Skip to comments.U.S. Troop Fatalities in Afghanistan; Obama vs. Bush [Chart]
Posted on 01/09/2014 11:44:14 AM PST by Obama_Is_A_Feminist
hmmmm Obama Lied People Died.
I just had to say that!
But deaths of HOSTILE troops have gone down dramatically, so Obama has accomplished something!
Can’t somebody in the media who is more-or-less conservative discuss this number on air or in their op-ed?
and where is Code Pink & Cindy Sheehan? I guess war under a D is a.o.k. with them?
306 on my first trip to AFG (Mar-Sep 2011), 76 for my second deployment (Apr-Oct 2013)
and not a peep in the MSM....wonder why???
.........isn’t this chart grounds a plenty for impeachment anArticle I, Section 3, describes the Senate’s role:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
The same section limits the consequences of judgement in cases of impeachment:
Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
d trial in the senate
Goes with Obamas 3 pronged agenda that I’ve posted a ton of times and so far has been proven 1000% correct in everything he does:
1. Empower and spread radical Islam.
2. Destroy the USA utterly and completely
3. Play golf
Wonder how many of the deaths under Obama are attributable to his insane rules of engagement.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Sorry, meant to include the foregoing in my post of a few minutes ago.
My belief is that the chart referenced ARGUABLY demonstrates a little or a lot of each of : Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The bastardization of the Rules of Engagement accounts for both.
The same reason when I watched NBC news last night. There was not one mention of Obamacare, period!!!
The news media with the exception of FOX, are basically an extension of the Democrat National Party. I do have much criticism for Fox also, there are some issues that they will not touch with any degree of incite, analysis and logic. That issue is Obama's past and the obviously fraudulent birth certificate.
What has always puzzled me is the rank amateurism of the birth certificate. The truth must be so bad that he could not outsource the fabrication to individuals that are competent forgers.
only a complete idiot wouldn’t believe in media bias at this point.
Where is that chart from?
Many of those deaths is the answer.
My son did two tours of Iraq as a combat medic. He saw a lot of bad stuff. I was proud of him and at the same time worried for his safety and life. I realized the necessity of him going to war. Thankfully he is no longer in the army.
In good conscious I can not and would not ask him or any other person in the army to go and fight under the leadership of Obama. Obama considers the troops EXPENDABLE in relationship to his political ideology. I am not a constitutional lawyer but that seems like treason to me.
I think this was what Gates (a weak man very intimidated by Obama) was trying to get across. Gates should have resigned and called attention to this, but at the same time I think Gates was probably committed to our troops and was so horrified by Obama’s complete disregard for them that it was really hard for him to comprehend or believe.
The disproportion between the Bush period and the Obama period...much shorter, and during a time when we weren’t fighting but were retreating to make way for the Taliban... is truly stunning.
Obama is a traitor to the United States, in my opinion.
You made the chart? It’s nice and clear.
America’s foreign policy is in a shambles. America’s domestic policy is in a shambles. Obama has spent, what, 180 days of his presidency golfing? And the big story in the news is that an aide to the Governor of New Jersey did something stupid that slowed down traffic. Amazing.
Where are you getting these numbers?
Nevermind - I see your link now...
You said that!! Begining with McCain.
ONE American dying is too many.
Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you...
That chart is a very interesting and sad reminder. Perhaps you should make one for Iraq as well.
Too Bad Juan isnt fat enough for the laurel and hardy..parody...
Now just a cotton pickin’ minit here. Let’s be fair. Getting more soldiers killed in Afghanistan has not improved Obama’s golf swing one bit. I bet his strokes per game has even gone up a little.
No you can’t.
Yes I can!
I mean “Yes, we can!”
Why are we there? Why did we invade a country in order to go after a bunch of terrorists who move freely from country to country?
Sorry, there is enough blame to go around. It is curious that we don’t hear a peep from the anti-war left. Bunch of hypocrites.
The last 5 years is testimony to the fact that Democrats, Republicans, the Media, and Beltway types in general, use our troops for political ends.
If Republicans were truly interested in the troops they’d be screaming bloody murder for them to come home on the basis that a nation must be attempting to win a war for it to be ethical to ask its military members to shed their blood.
This is not the case. We have clearly lost far more “withdrawing” from this war than we did fighting it.
The never ending retreat from Afghanistan — giving the enemy many final shots, changing the Rules of Engagement so that our troops effectively are not permitted to fire on known enemies and absolutely forbidden if those enemies are in buildings.
And Paul Ryan underscores Republican contempt by taking money from those fighting the war.
You’ve said it far better than I could, and I completely agree.
This chart is hilarious at best and intentionally deceptive at worst.
For one, troop levels in Afghanistan under Bush were so low as to be nearly useless, ranging from only 10,000 in 2003 to barely above 30,000 when he left office. Obama raised troop levels to 100,000 by July 2010. These new troops were sent to areas solidly held by the Taliban, areas that were completely ignored for 7 years by the Bush administration. When you let your enemy fortify its position, stockpile munitions, and rally the local populace for that long, and then you finally bother to go kill them, yes, men are going to die.
Second, the idea that US withdrawal from Afghanistan began in July of 2011 is ridiculous. In July of 2011 we had more than 100K troops in the country, four times the average during the Bush administration. The troop surge in Afghanistan was still in progress and did not end until 1 October 2013, when troop levels dropped to 63,000. That was still more than double the number of troops than Bush had.
If you want to bash Obama for his legitimate failures, by all means, there are plenty of them, go on ahead. Blaming him for actually focusing on Afghanistan and fighting the enemy in their strongholds, however, is completely absurd.
These numbers have to be weighted by total number of troops deployed to get a valid comparison between the two presidents.
The numbers should also be separated and weighted by rules of engagement because those have changes a number of times.
I’m on board with you on those points. I posted my reply before I saw yours.
I’m looking ONLY at rows ‘2008’ and then ‘2009’ and then I’m not buying what you’re selling.
yeah, funny how the the death count articles have gone off the media radar since he is in charge.
The Anti War Left has to stand behind whichever leftist dope is currently leading their ranks....aka the democrack party.
After month of debates with Gates and other top advisers, Obama ordered 30,000 extra troops to be sent to Afghanistan as part of what was meant to be the final push to stabilize the embattled country ahead of a phased withdrawal Obama was planning to launch in the summer of 2011.http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_08/Ex-Pentagon-chief-slams-Obama-over-Afghanistan-5201/
Those withdrawals were political, but they did happen and were ballyhooed as Barack keeping his promises (which he never really did.)
Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011: A planned US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will start slowly this summer with about 800 soldiers in two Army units due to depart this month, US officers said Wednesday.
The military offered the first details of the troop drawdown after President Barack Obama announced in June plans to pull out 10,000 forces this year and another 23,000 by the end of September in 2012.
The drawdown will begin this month, as was stated in the presidents address, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, deputy commander of the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, told reporters via video link from Kabul.
The units include 300 troops from the Army National Guards 1st Squadron, 134th Cavalry Regiment in Kabul and about 500 troops in the National Guards 1st Squadron, 113rd Cavalry Regiment in Parwan, military officers said.
Both units are part of the Iowa National Guards 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/06/afghan-troop-withdrawal-to-start-slowly-u-s-officers/
Bush troops levels averaged about 30,000 and went up to 33,000 at one point. (Not to include the beginning which was essentially a special operations war.)
Obama went up initially to about 48,000 and then surged that up to 68,000, so you have Obama's numbers being anywhere from 1.5 to 2.0 times more troops than Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan
All of this is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is that not one living soul is trying to win this war, and it shows great disrespect, even despisal, of our troops, and especially when both parties plan to take benefits from those very troops who have borne the battle.
I despise BOTH parties for their treatment of our troops and our veterans.
By Warner Todd Huston | July 24, 2009 | 09:28
Once again Barack Obama waded into territory of which he has no knowledge: American history. Not only did he say during a TV interview that he doesnt want victory in Afghanistan -- because victory is apparently too harsh for the losers -- but he used an example from WWII that never even happened to justify his touchy feely ideas on warfare. So will anyone in the Old Media even realize that the presidents historical example was a muff-up of real history? Will the Old Media make fun of him for his obvious lack of knowledge of our own history?
Lets try a thought experiment, shall we? When I say victory, what do you think of? Do you think of winning the World Series? Do you picture that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Time Square as WWII ended? Do you just imagine winning at whatever contest is at hand?
It is likely that even if you dont picture a particular thing, at the very least your initial emotional response is a warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory.
It is less likely that upon hearing or seeing the word victory an American would immediately get a feeling of defeat and humiliation or picture the end of anything. It is even less likely that a loathing would well up inside of the minds of an American when the word is broached.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not like average, patriotic, optimistic Americans. At least we can easily assume this to be the case by what President Obama recently said of our military efforts in Afghanistan.
You see, Barack Obama said on TV this week that victory isnt his goal in Afghanistan. Why not?
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures victory he doesnt see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day. Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obamas mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.
Obamas sympathy seems to be with the Emperor that governed a nation that tried to viciously take over the entire Pacific Rim and enslave many millions of Asian peoples. It is hard to escape the feeling that Obamas first thought when the word victory is broached is of our enemy, his sympathies with them, not us.
But that isnt even the worst of it. Once again we see another example of Obamas ignorance of history, even American history. In fact, Emperor Hirohito didnt even sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. That duty was performed by Japans Foreign Minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, and one of its generals, Yoshijir Mumezu.
In fact, we didnt destroy Japans Emperor, rather we allowed him to continue on in a ceremonial role to allow the Japanese to feel as if they hadnt been entirely crushed and that some of their traditions might live on.
So, once again, Obama garbles history, disrespects his own country, and sets us up to be discounted as a viable force by foreign nations. Obamas discounting of victory in Afghanistan is dangerous news for our troops. It signals a man that will not give our troops the support they need to win the war and come home with our pride and safety intact.
Now, will the Old Media realize this disastrous view of history, warfare and our national security? Or will the Old Media just move on as if nothing happened?
Wow. Excellent article, smoothsailing. Thanks
“...once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.
War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war, there is no substitute for victory.”
It is unthinkable that our republican so-called “leaders” would tolerate a steady state of war in which we are not trying to win, and we are allowing our troops to be killed at a rate of about one a day.
They have blood on their hands. Not making this the centerpiece of their attack on Obama, not blistering him daily for this ongoing state of war, is additional evidence of their despisal of our troops.
Paul Ryan attacking retired veterans is just additional proof.
invading other nations while allowing every imaginable sort of RIFF RAFF to enter this one.... was not a GOOD Idea
I havn’t given a dime to the RNC since 2000.
A pox on both them and the DNC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.