Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold

I am interested to learn more - could you point me in the direction to help me discover more about President Obama setting up these rules please?

 

Sure. Start with Rules of Engagement Afghanistan. I'm sure your search engine will find plenty.

Here's one example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/us-troops-battle-taliban-afghan-rules/

Dozens of U.S. soldiers who spoke to The Washington Times during a recent visit to southern Afghanistan said these rules sometimes make a perilous mission even more difficult and dangerous.

Many times, the soldiers said, insurgents have escaped because U.S. forces are enforcing the rules. Meanwhile, they say, the toll of U.S. dead and injured is mounting.


No night or surprise searches.
• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.
• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.



Our people are fighting with one hand tied behind their back by their commander in chief. Some of them are dying because of it. Since he's setting them up to be needlessly killed or wounded, I'd rather see them home immediately.

 

They were established under Gen. McCrystal and Obama.

 

First let me clarify that the 5x deaths is not in dispute - that I agree is accurate. The dispute is over
a. whether your claim of only 40% increase in troops is accurate
b. whether the increase in deaths has reasonably follows from the increase in troops

First let me note something about your % increase of 500%. This is misleading. Technically a 5x increase is not a 500% increase but instead a 400% increase. To understand this more easily, think about a 2x price increase (say, $100 to $200). The new price is 200% of the old price (take the $100 and multiply by 200%) but in terms of increase, its only a 100% increase (take the $100, multiply by 100% and add that value to the original $100). It would be more accurate to say that the current fatality rate is at 500% of the previous level, not an 500% increase. Same for my numbers in my previous post.

Regarding the 40% increase:
If you are using the 30k increase and the 100k current to reach your 40% conclusion, you are missing some key data and assuming several things that the article does *not* say. I am guessing you are thinking that Obama increased the troop levels from 70k to 100k. If this were accurate, then yeah, that gives a 43% increase (or 143% of the old level). However, this is not an accurate assumption. First, the report you cite gives only limited information. It mentions a 30k increase but doesn't say from what level. It also neglects to mention other increases since the initial one.

In fact, the 30k increase your article mentions was only the first increase. And, what your article doesn't mention is that the troop level before the 30k increase (and also the highest level of troops in Afghanistan under Bush) was around 30k (see here and here). That means that the Obama initially increased the troop levels by 100% (or raised it to 200% of the *highest* level under Bush). There was an additional increase of troops since then which will brings the total as of now to around 100k (the figure your article mentions). So in all, Obama will increase the total troop levels by nearly 3.3x or 230% of the *highest* troop level under Bush).

Additionally, what you fail to take into account is that the article is comparing increase in *average* deaths. You however, are only accounting for an increase in troops from the *highest* point during Bush. But the 30k troops under Bush was only true during his last year, not over the course of the war. What should be done to make sure you are comparing apples to apples is to compare the average troop level under Obama to the average troop level under Bush.

According to the Congressional Research service, the average troops under Bush was around 17k. This is compared to an average troop deployment under Obama of around 70k (if someone can find a year by year figures of troops since 2009 I would appreciate it - till then I give a conservative estimate based on the graphs I can find). This gives an increase of average troop deployment under Obama as being about 4x that under Bush (a 300% increase or 400% of the average under Bush).

So, the most accurate comparison is to say that the average troop level under Obama is 4x of the average troop deployment under Bush and that the average fatalities under Obama is 5x that under Bush. So, as you can see, the increase in average fatalities under Obama is roughly comparable to the increase in average troop deployed under Obama. Nothing unreasonable about that.

 

This is from late 2009. How long did these remain in effect (source please)?

 

General Petreaus toughened them in some respects, modified them in others. But his general policies remained the same. As far as I can tell, they are still in effect.

 

Afghanistan rules of engagement implemented by McChrystal in 2009, and modified by Petraeus in 2010, are classified; and remain in effect until rescinded or further modified (about which no information is available at this time, so the assumption is that they're currently still in effect). All you can find is the general gist.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...etraeus-rules-of-engagement-make-troops-safer

 

True. But we do get bits and pieces of what the ROEs are. We know that, if they changed, it wasn't by much unless this "vow" meant nothing:

http://www.rferl.org/content/Petraeus_To_Brief_NATO_Before_Heading_To_Afghanistan/2087625.html

And we get hints they still place our troops in great danger : and are substantially unchanged:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/...us-soldiers-free-insurgents-caught-red-handed

 

Not arguing either of those points. Especially the second.

 

And another confirming this:

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/04/petraeus-leaves-intact-highly-restrictive-afghanistan-roe/

At the same time, it doesn't seem to be increasing the relative fatality rate significantly.

 

Even one is too many.

 

If the goal and effect is to reduce civilian casualties then the cost is worth it IMO. Particulary if the mission is anti-insurgency.

Additionally, ROEs with any restrictions *always* result in additional casualties. So if one is too many then this implies there should be no restrictions in the ROE. This doesn't seem a reasonable standard. A more reasonable standard would be to ROEs that don't result in unnecessary casualties. But, of course, who gets to determine what constitutes an unnecessary casualty?

 

You tell that to a dead soldier's mother.

You tell her that they caught some bombmaker red handed planting a bomb and were forced to release him by ROEs and he later later set the IED that killed her son.

I 'd like to watch the reaction.

 

Which part if the ROEs are you referring to here?

 

Beyond the fact that your scenario doesn't appear to have anything to do with the ROEs, it is interesting in that it implies that the lives of US soldiers is worth more than innocent civilians from another country. It also raises the question of why you aren't for withdrawing from Afghanistan altogether is one life is too many. It seems its an extreme statement with no bearing to reality.

 

Some statements are just too stupid to respond to.:laugh:

 

Correct, and some people don't respond to questions because they don't have any viable answers. Just sayin...