In Afghan War, 73% of US Troop Deaths Occurred Under Obama

Yesterday was the 12th anniversary of that terrible and terrifying day when 19 Muslims decided to show America the fundamentals of Islam. Their action was the unofficial launch of the Afghanistan War, which is a larger part of the War on Terror and which we are still fighting both overseas and in our own backyard.

The majority of that nearly 12-year war was fought during the presidency of George W. Bush, who, with the approval of Congress, the endorsement of dozens of other nations, and the partnership of Great Britain, officially responded to the September 11 attacks a month later. Since October 7, 2001, that war has continued.

It was a war that Barack Obama, then-candidate for president, referred to as “the good war,” in contrast with what he thought of the Iraq War, another of America and Britain’s responses to 9-11.

The “good war,” which I happily admit I supported at the time and in the years following, has resulted in the death of 2,144 American military personnel. (I’m surprised, as a side note, that that number is so small compared to past wars, given the media criticism of the venture).

But what’s interesting is when those deaths occurred. It was reported yesterday by CNSNews.com that 73 percent of US casualties of that war have occurred while Barack Obama has been President. This does not necessarily say anything negative about Obama’s leadership as Commander in Chief, but it certainly would if Obama were a Republican. It would have been the news media’s delight to report such news. Now they obfuscate.

And while our anti-war president wishes to get us embroiled in another war—so eager is he, in fact, that he went on national television the other night to beg the American people to agree with him, which served no purpose other than to try to be liked—it is refreshing to see some liberals oppose any US intervention into Syria.

Of course, if Congress puts the war proposal up to a vote and it gets struck down (it would), and Obama then decides to act unilaterally (he probably would, as he has indicated), you know those liberals will breathe a sigh of relief, for they will once again have reason to go back to demonizing Republicans for the impeachment to distract themselves (the liberals) from having to disagree with Obama. In effect, our probable intervention in Syria be pushed by those pretending to oppose it.

More importantly, intervention would inevitably lead to troops on the ground, despite the Obama administration’s promises to the contrary (honestly, people, how many more times are you going to take the man at his word?), and therefore more American deaths than Syria’s president has caused—right now tallied at zero.

I’ll place appropriate blame on President Obama if and when that happens, but an equal amount of blame will be placed upon the American populace, who so naïvely believed in pacifism that it was capable of being duped into twice electing the man whom, they thought, was one of them.