Meanwhile, Back In Afghanistan ...

... the rate of violence has been skyrocketing - but all of us who have been really paying attention to reality already knew this:

While U.S. hostile fire fatalities in Iraq last month dropped to their lowest level since December, the news has been far grimmer coming out of Afghanistan. In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.

14 Americans were killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan last month (equal to the same number killed in June 2006). The deadliest month of combat in Afghanistan for U.S. troops was in June 2005 when 25 died--16 in a single helicopter shoot-down.

While 14 hostile fire fatalities may not seem significant when compared to the fighting in Iraq, there are two facts that we must take into consideration:

1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire--by far.

99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007. The previous 12-month high was 70--between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.

2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.

One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy. This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.

While hostile fire casualty rates in Iraq have been higher than .04 percent in about half of all months since the invasion, this shows us one fact that cannot be overlooked: The violence in Afghanistan only seems minimal to Americans because there are a mere 33,000 troops there. But the rate of violence there is clearly comparable to that in Iraq--where 155,000 troops are now serving. For those 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, for the first time now, life has become more dangerous than in Iraq.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq is clearly much lower now than it was last summer. But while conservative pundits and Bush Republicans are patting themselves on the back for the ebbing violence (relatively speaking, of course), these idiots have managed to give away the game in Afghanistan. Iraq is--and always has been--a distraction from the Real Global War on Terror, and now those chickens are coming home to roost. We can see it in the casualty rates. Osama bin Laden is still free and Ayman al-Zawahiri is too. Extremism is flourishing in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it's something that represents a much greater threat to the U.S. than does anything in Iraq. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have said so themselves. After such a deadly year, that should be plain for anyone to see.

With regards to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the relative trend is pretty much the same:

Total casualties (deaths; as of May 6, 2008): 83

2002: 4
2003: 2
2004: 1
2005: 1
2006: 36 (Year when Harper and his Harpies began heading our government)
2007: 30
2008: 7 (so far, as of May 6, 2008)

Canada's war indeed - with more on the way.

Quagmire, anyone?

**********

Meanwhile ...

... and south of the border as well ...

Hip, hip hooray.