Militants killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban's growing strength.
Please, without going into the reasons for statistical changes in attacks (more Western and Afghan troops acting more aggressively, lack of Pakistani help inside Pakistan, al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan), the article's own statistics call into question their lead paragraph:
The AP count found that some 580 people died in insurgent violence in June, including around 440 militants, 34 civilians and 44 Afghan security forces. More than 2,100 people have died in violence this year, according to the AP count, which is based on figures from Afghan, U.S. and NATO officials.
So, About 90 Coalition and Afghan security forces were killed in June and five times that many enemy were killed. Plus 34 civilians. Whoa, how do we manage to stave off defeat with tactical reverses like that?
And in all of last year, 8,000 died (the vast majority enemy fighters) while half way through this year we are at 2,100 casualties. Again, how do we hold off such "grim milestone" numbers without running for home?
This could have been a good article. It actually addressed reasons for changes in Afghanistan. The trouble came when the article leapt from the facts to the we're (they're?) doomed conclusion that shaped the article and required the author to ignore the very facts reported.
If the enemy is more active, it is in the form of being actively killed by our forces.
