US Military 2013 Losses in the War in Afghanistan

[Red October1984]

On the first day of snow here, (as in, two days ago) I went along to a Orthodontist appointment of my brother's. I sat in the waiting room and flipped through this month's People Magazine. (To be fair, Jennifer Lawrence was on the cover so there's nothing wrong with that)

At the end, they had several pages where they honored all of the US Servicepeople killed in Afganistan all year.

There was 123 of them.

I got to thinking. If we ever got into a REAL war...one where we'd lose that many or more in one battle....

How would society react to something like that? Everybody would lose their minds!

I'm not saying that the number should be greater. It would be best if we had left A-stan years ago after Bin Laden and saved, let's say, 150 per year since then. That's 450 people counting this year. IMHO, there is no way you can just change what has been done for thousands of years. Why are we wasting resources and lives trying anymore?

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that the number was so low considering how big of a deal it is when a soldier dies. You would think it would be a higher number. Just the media at work I guess. I'm glad that there are people out there that care though. It makes me so mad whenever I see somebody dissing the troops and using choice words/phrases to curse them. We've all seen those kinds of posts...

If you won't stand behind them, feel free to stand in front of them.

I thought it was a nice little memorial. Had all of the names and ages of the people and had pictures of all the servicewomen lost. It's sad that a lot of them had to die so young....but I think it's even worse when you see the name of somebody over 35....somebody with a family at home.*

To those that paid the price this last year, a salute.




*not to say the younger ones didn't.

[Betonov]

In a major war, especially where the enemy would be clear and the survival of the nation would be at stake, the public would be more acceptable to higher losses.

Especially now, when Bin Laden was neutralized by one SEAL team without losses, when an entire invasion 10 years before failed to do so.

[Jimbuna]

The US have lost over 2,000 personnel in total....there is a breakdown by year and month in the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...in_Afghanistan

The price paid by all of the countries with personnel there is already far too high and the quicker everyone comes home the better.

Originally Posted by Red October1984

How would society react to something like that? Everybody would lose their minds!

No, they would not. Not necessarily I mean. It always depends what they fight and die for. See WWII. A very good reason to fight, wasn't it? And now look at Vietnam, or Afghanistan and Iraq... somehow the mood quickly shifts, right?
At least that is how I feel about these conflicts.
When I hear about German losses in Astan, it mostly ruins my day. Because they all die for nothing good at all. But that is kinda OT atm I guess.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

No, they would not. Not necessarily I mean. It always depends what they fight and die for. See WWII. A very good reason to fight, wasn't it? And now look at Vietnam, or Afghanistan and Iraq... somehow the mood quickly shifts, right?

What is often forgotten is that about 3,000 French civilians were killed on D-Day alone by shore and air bombardment. About the same as the number of Allied servicemen deaths. More French civilians died under Allied bombs than British civilians during the Blitz – about 70,000. I think when we in America wonder why Europe is adverse to military adventures abroad, it's because they lived through their own liberation, and consequently had a much less rosy view of it. That's not to say they were ungrateful to be free from Nazi rule, but that they recognize it came at a steep price from all sides in people and infrastructure.

We tend to think that high causalities were an accepted norm in WW2, but even then negative public reaction had to be dealt with if you weren't a totalitarian police state. Certainly, the biggest tipping point in Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs were the 12,000 US dead on Okinawa. Politicians here recognized that home front morale was becoming more brittle with every expensive step toward Japan. The Japanese themselves were banking on it.

[Cybermat47]

I wonder how many Afghan civilians have died?

R.I.P. All the troops and civilians who have died in Afghanistan.

[Jimbuna]

Very hard to find a reliable figure but looking at a range of internet sights a conservative figure would be in the region of 20,000.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Betonov

In a major war, especially where the enemy would be clear and the survival of the nation would be at stake, the public would be more acceptable to higher losses.

Especially now, when Bin Laden was neutralized by one SEAL team without losses, when an entire invasion 10 years before failed to do so.

I just wonder if our country would even unite against an enemy anymore.

With the way we are, I'm not sure if I want hipsters and gangsters defending me. That's saying they would go.

Idk. I guess something would have to happen to know for sure.


---

Afghanistan is the wrong place for us to be. We need to stay out. Let them fight amongst themselves. Until there's an actual reason, (Iran and Israel get into it...) we should just quit trying. We have our own oil. We can sustain ourselves with oil from Canada and South America.