8 US troops die; new deadliest month in Afghan war

Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. KABUL – Eight American troops were killed in two separate bomb attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

    In one of the insurgent assaults, seven Americans were killed while patrolling in armored vehicles, U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said. He said an Afghan civilian died in the same attack. The eighth American was killed in a separate bombing elsewhere in the south, also while patrolling in a military vehicle, he said.

    The military issued a statement saying the deaths occurred during "multiple, complex" bomb strikes. It said several troops were wounded and evacuated to a nearby medical facility, but gave no other details.

    Capt. Adam Weece, a spokesman for American forces in the south, said both attacks occurred in Kandahar province. In Washington, a U.S. defense official said at least one was followed by an intense firefight with insurgents who attacked after an initial bomb went off. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information.

    The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan. The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential election amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

    This new Obama strategy is great. The left is trying to say that the reason Obama is taking a long time making any decisions on this is because he wants to think long and hard before putting the troops in harm's way. They already are.
  2. Ricter


    You are far too sensitive, and impatient, for warfare.
  3. Agreed.
  4. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to explain to these soldiers' families what they died for. I wouldn't know what to tell them.
  5. Ricter


    Then I'm also glad you're not the one to tell them.
  6. I have said before that I think we should get out of that dump. If thats what Obama wants to do that is fine. If we are going to say there, then you have to fight it to win. The current approach of half assing it, is total BS.
  7. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports from Kabul that "eight American troops were killed in two separate bomb attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban."

    We know what you're thinking, but this is not Obama's fault. Afghanistan is someone else's mess, so why don't you grab a mop? As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN last week:

    It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift. That we're beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years. . . . Before you commit troops, which is--not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path--before you make that decision, there's a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it's clear after eight years of war, that's basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked. And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said--where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them.

    Hang on a second. It has now been 51 weeks since Obama was elected president, and more than nine months since he took office, and he's just now getting around to asking the "questions . . . that have never been asked"?

    But that's not really fair to Obama. After all, he has a busy schedule, what with golf games and pitching the International Olympic Committee and date nights and Democratic fund-raisers and health care and the U.N. Security Council and Sunday morning talk shows and saving the planet from global warming and celebrating the dog's birthday and defending himself against Fox News and all.

    "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," FoxNews.com quotes the president as telling servicemen. As for the servicemen who are already in harm's way: Jeez, guys, be patient! He'll figure out what to do about Afghanistan as soon as he gets around to it.

    Then again, when he accepted the nomination for president back in August 2008, he seemed to know just what to do:

    When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives. . . .

    I will . . . finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    As John Kerry* once said, "You could get whiplash watching the administration policy on Afghanistan change from day to day."