Nearly nine years passed before American forces reached their first 1,000 dead in the war. The second 1,000 came just 27 months later, a testament to the intensity of fighting prompted by President Obama’s decision to send 33,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in 2010, a policy known as the surge.
In more ways than his family might have imagined, Lance Corporal Buckley, who had just turned 21 when he died, typified the troops in that second wave of 1,000. According to the Times analysis, three out of four were white, 9 out of 10 were enlisted service members, and one out of two died in either Kandahar Province or Helmand Province in Taliban-dominated southern Afghanistan. Their average age was 26.
The dead were also disproportionately Marines like Lance Corporal Buckley. Though the Army over all has suffered more dead in the war, the Marine Corps, with fewer troops, has had a higher casualty rate: At the height of fighting in late 2010, 2 out of every 1,000 Marines in Afghanistan were dying, twice the rate of the Army. Marine units accounted for three of the five units hardest hit during the surge.
I agree with Mrs Buckley. We should not be there, and in fact, we never should have gone there in the first place, and I’ll tell you why: Afghanistan has always been a tribal society, and they don’t like foreigners. The warlords may fight among themselves now and then; they always have, and probably always will, but let foreigners enter the country, and they’ll unite and fight against them. The British Army learned that in the 1800s, the Russians learned it in the 1980s, and we’re learning it now. It’s just not worth sending troops there……from ANY country, and for any reason.
[blockquote] “The British Army learned that in the 1800s” [/blockquote]
Cennydd, I am not taking issue with your post: if Americans don’t want to be in Afghanistan, they shouldn’t be there – argue it out among yourselves. But don’t go telling us that its not worth it for troops to be there from ANY country – that’s the business of those countries.
But just on the point above, there is a common misconception that the British fared badly in Afghanistan. On the contrary, I suggest that overall the British largely achieved their objectives in Afghanistan during the 19th century. They suffered some defeats but no more than they did in other regions, and they eventually got what they wanted.
The First Afghan War in 1839 was an attempt to bring Afghanistan into the British orbit, not because the British wanted it, but because they feared it would become a Russian client. The British forces were trounced, but Afghanistan remained independent of Russia, which the Brits could live with, for a while. In 1878, the Russian threat in the region became too great and the British invaded Afghanistan again – the Second Afghan War. They won their battles and achieved their objectives. Afghanistan became in effect a client state of Britain, which was the aim – the British had never contemplated annexation.
The Third Afghan War did not occur until 1919 when the Afghans tried to take advantage of an Indian Army depleted by the First World War to grab some territory. They lost, but the British had also lost interest in controlling (and subsidising) Afghan foreign policy, so they stopped doing it, and this was really the beginning of the modern independent state of Afghanistan.
As Kipling points out, the British soldier in the 19th century could find lots of ways and places to die, in the “East”, beside Afghanistan (but note the last verse):
The Young British Soldier
When the ‘arf-made recruity goes out to the East
‘E acts like a babe an’ ‘e drinks like a beast,
An’ ‘e wonders because ‘e is frequent deceased
Ere ‘e’s fit for to serve as a soldier.
First mind you steer clear o’ the grog-sellers’ huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay’nets that rots out your guts —
A drink that’d eat the live steel from your butts —
An’ it’s bad for the young British soldier.
When the cholera comes — as it will past a doubt —
Keep out of the wet and don’t go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An’ it crumples the young British soldier.
But the worst o’ your foes is the sun over’ead:
You ~must~ wear your ‘elmet for all that is said:
If ‘e finds you uncovered ‘e’ll knock you down dead,
An’ you’ll die like a fool of a soldier.
If you’re cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don’t grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it’s beer for the young British soldier.
Now, if you must marry, take care she is old —
A troop-sergeant’s widow’s the nicest I’m told,
For beauty won’t help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain’t enough for a soldier.
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch ’em — you’ll swing, on my oath! —
Make ‘im take ‘er and keep ‘er: that’s Hell for them both,
An’ you’re shut o’ the curse of a soldier.
When first under fire an’ you’re wishful to duck,
Don’t look nor take ‘eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you’re livin’, and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
When ‘arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don’t call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She’s human as you are — you treat her as sich,
An’ she’ll fight for the young British soldier.
When shakin’ their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o’ the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an’ don’t mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Thank you, MichaelA, for the history lesson (one with which I am familiar, BTW), and I repeat: Foreigners are not welcome in Afghanistan, and since we are made to feel so unwelcome, we should not be there. The place is not worth dying for. No military man or woman likes war, and no one hates war more than the soldier. It’s time to get out…..and stay out.
I think the question for a lot of Americans is one of *culture change* and the cost of attempting to foster that change.
It’s more settled in my mind, now, that culture change requires miraculous conversion — rather like God’s gift to the Hebrew people in the form of His direct revelation — rather than one country’s [or multitudinous countries] advanced culture’s influence over a stone-age culture.
Mind you, I have no problem with entering a country and engaging in battle to root out the evil terrorists lurking there.
But that’s as far as it should go.
So I’m far more detached and disinterested in any attempt at furthering culture change, and I think most Americans of my generation and younger are the same way. I’m certainly not an isolationist — happy for Americans to fight where it is needed to protect Americans and to engage in limited protection of our solid committed allies. But not willing or interested at all in shedding American soldiers’ blood under the delusion that doing so will “country build” or whatever else dream that Presidents have.
If people truly wish to be free, they will organize and fight for their freedom and perhaps God will bless their efforts. Or they can move to a free country. If freedom is threatened then people can fight against that threat — and again, perhaps God will bless those efforts. But radical culture shifts from stone-age primitive — far far far more primitive than what we see in some South American or African countries — to constitutional Republics don’t generally happen without massive acts of God that we can describe as “miraculous.” And it certainly won’t be because we allowed soldiers to go die for that country’s being built up.
I recognize that that’s a different attitude from some in other countries regarding American involvement and engagement.
But I do think — simply by the talks I have with other friends my age and in the Millennial generation — that that’s going to be the predominant attitude of people in America for a long time.
The key thing is to elect leaders who believe the same things. That doesn’t seem likely right off the bat, but hopefully in time . . .
Visit a Veterans Administration hospital. Talk to hospitalized veterans, if you can, but be forewarned: some of them can’t talk because of their injuries or because of their mental condition. Combat does things to servicemen and women that most of us never see. I should know, because I was a patient in one of those hospitals for the better part of one year. I’ve seen and known some of those patients, and I’ve known and seen their quiet and patient suffering…..and I’ve experienced my own, as well.
There are wars, and there are ‘wars,’ and this one in Afghanistan is one of those. Yes, we did go there with the idea that we’d eradicate Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, but did we really do that? No, we didn’t, and we won’t. The situation hasn’t changed……they’re still there, and they will always be there. That’s the nature of the country and its people. They don’t like foreigners, and they never have. They don’t want us there. It’s too bad that our leaders refuse to accept that fact.
Let me add that we have several Afghan refugee families here where I live, and all of them hate terrorism in all of its forms. Some of them are Christians, and their tales of persecution are soul-wrenching, to say the least.
Cennydd, you are entitled to speak for yourself. You are also entitled to speak for your own country to the extent that your fellow-countrymen agree with you – I will leave you to sort that out with them. But don’t pretend to speak for other countries.
[blockquote] “and I repeat: Foreigners are not welcome in Afghanistan, and since we are made to feel so unwelcome, we should not be there.” [/blockquote]
Australian soldiers have never worked on the basis that they should not be somewhere “because they are made to feel so unwelcome”. On that basis they would never fight anywhere.
[blockquote] “The place is not worth dying for.” [/blockquote]
If you want to believe that, suit yourself. It is this sort of defeatist statement that gets many Australian veterans very angry, because it denigrates the sacrifice that their mates have made, and which they are prepared to make, because in their view it is a “place worth [taking the risk of] dying for”. Or, more to the point, *people* worth taking risks for.
I know for a fact that, if you state that now to most Australian soldiers, they will look at you with loathing. Yes, they probably won’t say much, particularly because you are veteran who lost a limb in the service, but neither will they feel or show any respect for you. Nor should they.
If you don’t want your country in a war, use political means to get it out – you have a vote, you have a telephone, and you have a local political representative. But don’t suggest to the diggers that their sacrifice and that of their mates was made in vain.
[blockquote] “No military man or woman likes war, and no one hates war more than the soldier.” [/blockquote]
No, but they join up precisely in order to fight wars. They don’t join up in order to wear pretty uniforms while others fight the wars.
[blockquote] “It’s time to get out…..and stay out.” [/blockquote]
You have shown no reasoning or argument for saying so. Still, if you don’t like your country being there, then speak to your leaders. But don’t go making universal statements about other countries when you don’t have any basis for them.
[blockquote] “Visit a Veterans Administration hospital. Talk to hospitalized veterans, if you can, but be forewarned:…. I’ve seen and known some of those patients, and I’ve known and seen their quiet and patient suffering…..and I’ve experienced my own, as well.” [/blockquote]
Are you suggesting that you are the only person who has such a perspective or understanding?
[blockquote] “There are wars, and there are ‘wars,’ and this one in Afghanistan is one of those.” [/blockquote]
Why do you think that?
[blockquote] “Yes, we did go there with the idea that we’d eradicate Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, but did we really do that?” [/blockquote]
If you did, then you truly lacked the most basic understanding of Afghanistan, and about why we fight modern wars.
[blockquote] “The situation hasn’t changed……they’re still there, and they will always be there.” [/blockquote]
Just as Nazis are still in Germany (and in other countries, including yours and mine) and will always be there.
[blockquote] “That’s the nature of the country and its people.” [/blockquote]
Are you suggesting that “its people” are different to us? If so, in what way?
[blockquote] “They don’t like foreigners, and they never have.” [/blockquote]
If your soldiers go into a foreign country with that attitude, they will soon make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[blockquote] “They don’t want us there.” [/blockquote]
How fortunate that I have Cennydd to teach me what each of 30 million Afghans think.
[blockquote] “Thank you, MichaelA, for the history lesson (one with which I am familiar, BTW)” [/blockquote]
Really, then why did your post #1 give no indication that you were aware that Britain in the 19th century achieved their military objectives there? You gave the distinct impression that your knowledge of that history ended with the 1st Afghan War in 1839.