pay no attention to Afghanistan were simply not told to care... so they don't know they are supposed to.

kingbee

on Jun 16, 2006

the minute the bacteria decided to head to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, the press decided that Afghanistan doesn't matter.

the bacteria could mold the press in their image

Those who pay no attention to Afghanistan were simply not told to care.

wow.

now i see why you're so upset with the press.

no doubt i'd feel the same way...if i somehow managed to invert reality and believed the media and not the administration decided to so quickly ease itself outta the war in afghanistan in order to 'head to iraq'. it pissed off a whole lot of us--and still does today--most of whom managed not to confuse the players with the played.

it's not as if the press isn't culpable when it comes to afghanistan. just not culpable for what you wanna blame them. instead of acting in the public interest, they rolled over and let themselves be used to turn attention away from this administration's foolish and shameful shortchanging of the afghan people.

-----

on Jun 16, 2006

I find it sad that Afghanistan has, IMO, "fallin' off of the media's radar." That is part of the reason I dig for news. I like to hear about what happens afghanistan. Not just Iraq. Frankly, I've heard enough about Iraq.

~L

ParaTed2k

on Jun 16, 2006

KingBee

no doubt i'd feel the same way...if i somehow managed to invert reality and believed the media and not the administration decided to so quickly ease itself outta the war in afghanistan in order to 'head to iraq'. it pissed off a whole lot of us--and still does today--most of whom managed not to confuse the players with the played.

Yes, it was Prs.Bush that made the call to go into Iraq. However, the Hussein regime was toppled in a matter of days. That part of the war on terror would have gone the way of Desert Storm if the bacteria had not moved in and engaged the U.S. led Coalition in Iraq.

Why Iraq? There was so much more at stake for them in Afghanistan. According to the anti war crowd there wasn't even an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to Mar 03. Why would the bacteria basically leave a stronghold of there's, where one of their leaders (Bin Laden) lived? Why didn't they engage us on a battlefield that most the country (and even the international community) supported?

Because you don't beat the U.S. on the battlefield. You beat the U.S. on the propaganda front. There is nothing to be gained trying to win the hearts and minds of Americans fighting in Afghanistan... On the other hand, they did an awesome job of engaging in that kind of warfare in Iraq.

Now, most Americans have no idea that there are thousands of troops still in Afghanistan from many nations (including France). When I IM with friends over there, they wonder if anyone even knows we have ANY presence left there. When I talk to Americans about the war on terror, if I bring up Afghanistan they act as if that was over long ago.

I don't blame the press for America's apparent lack of interest in the soldiers still deployed to Afghanistan. I blame each individual who doesn't take the time to know more about it. I do, however, blame the press for choosing to all but ignore what is going on in Afghanistan.

"Press = Participation" is much more an indictment of the average American than the press itself.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Jun 16, 2006

The USA got off to a good start in Afghanistan and brought the Taliban government down. IN fact the 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, However the Bush Administration got the idea that it could use the fear of Al Qaeda in order to redraw the map of the Middle Esat, and Iraq war was the result. The fact is theat the Us administration was aware that Saddam Hussein had no lionks with the Al Qaeda and had no WMDs. Yet a false case was fabricated and US launched all out war bringing death and destructionto Iraqis. While you mour the 2,550 soldiers who lost their lives do you not think that it is utterly shameful to have killed nearly 250,000 Iraqi civilians and to have destroyed a whole country for no reason.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 16, 2006

Bahu, your buddy Zarqawi thanks you for your support. Too bad you be one of his 72 virgins.

kingbee

on Jun 16, 2006

the Hussein regime was toppled in a matter of days. That part of the war on terror would have gone the way of Desert Storm if the bacteria had not moved in and engaged the U.S. led Coalition in Iraq.

while the former government of iraq unraveled very quickly, since we invaded iraq in march 2003, there's not been one full week--not even a single day--of peace there.

to put that in perspective, come this december, we'll have spent more time fighting in iraq than we did fighting the nazis in wwii.

approximately how many foreign fighters do you believe we've killed or captured in the past 3+ years of operations there? enough to validate what you're claiming in the portion of your response i've quoted above?

kingbee

on Jun 16, 2006

Because you don't beat the U.S. on the battlefield

betcha george iii said something very similar about britain.

kingbee

on Jun 16, 2006

Now, most Americans have no idea that there are thousands of troops still in Afghanistan from many nations (including France).

i wish it wasn't the case, but i'm fairly sure youre correct.

When I talk to Americans about the war on terror, if I bring up Afghanistan they act as if that was over long ago.

i'd be willing to bet they're confident bush & company have done a great job securing der homeland too. the shit's gonna really hit the fan there when nato takes control and people discover it's deja vu all over again outside of kabul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!