US Troop Deaths in Afghan War Under Obama Now Twice That Under Bush

This weekend marked a new milestone for the war in Afghanistan: the total number of US troops killed in the war has doubled since President Obama took office, according to icasualties.org and our US Troops in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush web counter. That means that two-thirds of the total US troop deaths have occurred in the last two years and eight months, which accounts for roughly a third of the duration of the war to date.

1728 US troops have died in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, with 1153 of those deaths having occurred since President Obama's inauguration. 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during President Bush's term in office.

We've all heard the argument before: Bush ignored Afghanistan, Obama did what he promised by escalating the war, and since more troops means more deaths, we shouldn't be surprised by the increased death rate.

Back in June, when US deaths in Afghanistan under Obama reached 1000, I wrote a piece about this argument. I'm not going to address it further here, because there are more pressing issues of concern than looking to the past.

Just weeks before US troop deaths under Obama hit 1000, the President announced his strategy for a troop drawdown in Afghanistan. In this speech, he outlined a proposal for removing 10,000 troops at the end of this summer, with 23,000 more following at the end of next summer. After that, troops will “continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

What many Americans inferred from this passage was that all US troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014. This is quite understandable, and was perhaps the intention of the passage. To say that, by 2014, “the transition will be complete” and “the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security” seems to suggest little or no role for the US military.

Unfortunately, this inference is invalid. The key statement here is that “our mission will change from combat to support.” It is this transition that will be completed by 2014 and not the transition out of Afghanistan. That means that there is still no deadline for the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Furthermore, if the Pentagon gets its way, it will be a long time before our military leaves Afghanistan. In August, the Telegraph reported that the Pentagon was in negotiations with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. Just to give you a little context: there were 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan in 2007. So, a drawdown to 25,000 troops by 2014 would merely be a return to 2007 troop levels. Funny thing that a support mission would require just as many troops as a combat mission!

But perhaps you're thinking that the support troops will have a different role than the combat troops.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had something to say about that. When asked what the difference is between combat and non-combat troops, Gates said that non-combat troops have a “combat capability” and will engage in “targeted counterterrorism operations.” Which prompts the question: how, again, are non-combat troops different than combat troops?

In 2007, 111 US troops died in Afghanistan. Extrapolating from this data, if the US leaves 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan from 2015, the beginning of the support mission, until at least 2024, we may lose over a thousand troops under the guise of a support mission.

This is unacceptable. A recent CBS poll indicates that two-thirds of Americans support ending the war in Afghanistan within the next two years. If Americans knew that the war isn't coming to an end in 2014, if they knew how insufficient the proposed US withdrawal really is, I think that they'd be angry. I think they'd be angry enough to do something.

That's why we created a new site, countdowntodrawdown.org. Here, we plan to track the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to educate Americans about the lack of a timetable for full withdrawal, and to mobilize Americans to demand an end to this war. You'll find a counter tracking the number of US troops still in Afghanistan, 10 facts about the US withdrawal, and a petition to President Obama.

Mark this grim milestone in the war by sharing this information with your friends and neighbors. With the Occupy protest movement gaining steam, and demands for ending the wars receiving more attention than they have in a while, this is the moment to make sure people know the reality of the situation we face so they can fight even harder and more effectively against it.

As Occupy Wall Street Marks One Month Anniversary, Movement Revises Mission, Still Lacks Exit Strategy

NEW YORK—America heaved a collective groan today as the mercurial Occupy Wall Street movement revised its mission for the fifth time in as many weeks while continuing to avoid the issue of the occupation's end game.

In a consensus decision reached during last night's General Assembly, Occupy Wall Street protesters determined to hold a press conference this morning in order to “clear up some misunderstandings concerning the mission and goals” of the occupation, according to the press release.

Standing atop the stone staircase located at the west end of the newly christened Liberty Park, otherwise known as Zuccatti Park, Natasha Gary, a member of Occupy Wall Street's media working group, addressed reporters through the people's mic, a system of human amplification that involves the echoing of a speaker's statements by the surrounding crowd. After a resounding round of “mic check!” resonated through the audience, Gary stated that “the mission of Occupy Wall Street is very simple: to eliminate the influence of corporations in our government.”

She denied that this signaled a shift in strategy—only a clarification.

Previously, individuals within the movement have described a wide range of goals for the occupation, including ending corporate hegemony, making the corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, and addressing economic inequality.

When asked how the occupation plans to combat corporate domination of our political and economic systems, Occupy Wall Street organizer Liam Weeks replied, “we're not ready to make that announcement yet. We're currently researching alternatives and considering various paths in informal conversation as well as in our nightly general assemblies. But it should be quite clear to America what the immediate path ahead is for this occupation.”

But many Americans were left even more confused and frustrated than they were before the address.

“I just don't understand what corporate greed, student loans, economic injustice and the wars have to do with each other,” said Tammy Kerr, a tourist from Tulsa, Oklahoma. “And I surely don't get how they're related to the influence of corporations in our government.”

“Shouldn't they have come up with a strategy with particular, concrete goals before they took over the park?” asked Lou Chang, a truck driver from Flushing. “It's like they jumped into this occupation without thinking it through, and now they're stuck there with no idea how to get out.”

“These Occupy Wall Street people revise their mission every other day,” said Rick Tanner, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. “What they're trying to do is cover up the fact that they really don't have a mission. They don't know what they're doing out there. Meanwhile, they're wasting an egregious amount of tax payer money every day they continue this aimless occupation.” Tanner estimates that the total tax payer bill for one week of the occupation, including police overtime, orange netting, paddy wagons, pepper spray and plastic handcuffs, “runs into the hundreds of millions.”

Furthermore, as Tanner points out, “the protesters have no plan for ending their protest and no strategy for leaving the park.” Once the protesters do leave the park, “a massive clean-up is going to be required. We're looking at a long-term commitment here for the city's sanitation department. Ten years, maybe more.” Tanner estimates that the total cost of the occupation, as well as the hundreds of other occupations across the nation, could add up to “five to ten trillion dollars.”

Human rights groups and local activists are also concerned about the repercussions of an indefinitely long occupation of Wall Street.

“Occupations like this tend to leave behind dangerous artifacts that often lead to the injury or death of members of the native population long after the occupation ends,” said Deborah Barnum-Devois, Director of Freedom Not Bongos. “We expect local residents to stumble upon crochet needles and other hazardous arts and crafts material for decades to come.”

“I used to walk through this park everyday on my way to work,” said Goldman Saks investment banker Jonathan Meyer. “Now, I have to walk half a block out of my way because the walkways in the park are packed with the occupation's equipment.” Meyer paused a moment to shake his head solemnly before adding, “it's been really hard on me, mentally. I had to jet down to Saint Maarten last weekend to recenter myself. I may have to do the same this weekend.”

“Injustice is being done here,” Meyer proclaimed, gesturing toward the park. “I hope America wakes up to the human cost of this occupation.”

Meanwhile, some experts, such as Franklin Silversmith, a sociologist at Columbia University, are concerned that the occupation could make more young people turn to banking as a career, ultimately leading to a greater influence of Wall Street over America's foreign and domestic policy—not less.

“Young people who are growing up in areas under occupation and who are being subjected to such cruelty as incessant folk music and direct democracy, like the children of Manhattan's financial district, may turn to banking as a means of retribution,” explained Professor Silversmith. “For instance, banking would give them the opportunity to secure all public and private lands in the hands of the banks, thus effectively denying the right to assembly.”

But demands, exit strategies, and human rights aren't the only issues connected with this occupation.

“What we should be asking is, 'why do these protesters want to occupy this particular park?'” said Heritage Foundation analyst Phil DeLongo. “Zuccotti park is in a prime location in the middle of the financial center of the world, where a one bedroom apartment goes for $2,500 plus a month. It's close to the water front, there's easy access to pretty much every subway line plus the Path, and it's within walking distance of not only Wall Street but City Hall, Folly Square and Chinatown. There's a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Duane Reade, all within reach. Plus, it's pigeon-free, which in and of itself makes it a very valuable outdoor space, New York City-wise.”

But the natural resources and strategic importance of the space aren't the only sources of potential profit, explained DeLongo. “Who got the contract to clean the park for the occupation? Who is handling their food services? And who is manufacturing and selling them their tarps, their cardboard, their markers, and their drums?”

“Someone is profiting from this occupation. What we need to find out is who.”

Asked whether there were any leads, DeLongo admitted that, while he had no evidence to draw a justified conclusion, “it's got to be George Soros.”

“And if it's not Soros, it's definitely [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”

Soros nor Ahmadinejad could be reached for comment.