World

DoD Op Enduring Freedom Casualty update as of 10am 24 Jul 2009

by albertacowpoke | July 25, 2009 at 05:17 am

148 views | 34 Recommendations | 8 comments

U.S Casualties have increased again during this past week. Here is the update of total casualties as of 10 am 24 Jul 2009. The number of Deaths has now risen to 677, which is an increase of 10 over the previous week.

OEF U.S. Military Casualties Total Deaths KIA Non-Hostile WIA RTD ** WIA Not RTD **
In and Around Afghanistan***         677    506       171            1,196                 2,107
Other Locations****                         68        3         65                                             1
OEF U.S. DoD Civilian
Casualties    1        1

Worldwide Total 746 510 236 1,196 2,108

As of Saturday, July 25, 2009, at least 677 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 at 10 a.m. EDT.

Of those, the military reports 506were killed by hostile action.

Outside the Afghan region, the Defense Department reports 68 more members of the U.S. military died in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, three were the result of hostile action. The military lists these other locations as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba; Djibouti; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Jordan; Kenya; Kyrgyzstan; Philippines; Seychelles; Sudan; Tajikistan; Turkey; and Yemen.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

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

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Barry Artiste

at 05:35 on July 25th, 2009

Friggin tragic Karl, I think we should pull out, if the locals wont help.

albertacowpoke

at 05:38 on July 25th, 2009

I agree with you Barry, it.s going nowhere. These are only U.S. casualties. I want to thank you for the use of that map too.

158

at 09:35 on July 25th, 2009

The problem ss they wan to win without making the effort needed to win.

In 2012 i is likely an anti Afghan war canduidate will run against Obama for expanding this war.

albertacowpoke

at 09:41 on July 25th, 2009

That's certainly a possibility 158. In all fairness to the President that was part of his election platform. I think, if I recall properly, this was John McCain's approach too.

You have the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan rising to 68,000, Iraq is still at 130,000 and an increase of some 22,000 for the army has been approved.

People need to realize, that even though the President is the Commander in Chief, nothing happens without funding from Congress. This is the case now, as it was under Bush.

Roy C

at 10:12 on July 25th, 2009

Good report and comments. What to do?

albertacowpoke

at 10:25 on July 25th, 2009

This is a difficult problem. Because you're damned if you and damned if you don't. This problem needs the involvement of all in the region. Personally I don.t think Pakistan and NATO under present restrictions can solve this problem.

For one thing Pakistan's government is too fragile and a lot of NATO members have too many restrictions placed on them constitutionally to fully engage. An effective engagement by the UN may help, but unfortunately individual members have too many self-interests.

Roy C

at 10:32 on July 25th, 2009

Yes, about the double bind there. Good point about self-interest. The politicians also make parochial self-interest sound like a form of morality.

Tragedy is the outcome when you really can't help change things. Without Pakistani nukes there, I would say to get out.

Yes, the Germans and even the Japanese need to fully participate. Lots of people forget about the nukes or even Taliban society being a base to house Al Qada's next training and planning cycle..