Skip to comments.The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch
Posted on 09/11/2013 9:07:36 AM PDT by yoe
Twelve years ago today, nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
In the war that Congress authorized against al Qaeda only three days after that attack, the vast majority of the U.S. casualties have occurred in the last four and a half years during the presidency of Barack Obama.
In fact, according to the CNSNews.com database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, 73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Bush’s fault, move on...
We are not there to win the war. The ROE’s are too restrictive and we are playing too much defense. Aggressive offense reduces casualties and destroys the enemies. Play defense and you embolden and empower the enemy, IMO.
Could this have anything to do with the Obamanoids’ Rules of Engagement? Our troops are not allowed to fight back, or to accomplish anything very useful. Basically, they’re supposed to just stand there and offer themselves as targets. If they kill a terrorist, they’re liable to get court martialed for being mean to Muslims.
Only 4 Generals fired? Hitler fired more than that!
Ever aware of his sorry place in History, POS Chief Executive Order Giver, B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, only last night in a major speech to America and the World, said the following:
WHEN DICTATORS CREATE ATROCITIES, THEY DEPEND UPON THE WORLD TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY.
BTW, B. Hussein, we are Americans, and we are looking to hold YOU accountable for YOUR Benghazi atrocity!
IMPEACH OBAMA !
REMEMBER BENGHAZI !
12 years is ridiculous. We are not the freakin’ Roman Empire!
Every week the alphabet networks had a body count for Bush. Now, zip, azada, nothin.
That is what happens when you change the rules of engagement.
I was going to say - it’s a pretty shocking tally but the article makes no supposition as to WHY this has been the case.
Your point: “That is what happens when you change the rules of engagement.”
Makes perfect sense to me. Especially after reading all the books I have this summer on these topics. I wonder what else it could be though?
Reduction in troops - i.e. therefore more vulnerability?
Renewed vigor from the Rags, since they know we’re leaving?
All of the above?
It would be interesting to see the causes (IED, ambush, mortar fire, internal attack, etc) in a model that compares the before and after the changes to the rules of engagement.
To say the leftist hypocrites are beneath contempt seems like a laughable understatement.
Hey,your not suppose to remember that! The media wants to condition you to have no more than a one news cycle or week’s worth of memory. If you start to remember what they said a week ago or a year ago you’ll start to think for your self and become a right wing terrorist fanatic !
Why would anyone politician or citizen follow this total failure into another war.
Same reason Hollywood does they FEAR being seen as anti black.
The spineless are the most dangerous.
You're decades too late with that warning.