World

DoD Op Enduring Freedom Casualty update as of 10am 16 Oct 2009

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | October 17, 2009 at 04:01 am

262 views | 40 Recommendations | 7 comments

With wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama is at a crossroads in Afghanistan. His senior general in Afghanistan has recommended an additional 40,000 troops or face failure.

Amidst the bloodshed of this war, President Obama and his NSC are working on a new strategy for Afghanistan. Some have accused the President of being indecisive, while others feel that this evaluation is needed to come up with the right strategy.

Afghanistan could very well become the defining factor of the Obama's Presidency.

U.S Casualties have increased again during this past week. Here is the update of total casualties as of 10 am 16 October 2009. The number of Deaths has now risen to 796, which is an increase of 4 over the previous week. This year has been the bloodiest in Afghanistan since Op Enduring Freedom started in 2001 The longer a decision on Afghanistan is delayed, Obama will feel the pressure to act and keep the interest of the U.S. and the troops in the field in the forefront.

OEF U.S. Military Casualties Total Deaths KIA Non-Hostile WIA RTD ** WIA Not RTD

In and Around Afghanistan 796 614 182 1,688 2,613

Other Locations**** 72 5 67 1
OEF U.S. DoD Civilian Casualties 1 1

Worldwide Total 869 620 249 1,688 2,614

As of Saturday, October 16th, 2009, at least 796 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. The department last updated its figures Friday October 16th 10:00 AM EDT.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

A. Tran

at 06:00 on October 17th, 2009

Thanks Abc for your continual updates on the casualty. Afghanistan is far more complex than Iraq, given its proximity to Pakistan where the Taliban can disappear at will. The US and allies can not pursue any activity inside Pakistan.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:13 on October 17th, 2009

Agreed on more complex than Iraq.

158

at 09:27 on October 17th, 2009

There is always this problem when politics dictate battlefield tactics.

The US and NATO should decide to commit whatever it takes to win quickly or leave this year.

A short all out war is cheaper in money and lives than a long half --- war run by politicians.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 09:42 on October 17th, 2009

While I agree with your premise 158, the pertinent question has to be what the aim is. From the aim the Strategy should follow. Until those are defined, NATO and in particular the U.S are spinning their wheels.

Having said that, I can't and won't believe that their is no goal or Strategy in the Pentagon. This is, without a doubt, very political.

158

at 10:06 on October 17th, 2009

When young men are being shot and blown up the strategy should be to have as few killed as possible. That can be done by using enough force to win quickly or leave. Half measures result in more deaths.

Politicians should decide whether to go to war and set the goal, then give the generals all they need to get it done with minimum casualties.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 10:26 on October 17th, 2009

You have my blessing on that.

Ninja Mayhem

at 11:46 on October 17th, 2009

What amazes at times is if everyone is against terror than who supports terror? One Taliban can't be so potent without external support. Also where are the "supply-lines" of food, weapons, medicines? Maybe the strategy needs to be revisited before indiscriminate bombings which will only create more terrorists.

Pakistan is keen on flushing the Swat Valley and adjoining areas as it can grind its axe against the Balochs who have been asking for their rights. The Baloch Movement has seen bloody encounters, killing of top leaders and human rights violations by Pakistan. How is Pakistan going to fix the borders if the internal affairs are not set right? In face of such issues how can the Western forces (US-UK led NATO forces) be sure that Pakistan can commit to "help"?

The Baloch Movement: http://www.balochhomeland.com/

US is also the home to the Government of Balochistan in Exile: http://www.bso-na.org/Government_of_Balochistan_in_exile.html

The Charter of the BSO-NA reads:

Baloch Society Of North America (BSO_NA) is Non-Profit Organization, working to unite and Organize all Baloch in North America, to expose the Occupation of our land (Balochistan) and exploitations of our resources by Pakistani and Iranian Governments, and to bring their Human Rights Violations in Balochistan into the world’s Notice.

So the question remains who is the friend and who is the enemy?