News that would have been considered interesting two years ago

Last month I had a post mentioning that June 2010 had been the bloodiest month for NATO forces in Afghanistan since the war began nine years ago. Well, time marches on. I don't have the numbers for NATO as a whole in front of me, but July 2010 is now the bloodiest month of the war for American forces since the conflict began. Like last month, the rise is being attributed to the expansion of NATO's offensive operations, so it again seems probable that Afghan fatalities have been very high as well, given that expanding an offensive entails expanding the potential scope for things like this.

And at the time I'm writing this it's about 11:30 PM, Kabul time, so July still has a day left to go.

Thank God we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House now

June 2010 was the bloodiest month for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war nine years ago. There were either 101 or 81 fatalities, depending on whether you use the figures from iCasualties or official military statements, but each figure is the highest reported by its respective source since operations began in 2001. I don't have any figures in front of me for Afghan casualties, military or civilian, but given that the jump in NATO deaths is being attributed to the intensification of offensive operations in Taliban-controlled areas I'd imagine they're up as well.

I've found depressingly little comment on this news online. My memories of antiwar sentiment during the Bush era are starting to seem almost like a dream from which I've just awakened: I can vividly remember it, so vividly I could swear it was real, but there's nothing concrete I can grasp to prove it ever actually happened.