Updated US Gov't Reports on Afghanistan

[The Bread Guy]

Note the use of CNN as "the" list of ISAF casualty data (compared to using icasualties.org in the past), and the idea of war bonds for IRQ/AFG war (closing with the fact that there would be problems using the WW2 model now).

War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for Congress (.pdf) - Summary:

With a deteriorating security situation and no comprehensive political outcome yet in sight, most observers view the war in Afghanistan as open-ended. By early 2009, a growing number of Members of Congress, Administration officials, and outside experts had concluded that the effort--often called "America's other war"--required greater national attention. For the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA), the war is both a struggle for survival and an effort to establish sustainable security and stability. For the United States, the war in Afghanistan concerns the security of Afghanistan and the region, including denying safe haven to terrorists and helping ensure a stable regional security balance. For regional states, including India and Russia as well as Afghanistan's neighbors Pakistan and Iran, the war may have a powerful impact on the future balance of power and influence in the region. For individual members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the war may be about defeating terrorist networks, ensuring regional stability, proving themselves as contributing NATO members, and/or demonstrating NATO's relevance in the 21st century. Since 2001, the character of the war in Afghanistan has evolved from a violent struggle against al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to a multi-faceted counterinsurgency (COIN) effort. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in order to end the ability of the Taliban regime to provide safe haven to al Qaeda and to put a stop to al Qaeda's use of the territory of Afghanistan as a base of operations for terrorist activities. In that first phase, U.S. and coalition forces, working with Afghan opposition forces, quickly removed the Taliban regime. After the fall of the Taliban, the character of the war shifted to a multifaceted COIN effort aimed at smothering the diffuse insurgency by shoring up GIRoA efforts to provide security, governance, and economic development. The three areas are generally viewed as interdependent and mutually-reinforcing--security is a prerequisite for some governance and development efforts, and longer-term, sustainable security requires both functional governance and economic opportunity. As one pillar of the COIN campaign in Afghanistan, the Afghan and international military effort aims broadly at defeating the remnants of the Taliban and other insurgents, securing the population, and helping extend the reach of the Afghan government. The international military effort includes both the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to which the United States contributes troops, and the separate U.S.-led OEF mission. In his December 3, 2009, speech President Obama identified several objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan: (1) disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda; (2) deny al Qaeda a safe haven; (3) reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government; and (4) strengthen the capacity of the Afghan security forces and government to better protect and serve population centers. To accomplish this, President Obama ordered the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to the region, which will bring the U.S. total to almost 100,000 troops. This deployment will be staged over several months, with the full additional complement being in-country by the end of the summer 2010. Noting that Afghan operations continue to be an international effort, President Obama expressed confidence that some of 42 coalition allies will also be increasing their contributions. NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen echoed this confidence, stating that he expects NATO allies to contribute at least an additional 5,000 troops in 2010. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians (.pdf) - Summary:

This report collects statistics from a variety of sources on casualties sustained during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which began on October 7, 2001, and is ongoing. OEF actions take place primarily in Afghanistan; however, OEF casualties also includes American casualties in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Yemen. Casualty data of U.S. military forces are compiled by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), as tallied from the agency's press releases. Also included are statistics on those wounded but not killed. Statistics may be revised as circumstances are investigated and as records are processed through the U.S. military's casualty system. More frequent updates are available at DOD's website at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ under "Casualty Update." A detailed casualty summary of U.S. military forces that includes data on deaths by cause, as well as statistics on soldiers wounded in action, is available at the following DOD website: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm. NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) does not post casualty statistics of the military forces of partner countries on the ISAF website at http://www.isaf.nato.int/. ISAF press releases state that it is ISAF policy to defer to the relevant national authorities to provide notice of any fatality. For this reason, this report uses fatality data of coalition forces as compiled by CNN.com and posted online at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/index.html. Casualty data of Afghan civilians are reported quarterly by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA). Deaths of Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army personnel are reported by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in the quarterly reports to Congress that are required as part of P.L. 110-181. Because the estimates of Afghan casualties contained in this report are based on varying time periods and have been created using different methodologies, readers should exercise caution when using them and should look to them as guideposts rather than as statements of fact. This report will be updated as needed.

War Bonds in the Second World War: A Model for a New Iraq/Afghanistan War Bond? (.pdf) - Summary:

The high costs of fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have rekindled congressional interest in the concept of the sale of a Treasury security to help finance these war costs. In the 111th Congress, three bills have been introduced that would permit the issuance of a war bond: S. 2846, H.R. 4315, and H.R. 4385. Although these bills are silent on any relationship between the proposed "war bonds" and World War II-era war bonds, the question has been raised whether or not the issuance of war bonds during the Second World War serves as a good model for a new "war bond." During the Second World War, war bonds were sold to help finance the cost of national defense. War bonds were simply a new name for already existing U.S. savings bonds. War bonds were aggressively marketed through well organized campaigns, which appealed to citizens' sense of patriotism. Their primary purpose was to reduce consumer spending in order to lessen inflationary pressures and black market activity. Also, campaigns to sell war bonds were intended to raise morale by creating a sense of participation in the war effort. The sale of war bonds did reduce consumer spending. Current economic and financial conditions differ from those of the early 1940s. During the Second World War, high inflation and over-employment prevailed. The federal government imposed price and wage controls, production controls, rationing, controls on the level of interest rates on Treasury securities, and regulations on installment loans. As mentioned previously, war bonds were marketed primarily to reduce consumer spending. Today, despite concern about a personal savings rate below historical norms, most federal officials are more concerned about raising consumer spending, because of high unemployment and inadequate aggregate demand. To date, no savings bond or any other Treasury security issue has ever had its funds earmarked for any specific purpose; rather, all funds raised have been placed in the general fund. In summary, the prior war bonds program in the Second World War is a problematic model for Iraq/Afghanistan "war bonds." This report will not be updated.

- edited to correct links -