Afghan Fatalities Rise; Deadlier Than Iraq

Surge In Violence Makes Country Deadlier For Foreign Troops

(CBS/ AP)  Roadside bombs killed five more foreign troops and five government soldiers in Afghanistan, part of a surge of violence that has made the country's battlefields deadlier for foreign forces than those in Iraq.

The U.S. administration has already highlighted the statistic to lobby its NATO allies - with limited success - to commit more forces to Afghanistan - a conflict likely to test the West's stomach for a long, grinding war.

Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department official and now an Afghan expert at the Washington-based Middle East Institute, said the rising casualties would sharpen the focus on Afghanistan in the U.S. presidential race.

"What's being brought home is the nature of the conflict. It's in the true fashion of a guerrilla operation and we're not prepared for it," Weinbaum said Saturday.

The Taliban's tactics have been changing - fewer direct confrontations with coalition forces and more roadside bombs, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips.

A bold attack on a prison in which 350 Taliban fighters were freed earlier this month was another sign of the insurgency's growing confidence.

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai says the insurgency is being organized out of border regions of Pakistan and is threatening to carry the fight back.

"Afghanistan has the right of self-defense when they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops. It exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same," he said.

Violence continues unabated, despite the more than 60,000 foreign troops in the country and fresh pledges of financial aid to Karzai's struggling government.

Last year, more than 8,000 people were killed in insurgency-related attacks - the most since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion - and violence has claimed more than 1,700 lives so far this year.

In Saturday's deadliest incident, a roadside bomb hit a coalition convoy west of the southern city of Kandahar, killing four troops and wounding two others.

Coalition spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Fanning said gunmen opened fire on the damaged vehicles and three Afghans were also hurt.

He declined to release the nationality of the troops, who were involved in training Afghan forces.

To the east, a Polish soldier from the separate NATO-led force died when a bomb hit his patrol after midnight in the Dila district of Paktika province. Jacek Poplawski, a Polish military spokesman in Warsaw, said four other soldiers were wounded.

The bombings capped a bloody week.

NATO and Afghan troops backed by warplanes on Wednesday attacked up to 400 Taliban militants who had seized the strategic Arghandab valley, within striking distance of Kandahar.

Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, chief of operations for the Afghan Defense Ministry, said Afghan troops had counted the bodies of 94 insurgents and were holding 29 suspects.

About three-quarters of the militants were foreigners, and villagers said they heard them speaking Arabic and Urdu - the main language of Pakistan, Karimi told reporters in Kabul.

A total of 31 foreign troops have died this month, including four British soldiers, four American troops and another member of the U.S.-led coalition killed earlier this week, according to an Associated Press tally.

In Iraq, where violence has decreased in recent months, 19 have died, though the 200 killed there so far this year is double Afghanistan's total.

[swwils]

Afghanistan is a powder keg,with a slow fuse.We must let S.F,of all branches take total control and remain in control so those commie Iranians want get their gruuby paws on nukes.Be careful my brothers in arms while your watching our backs,keep an eye on yours.Green Beenies Rule!

[hamiltongrad]

CBS reported that the IAEA was going to inspect Syria site for Nuclear Weapons.
Fine - but what they did not report is that SYRIA BLOCKED three sites from inspection. This was reported in the AP.
This kind of half reporting, shading the facts to make the situation there "better" does not SERVE the peaceful nations , the LEAGUE OF DEMOCRACIES (AMERICA, CANADA,PHILLIPINES, AUSTRALIA, UK AND EUROPE AND ISRAEL AND OTHERS) AND does not serve the MISSION OF REPORTING OR JOURNALISM !!!

[notblue]

hotpaulie, Afghanistan was controlled by he Taliban then, who controls the country now? A democratically elected Government?, do think that''s better than a terrorist theocracy?

[hotpaulie]

Is Afghanistan better now than it was since 9/11?
Maybe if we focused on one country at a time instead of taking on every country that breeds terrorists (except Saudi Arabia of course), maybe this "war on terrorism" will accomplish something. I know we''ve killed thousands and thousands of bad guys, but new "terrorists" are born every day.

[antoniof123]

I am truly amazed at the right wing the desperation is showing they are going to sling as much mud as possible hoping that some will stick.

Too bad they haven''t seen how we the voters are looking at that the more mud the more we vote against it.

[joecoolswat]

Especially while our ACTUAL enemy, (the one that ACTUALLY attacked us), was allowed to get away?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hungry1968

I know you''re liberals minds better than you do, We destroy the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan, then we destroy Saddam and his large army in Iraq.....in you''re liberal mind, we will never do the correct thing, in you''re mind we will have never done anything...if you admitted we did, then what would you have left to say.....you will always find something wrong, and something that we "didn''t" do, or did wrong......so there is no pleasing you lib, unless we packed it up, sent all miltiary back to civilian jobs and asked terrorists not to strike us....then maybe you would be happy

[notblue]

talkingham, Great plan! Fool!

[notblue]

Hungry, what''s your plan, other than leaving the terrorists alone so an even larger attack can be planned without that pesky interferance created by ACTUALLY FIGHTING THEM! You sir are an idiot and a traitor.

[joecoolswat]

How''''s that surge in Iraq working out for you?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hungry1968

Working great, AlQaeda has been virtually destroyed in Iraq, and insurgency is at an all-time low

COMMANDER: "AL QAEDA IN IRAQ IS AT ITS WEAKEST"
Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, interim command of U.S. Central Command
Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357084,00.html

[clestes-2009]

I''ve been saying this for a year now. Afghanistan is by far the worse situation for troops.

People who crow about the surge succeeding and how we are winning in Iraq must have forgotten the reason for the surge. It was to give Iraqi parliment breathing space to start passing laws, which they are not doing. So I don''t see us winning anything in Iraq. It is still desperately dangerous and is requiring 158,000 troops to keep the lid on the violence.

Those troops are needed in Afghanistan. The Taliban has retaken 90% of the territory they lost in 2001. They control most of the country and are firmly entrenched in the mountains where they are impossible to defeat.

If shrub had left US troops in Afghanistan instead of sending them to Iraq, none of this would be happening now. No matter what happens in the future, shrub is responsible for thousands of US troops lives. Those men did not need to die and his legacy will be all those unnecessary deaths. He is a mass murderer just like every dicator of the 20th century.

May they haunt his dreams forever.

[talkingham]

What''s being brought home is that Bush let the Taliban walk off the field with the weapons and leadership intact 5 years ago.

Maybe they want us to leave. But no, we have to be like the British and watch as our leaders pour the wealth of this nation down holes like Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of "freedom." Idiots.

[notblue]

Hungry, the sourge in Iraq is working, this artticle clearly states Afghanistan is now more dangerous. How many of your brothers who escaped from the prison brake are still alive? Not many, wiped out again! your savage barbarian brothers can''t get anything right they show their ugly heads and they are destrotyed, the only success they have is killing innocent civilians who can''t fight back when they kill themselves. Their evil plan and agenda will not prevail, like all roaches they will eventually be exterminated.

[money76659]

When are we going to realize that This is how the middle eastern culture is. They fight for no reason. it has been going on since the beginning of time. The only thing we should be doing over there is making sure they are not setting off neuclear weapons. Let them keep throwing stones. as long as they stay over there, we will be all right.

[formrusmcsgt]

WHY HILLARY SUPPORTERS MUST WRITE HER IN ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT:

Posted by TruUSA at 05:46 AM : Jun 23, 2008

Yeah right. Try that with a voting machine.....

[dobbershome]

ToolMangler

So I passed the test. Thanks

[idnnsg]

ToolMangler suggests, "Kill them all and let the Lord handle it."

This is one of THE most effed-up, illogical, and utterly stu.pid fallacies to come out of the "minds" of "Christians"! If you kill "them" before they "turn to Jesus" then YOU are sending them directly to Hell without giving them the opportunity to "see the light". Supposedly, nobody but Jesus starts out perfect, so the whole purpose of God''s little game is to get people to CONVERT from their evil ways to following Him. By killing them and sending them to Hell, not only are you "Christians" violating one of the Ten Commandments (and that''s a sure-fire ticket to Hell all by itself!), but you are subverting the will of your God by preventing these people from converting! That''s just got to be p1$$1ng off the Almighty!

PS "Meaningful dialogue" would be MUCH more possible if we''d STOP killing them and get the hell out of their country.

[downtowner97]

New math:

If you say Bush has caused this big mess we''re in, Bush supporters will say he''s not to blame because the president doesn''t really have much to do with what''s going on.

If you say you''re going to vote for Obama, Bush supporters say "Obama''s going to destroy the whole country and make Muslims out of all of us".

Which is it? Is the president in charge, or isn''t he?

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by dobbershome at 08:57 PM : Jun 22, 2008



If Religion was not the ruling factor in the Mid East, We might be able to have meaningful dialogue with them. Fanatics can only be handled by killing them
So option #2 is it.

[dobbershome]

ToolMangler:

I will take option #2.

[toolmangler-2009]

"Violence continues unabated, despite the more than 60,000 foreign troops in the country and fresh pledges of financial aid to Karzai''s struggling government"


there are only two options, 1. Leave now and let the mess settle itself (in which case militant Islam will win then come after us) or 2. Kill them all and let the Lord handle it