It Could Be Worse

We suffered 496 dead in Afghanistan in 2010. This is actually less than what I figured we could expect based on 2009 casualty rates. I figured that with an average of 83,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010, suffering a 2009 casualty rate of 6.9 troops per 1,000 troops, we could suffer 573 dead in 2010. Strategypage has a useful post on why our casualty rates are lower than in Vietnam or World War II.

Note that the Strategypage piece says we suffered 499 casualties last year. They appear to have made a common mistake in taking statistics for Operation Enduring Freedom--which is actually much broader than Afghanistan--instead of filtering for Afghanistan only. The small difference in no way affects their analysis, but if you are wondering why there is a difference, that's probably why.

Our actual casualty rate for 2010 was just under 6.0 per 1,000 troops. Assuming 100,000 troops in the theater for the entire year being just as aggressive and other factors constant, our toll this year would be 600. New equipment and tactics could reduce the toll, as it apparently did last year from what I expected. Breaking the enemy during this year could also lower our casualties as ours did after breaking the enemy in Iraq during the surge offensive.

But do remember that there are a number of reasons why our casualties are going up over the years, and none of them stem from a "resurgent" Taliban, as the press corps is prone to concluding.

We're winning. And take a bit of consolation that the price we are paying isn't as high as it could be.