Losses of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan increased by one third

US casualties in Afghanistan rose by about a third in 12 months due to an increase in the intensity of military operations, reports TASS message of the newspaper The Wall Street Journal.

According to a newspaper referring to a report presented by the Trump administration in Congress, “during 12 months through November 2017, including US losses in Afghanistan, were 141 people: 14 soldiers were killed in battles and 127 were injured.”

The publication notes that this total has "increased by 35% compared to the previous reporting period", which ended in November of the 2016 year.

The main reason for the increase in losses is the increase in the intensity of the operations that the Americans are conducting in Afghanistan. At the same time, Washington has so far failed to significantly improve the security situation in the country.

Recall, the US military has been fighting in Afghanistan since October 2001 of the year, which, according to Pentagon’s estimates, has already cost approximately $ 680 billion. During this prolonged campaign, 2,35 thousand soldiers were killed and over 90 thousand more injured.

Comments

[Evil543]

And about civilian casualties are silent? And how much and what did they build there during this time? And how much did poppy plantations grow?

[Andrey K]

Quote: Evil543

And about civilian casualties are silent? And how much and what did they build there during this time? And how much did poppy plantations grow?

Breaking does not build. Built "shuravi". Losses in battles with spirits were higher. The explanation is simple - the contingent of Soviet troops clearly fulfilled the task. Dushmanov was driven in such a way that they could not stick their nose out.
Mattresses are called "an increase in the intensity of military operations," the very fact of their warriors leaving the perimeter of bases. As soon as they stuck out their nose, they immediately got a splash on it.
As for losses among the civilian population: colleague, they are their own population, within the United States, for animals. At an expense with or without, they let him in. What do you want in relation to the occupied countries.

[vlad66]

And do not feel sorry for them from the word at all, they were not called there, they themselves ran into it.

[tchoni]

And why should they improve something there? Why lose such a great training ground?

[Evil543]

Then let them not squeak about losses, their targets are able to fight back.

[tchoni]

Somehow, these targets are sluggishly firing back ...

[Vasyan1971]

Direct dependence - drug trafficking increases = losses increase. On poppy plantations are torn beyond measure, poor thing ..

[Evil543]

Or when a sample is removed, an overdose happens?

[Mountain shooter]

But Russia does not help the Taliban with either weapons or instructors.
And she could - throw drones "homemade", and assembly instructions. Noiseless mortars ("Gnome", it seems), thermobaric flamethrowers of the "Bur" type (a smart thing, the range of area targets is more than a kilometer). Well and MANPADS. As without them ...

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

But Russia does not help the Taliban with either weapons or instructors.
And she could - throw drones "homemade", and assembly instructions. Noiseless mortars ("Gnome", it seems), thermobaric flamethrowers of the "Bur" type (a smart thing, the range of area targets is more than a kilometer). Well and MANPADS. As without them ...

80's exactly the opposite? America brought up the Taliban, nourished it, set us against us, and now itself does not know what to do with them. Ask veterans of the American intelligence services - they don’t see the familiar beards?

And who is this with us? Rabbani? 85 year? His fingers stick together from our blood ....

Well, the classic of the genre - Brzezinski's sin is not recognizable. But who is there with a beard? Is America’s enemy No. 1, the great road builder in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden himself?


Dear Americans! YOURSELF BORN-FEEDED - YOURSELF AND HAW! Hello to Reagan and Brzezinski!

[Uncle lee]

2,35 thousand troops were killed, and more than 20 thousand were injured.

drug trafficking requires human sacrifice!

[bald]

Losses are about nothing, the intensity of operations has increased and, accordingly, losses !!! - Laughter and nothing more. And they really fight there on their own? !!!

[Vladivostok1969]

This article takes into account the losses of US military personnel. Moreover, over the past year, about 4000 fighters from private military companies were sent to Afghanistan. I am sure that the losses among PMC employees are not less than specified in the article

[Kent0001]

Che, they sometimes climbed out of the perimeter of the bases and immediately scooped them up. It’s not for you to protect the drug business, it will be cooler further, but if they would also have fought really .. but this is not about them. Americans can only fight with carpet bombings.

[Baloo]

US combat losses in Afghanistan rise by about a third

Good but not enough. Let them chew their popcorn at home.

[rotmistr60]

There is great doubt about the increase in operations by the Americans. As everywhere they try to fight with the wrong hands and do not substitute their own. Of the 141 dead, only 14 in the battles themselves admit it. And the rest from terrorist attacks and drug cases?

[Alex-a832]

The "intensity" of operations has nothing to do with it. Especially when reducing the Amer contingent, what intensity can we talk about? After all, nothing has changed qualitatively. And this is not shown to us by the figures for losses in Amer's PMCs. Rather, the barmalei, who were kicked out of Syria by Russian and Syrian forces, fled to Afghanistan, where they joined the Taliban. In Afghanistan, the alignment of the warring parties is changing qualitatively and quantitatively. The further development of the situation will depend only on the decision of the United States, since the Afghan government forces trained by the defense workers are not suitable for the role of good warriors, and the level of ideological motivation is lower than the plinth. While maintaining the current contingent, losses in the US Armed Forces and PMCs will increase, as will the loss of government troops. The squeezing of barmalei from Syria continues, and the Taliban will grow at their expense. The number of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in Afghanistan will increase. If the United States increases its contingent, including PMCs, then they can maintain their positions, drug plantations and drug trafficking, but with significant losses and costs. But if they do not change the numerical and qualitative composition of the contingent, then they will soon have to shed their heads proudly and their wet pants out of Afghanistan along with the puppet government.

[Strashila]

The Javelins are no longer helping ... given to Ukraine

[Dormidont]

A trifle, but nice

[Slovak]

Good news. No need to stop there. Send the matasniks home in barrels.