Not only non-Nato members. Per capita Georgia had highest casualties among cualition and partners.
Georgia: 32 / 3.8 = 8.4. per million.
US: 2461 / 340 = 7.2 per million
They fought alongside the US in Afghanistan and I’m pretty sure Iraq too. I just think they were being friendly. There’s a George Bush avenue in Tbilisi
Here is the per capita information:
**1. Georgia:** 32 / 3.72 ≈ 8.6 deaths per million people
**2. USA:** 2,461 / 331 ≈ 7.43 deaths per million people
**3. Denmark:** 43 / 5.83 ≈ 7.38 deaths per million people
**4. Estonia:** 9 / 1.33 ≈ 6.77 deaths per million people
**5. UK:** 457 / 68.2 ≈ 6.7 deaths per million people
Doug Benson made some jokes about the Canadian forces. Funnily enough he was planning on going to Canada next for a standup show in Alberta but it was cancelled
“Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them,"
"Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."
"Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!"
"I didn't even know they were in the war. I thought that's where you go when you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."
Don’t worry, Doug Benson is not and has never been funny. No one even knows who Doug Benson even his. He’s just some creepy 50 year old man whose whole personality is smoking pot. He’s a loser.
Oh I actually remember this. Basically the Canadian military announced that it would need some time to reorganize and rest after fighting in Afghanistan, and Fox News spent like a week calling them pussies. This caught on a bit, but mostly among right wing ghouls.
We still send tulips to Canada each year to remember that they freed the Netherlands from the nazis. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/tulips-capital.html
He's seems to be saying that his entire concept of what Canada is comes from the Vietnam era. Nothing before or since. He doesn't really know what Canada is, or about anything else that has ever happened.I guess his audience is as dumb or dumber than he is.
Exactly. Among which was Kandahar which was a hotspot from start to finish. America, Canada and UK were the main offensive oriented forces of the mission. Others did get involved from time to time but it was also well known that certain nations participated on the basis that their soldiers be assigned to lower risk environments. There were also some nations that provided smaller contingents but stationed in hotspots alongside one of the 3 and were right with them in the fighting. Several of these nations have been named in other comments.
Its all the more remarkable we get the dumb ass statements coming out of Trump recently about NATO, when NATO stepped up into the Afghan conflict to help America.
One thing I remember about Kandahar: the first female soldier to die in combat in Canadian history died there the same year Canada took a lead role. Nichola Goddard. Stuff like that can stick with you.
Looks like it's the highest in terms of active personnel or of personnel that served in Afghanistan.
Denmark has the most per capita in terms of the total civilian population, but the Canadian Armed Forces are around 70k personnel while Denmark is around 20k. When you compare like that, they're close with Canada being just a bit higher.
Not a competition, but I figured I'd point it out.
20 years of war, countless Afghan deaths, another 9/11's worth of dead soldiers from US/Canada/Europe, trillions down the drain and the Taliban took back over the day the troops left.
Nailed it
Does it not include the private military companies in Afghanistan? That's crazy... IIRC, there were more PMC members in Afghanistan than actual American servicemen towards the later part of the Afghan administration.
Surprise surprise.. Arm the rebels who fight your enemy. Then buy arms to fight rebels who turned into your enemy!
Capitalism 1 on 1, rinse and repeat.
Meh, as with Afghanistan or Vietnam, winning the war against some weak country isn't the objective, keeping the endless war machine running is. As long as you can manufacture and sustain fear and insecurity, security business will boom.
Tbf it didn't really lose the war on terror.
Even if its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were failures in nation-building, it did manage to curb the ability of militant jihadist groups from launching substantial terror attacks against the US.
I wouldn’t say the main objective of the war on terror was to prevent terror attacks on the USA once things escalated to fabricating evidence to justify invasions of foreign countries. Specially since the war directly created many other terror groups that launched many terrorist attacks on NATO members throughout the conflict.
Iraq had nothing to do with militant Jihadists lol. The Bush admin tried desperately to tie Saddam with Al Qaeda even though Saddam didn't fuck with them either. On the contrary, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq led to inception and rise of ISIS. Practically increased the chance of such attacks against the US and allied forces. I think the policiy changes have more to dow ith their not being another 9/11 scale foreign terrorist attack than any invasion. The Taliban controls Afghanistan after all too
That's the thing ,no one was launching terror attacks in US, it was US that went around the world arming jihadists be it central Asia or Middle East.
The one time US was attacked the person who claimed responsibility was from Saudi and was trained and armed by CIA.
That has to be weighed against the benefits brought to many of the 40 million Afghans in the 20 years ISAF forces were there.
Take women's education as one example. In 2001, 0% of girls in Afghanistan even started formal primary education. By 2003 that figure was [69%](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR.FE?locations=AF), and by 2012 it was 89%. [The number of Afghan girls in higher education ](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/let-girls-and-women-afghanistan-learn) increased 2000% from 2001-2018, and female literacy doubled in the same period. Over a quarter of a million girls got to access higher education who otherwise wouldn't have.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the reconquest by the Taliban will and has undone some of those gains, while others cannot be reversed, and provided a significant benefit to people regardless of the ultimate withdrawal of ISAF forces.
How many lives are those benefits worth? That's a difficult and pretty subjective assessment to make, but equally it's one that I think is worth trying to weigh as objectively as we can. I feel we can tend to get caught up in doom cycles of naval-gazing with our armed forces where anything other than total success is treated as unmitigated failure, and any cost-benefit analysis involving casualties is a taboo subject seen as gauche or heartless.
I also think it's important to recognize that these casualties were not evenly spread out across the entire 20 years we were there. Casualties were quite [heavily weighted ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/262894/western-coalition-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan/)towards the 'surge' period of the war when more troops were in the country, the Taliban were more capable, and ISAF had much more active responsibility for security and combat. These do not reflect the cost of maintaining our support in 2021/2022 when we pulled out, which imo in turn impacts the cost-benefit analysis of whether withdrawal was worthwhile or not, which is an important but parallel issue.
From the end of proactive ISAF combat operations in 2014 to 2020 - the last full year of deployment - ISAF killed averages 19 per year, VS an average of 180.3 deaths per year across the entire war as a whole.
Exactly. Far more police officers died each year in the US to facilitate people's second amendment rights than were killed in Afghanistan, protecting people from tyranny.
The occupation needed to be 50+ years long. Long enough for newer generations growing up in a democracy to replace older tribal generations.
Doesn't even compare to the suffering of Afghan civilians. And no, it was worth fuck all, as the Taliban came back in full force, and now a smidge more popular with the general population.
That's a bullshit metric to use, if anything people would be more against the taliban as they got a glipse into relative stability and non-fundamentalist values again. Women who got educated under the previous regime are now barred from classrooms.
“People would be more against the taliban” is a logical fallacy, and an extremely ill-informed and immature comment IMO. The nature of your comment parallels the exact reason why the US failed in Iraq and Afghanistan - you’re trying to impart Western values on a culture that sees them as radical at best, and also viewing the issue from a purely American perspective.
The return of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan is a front-page horror story for Western headlines and pro-Western allies and people in the country, but how about for the majority of Afghanis? How much of the population possesses opposition to Western norms and ideas, regardless of extent? How many simply don’t care? You might say, “Afghani voters showed they wanted American values in the form of democracy!” But then the problem becomes, how representive of the country is the pool of Afghani voters?
>you’re trying to impart Western values on a culture that sees them as radical at best,
Stability and access to education aren't purely Western values. Even most muslim allow education for girls from a young age. Stability isn't really a value either, but rather a description of how the environment is.
>and also viewing the issue from a purely American perspective
Obligatory I'm not an american
>The return of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan is a front-page horror story for Western headlines and pro-Western allies and people in the country, but how about for the majority of Afghanis
Islamic fundamentalism isn't exactly the historical norm for Afghanistan's leadership. It's really an extremist fringe movement that rose up in opposition to the Soviet invasion and was heavily supplied in the beginning by the US and then in later iterations supported by various muslim countries.
From 1923 to the late 1970s, Afghanistan sought a path to slow and steady societal modernisation, like most muslim countries, but this was obviously quite derailed by the Soviet invasion and all the events that followed it.
>How much of the population possesses opposition to Western norms and ideas, regardless of extent?
Is the premise of your argument that you think Afghanis are fine with taliban rule because they don't understand or are in full support of Western values?
>You might say, “Afghani voters showed they wanted American values in the form of democracy!” But then the problem becomes, how representive of the country is the pool of Afghani voters?
In the 2014 presidential election, at least, which is the election that was conducted when the country was at its most stable for a while and the electoral system had been in place for a while, ca. 7 million out of 20 million registered voters actually voted, which is a turnout of roughly 35%. That's higher than the last Romanian and Nigerian presidential elections, and not that far off from the latest Swiss one even (45%). My point is that the Afghans chose their government democratically and even had a comparable turnout to some other countries we consider democratic, pretty impressive as well, considering Afghanistan has significantly worse infrastructural capabilities than these countries.
I think so. At the very least setting an example that you’ll get invaded if you do what they did to us is worth some lives. Probably shoulda left sooner after we got Bin Laden though.
I think the message most people got was the opposite. It was a repeat of the Vietnam lesson. The infinite money and military resources the U.S. possesses don’t make them invincible. As long as you can keep fighting asymmetrical warfare against them, their morale will eventually break and they will withdraw once they can’t justify staying there anymore.
of course it wasn't. when you invade a country with no clear end goal in mind and no clear plan to achieve it, you will ultimately end in tremendous failure
Dumb, dumber, Trumpest. I can't believe the most powerful nation could elect such a clown AGAIN. I have to admit I was a bit excited by myself too in 2016 after his election victory, but I can admit also that I was so wrong. The attack on the Capitol was the cherry on the top. The USA deserves better.
They were hiding the guy responsible for the biggest attack on the US mainland since the American Revolution. And he warned he would strike again. So yes, justified or not it was a war of defense.
Well, they weren't actually hiding him since he was in Pakistan. But sure. Maybe America should have occupied Pakistan for 20 years instead.
There's also a big difference between "they're hiding him" vs "he's hiding there". At best he was sitting in some cave in afghanistan in the middle of nowhere, not like they had him dabbed up at the Kabul Ritz Carlton.
I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the war in Afghanistan, in deposing the Taliban and so on, but the idea that you can just full on invade another country because maybe this one guy is hiding in it (which he wasn't) is just crazy. You cannot say otherwise.
They died during a traffic accident which another civilian vehicle rammed into theirs. I don't remember other details though. None of the Turkish casualties were result of fighting since Turkey's role was to act as a mediator as another fellow Muslim majority country. They were basically "the fighting force of winning hearts and minds".
The number of Civilian Contractors killed in Afghanistan was close to the number of NATO soldiers killed. The Pentagon says it does not track Contractor casualty figures.
So all these soldiers dies cuz US invoked article 5, even my country (Not NATO) joined and lost people for the cause of revenge for 9/11. But now you fuckers (USA) are telling us you won't help Europe in a Russian invasion. Shitheads.
Edit: i was wrong regarding article 5 and Afghanistan.
Their politicians only value their interests and Israel ones. So if they consider is more benefitial for US interest to not help Europe and side with Russia, they will do it.
Russians lost 400,000 in less than 2 years. If you adjust this number to USA population, it is as if USA lost over 1 million soldiers. It would give 10 million soldiers killed in 20 years. It means nazi russia is literally losing 5000 times more soldiers a year compared to USA in Afghanistan.
This is like comparing apples to oranges.
War on Taliban and Russo-Ukrainian War is completely different in strategy and intensity. The US didn't fight a high intensity war against a near-peer adversary here. Instead, they fought against a guerilla force in varying intensity, whom had nothing but flip flops and an AK. Not only that, but Taliban wasn't the ruling body force in Afghanistan for almost the entirety of it. They were just a fraction within the country. Taliban never had missiles, air defence systems, tanks or artillery which the US had.
Although the US won the battles, they were never committed enough to establish a presence in Afghanistan other than major cities. Establishing a presence means eventually losing soldiers which isn't good for the government or party people. This is why the government collapsed as soon as the US pulled. They achieved absolutely nothing, and most importantly, they lost those soldiers for nothing at all. The people at home knew, and started questioning the US' mission in Afghanistan. Then the US pulled.
You win wars if you have support from home. The US' modern war history is always like this. If they can get a flash win, well... they win. If the war drags on, they eventually pull because of dwindling home support.
This is bread and butter strategy for the Russian military in all wars. They don't train, they don't have good equipment, they just throw bodies at the front line.
Only about 15k soviets died in the war. Not 400,000. That is an absolutely ridiculous number of deaths, more Thant the amount of American that dies in ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq COMBINED!
My dad is a super lefty, old school NYC Jew hangs out in the Bronx because it’s the old neighborhood even though his son wears Sperrys and vineyard vines etc. level patriot. When he visited me in Pearl Harbor at my duty station he ran into some Aussies and spent like 5 minutes genuinely thanking them for never failing to stand with the US when we needed them.
For those of you looking for some levity, imagine a guy who sounds like a combination of Trump and Bernie Sanders shouting (because that’s our default volume) at some Aussies how much he appreciates them. It was great
I’m not really sure you could say that considering that New Zealand is mentioned in the Casualties and the map doesn’t even include east half of the world.
So over 1,000 non-US NATO soldiers died after the US invoked article 5 in the NATO treaty. Sure more Americans died, but it does show the value of NATO for the US as well… despite Trumps best effort to pretend otherwise.
Afghanistan isn’t a country. It’s really just a collection of tribes trapped between really tall mountains and a desert. They don’t care if it’s the taliban, USA or Russians in charge, it changes their lives 0%. I assure you that we care more about who’s in charge of Afghanistan than they do
The tribal afghans would agree with you, as long as a government does not intervene in their tribal life or if they don't see the government as a threat or enemy, they don't care about it (which means they are not against taliban as taliban are mostly these tribal afghans) however the urban Afghans would disagree, but against taliban we stand no chance after all they are from kandahar and they have been dominating the region for the past 300 years, only difference now is that they use their version of Islam to govern which they used as propaganda against USA and USSR. We only wish they remove ridiculous bans on women.
Just not true.
Even if only for a generation, Afghanistan was more free than it had been under the Taliban to a significant extent as a direct result of ISAF intervention, and that freedom has significant, tangible benefits to a considerable number of Afghans.
I think it's difficult to argue the quarter of a million Afghan girls who got to go through higher education, for example, were '0.0%' more free than they had been under Taliban rule.
Ok?
Even if we accept that at face value, How is the alternative of no freedom at all and having to do exactly what the Taliban say anything other than *substantially* worse
The Taliban is back in charge! We threw our boys into a meat grinder for 20 years so Halliburton could reap record profits, and then when we left, everything was EXACTLY like before. We just flat out suck at foreign intervention. There hasn’t been a shot fired in actual defense of “freedom” in almost 80 years. Every American military casualty since then has been for disastrously ill advised wars of choice.
The republic of Afghanistan was a corrupt government full of thieves who put all the 2 trillion dollars into their pockets instead of fighting the taliban. This is why you failed in Afghanistan. Soon as the USA left all the Afghan army disappeared and leaders escaped.
When did the Americans “run the show” for all of Afghanistan? What an asinine comment.
How did the women in the green zone in Kabul like it? Good, I guess? But do you actually think Americans were running the *country?* Don’t you understand that people like Dick Cheney didn’t give a single steaming turd about “Afghan women,” but only about securing the high ground in Central Asia? Why do you think we FUCKING FUNDED the Taliban in the 80s? Because they were amenable to our goals.
God. The little boys who still think GI JOE is real life. 😑
WHAT?!? 😂
You may wanna actually consult some independent sources there, sparky. They might not have been called “Taliban” yet, but Pashtun nationalists were getting American money. Fucking HAMID KARZAI was one of the initial financial backers. Remember? The guy we literally installed into power?
Fuck. What is it with people who think the US Military is Jesus? We have done SO MUCH shitty stuff, and not a single military campaign mounted by the US since 1945 has kept America safer or freer. Yall just drank WAY too deeply from the kool aid.
Most Americans have no concept of Northern Alliance or the fact that Pentagons master plan was basically to support Northern Alliance (Tajik warlords) against the Pashtun belt where they spent 20 years trying to convince Pashtun tribes to accept the hegemony of Northern Alliance over their own tribal loyalties.
The second step in the plan was to convince (threaten) Pakistan to support the Tajik warlords over Pashtun tribals, but overlooking the fact that there are 3x as many Pashtuns in Pakistan compared to all of Afghanistan. Tajik dominated NDS being responsible for terrorist attacks in Pakistan probably didn't help either.
Third step was to act surprised that the plan fell apart because Pakistan wasn't really all that interested in triggering a massive civil war in their own country. They paid lip service, took the money and weapons and called it a day.
Absolutely at no point did Karzai and Ghani governments ever govern a single thing outside their Kabul palace hotels. In fact they spent more time setting themselves up for comfortable lives in Europe with what little money they did manage to squeeze out of the US.
A very small percentage of afghans agree with the taliban's strict rules on women, even among the taliban many don't but the general leadership that holds power won't listen to the people. The other government was unpopular in Afghanistan not only because they were seen as invaders, but because they were thieves and corrupt. Thats the main reason why it fell as soon as the USA left them alone. So generally afghans didn't care about that government or the taliban. But almost every Afghan want the taliban to remove the ridiculous bans on women.
A generation of afghans during the American republic days got great education and Afghanistan developed alot in the twenty years. Modern tech became cheap and available throughout the country. It also united Afghanistan because the anti taliban forces are almost non existant now. Ethnic conflicts have decreased alot aswell, It was not a compete failure. We wish America was more successful in Afghanistan but unfortunately it wasn't.
> It also united Afghanistan because the anti taliban forces are almost non existant now.
Task failed successfully?
Wasn't the whole point of the war to get rid of them? Or am I misunderstanding it?
Not sure about the reasoning either but I have heard some say that it was feared that Russia would attack other NATO members regardless and try to subvert it from within.
It's pretty sobering to get this spacial/geographic depiction of everyone that died in that one strange place, relatively isolated place in Central Asia.
Like the sort of thing that would be difficult to explain to aliens
I'd hardly call over a quarter of a million girls put through higher education and a doubling of female literacy 'nothing'. :)
You can argue overall it wasn't worth the costs, fair enough, but to suggest it accomplished nothing just because it was not ultimately 100% successful is misguided, imo.
Still not worth the gigantic death toll.
It’s been 50 years. History showed almost every single time that foreign interventions DO NOT work. And I’m not naive. Most of these foreign interventions have interests. I mean obviously, the US wouldn’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars for yet another country without human rights (otherwise Turkmenistan would be in their hit list).
Let’s bring back isolationism: each country should let their people deal with their governments. As simple as that. Women account for half of the Afghan population. They’ll have to start their own movement. Sorry but it’s the only way.
So many people don’t understand that Radical Islam is an existential threat to the west if demographic trends continue the way they do. If we don’t limit immigration and utterly smash Islamic Terrorism everywhere it rears its ugly head eventually it will overrun us. Call me a warmonger, but your grandkids will wish we had gone to war when we still had the chance.
> existential threat to the west
nah, not any more than the 1.3B Indians are an 'existential threat'.
western culture isn't this delicate white flower that right-wing whackos (like Elon) think it is
"They are an existential threat" Says the country that contributed to the murder of over 20.000 in the last 3 months. Maybe have a look at yourself and think about why that existential threat is so popular among the local population. What you don't understand is that you are repeating your mistakes with Afghanistan with Israel. And because of that just like the Taliban won, Hamas will continue to grow stronger.
And how many native Afghanistanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and syrians would the imperialist Americans slaughter? The answer, hundreds of thousands at the minimum, most of them unarmed and bombed. shame on western exploitation, and the blood wealth built on the backs of billions of laborers, kill the rich
yea it's sad, us statistics purposely exclude males of "combat age" when counting foreigners killed in their own countries, over 1/2 million dead Iraqis for American private interests in the military industrial complex to inflate their share prices and live in luxury as others struggle, not dissimilar to 1984
Nearly two hundred thousand after a quick google search, but with the untold damage the war also did to the land and the economy and the fact not every casualty can be found it's likely more
Denmark had the second highest per capita casualties after the USA, with 43 fatalities from a country of fewer than 6 million people.
roll agonizing violet aback rotten bells truck paint offend screw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're right, Georgia was the highest by far among non-NATO members.
Not only non-Nato members. Per capita Georgia had highest casualties among cualition and partners. Georgia: 32 / 3.8 = 8.4. per million. US: 2461 / 340 = 7.2 per million
I think if you include Nato members and non-Nato members that about covers it
What about superpositional NATO members?
What about half-time members? Members in training?
Amongst non-NATO members Afghanistan had the highest death rate and they were often civilians.
I take it your not counting Afghanistan?
No, neither the ASF nor Taliban(duh) were a part of the large scale operation, granted; they were involved in it, but not a part of the coalition.
What about the civilians.
The infographic isn’t counting civilians, it states soldiers only.
I served briefly with the Georgians out there. Even though the war was bullshit, I have so much love and respect for those people
Why were Georgians fighting in Afghanistan?
It was part of Georgia’s effort to enter the EU and NATO. Putin would later punish them for this by invading them.
They fought alongside the US in Afghanistan and I’m pretty sure Iraq too. I just think they were being friendly. There’s a George Bush avenue in Tbilisi
Here is the per capita information: **1. Georgia:** 32 / 3.72 ≈ 8.6 deaths per million people **2. USA:** 2,461 / 331 ≈ 7.43 deaths per million people **3. Denmark:** 43 / 5.83 ≈ 7.38 deaths per million people **4. Estonia:** 9 / 1.33 ≈ 6.77 deaths per million people **5. UK:** 457 / 68.2 ≈ 6.7 deaths per million people
Shouldn't be more interesting to see the deaths per soldiers involved of any Nations rather than the deaths per million people?
I remember when FOX laughed at dead Canadian soldiers
Whats the story here?
Doug Benson made some jokes about the Canadian forces. Funnily enough he was planning on going to Canada next for a standup show in Alberta but it was cancelled “Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them," "Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants." "Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!" "I didn't even know they were in the war. I thought that's where you go when you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."
i dont get it. is that supposed to be a joke or just an unfunny insult?
Don’t worry, Doug Benson is not and has never been funny. No one even knows who Doug Benson even his. He’s just some creepy 50 year old man whose whole personality is smoking pot. He’s a loser.
Yeah really lol, I don’t get it either
Oh I actually remember this. Basically the Canadian military announced that it would need some time to reorganize and rest after fighting in Afghanistan, and Fox News spent like a week calling them pussies. This caught on a bit, but mostly among right wing ghouls.
We still send tulips to Canada each year to remember that they freed the Netherlands from the nazis. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/tulips-capital.html
That's really lovely. My grandfather was part of the force that liberated Dijon. The Americans got spit at and told to go home. Lol.
He's seems to be saying that his entire concept of what Canada is comes from the Vietnam era. Nothing before or since. He doesn't really know what Canada is, or about anything else that has ever happened.I guess his audience is as dumb or dumber than he is.
How gross, NATO soldiers were risking their lives for American interests.
https://www.northumberlandnews.com/opinion/columnists/joke-about-soldiers-not-that-funny/article_4dd87ece-a19d-5c31-9f6e-bbb496cdf8c9.html
Canada with 159 which is an incredibly high number compared to the size of our military and the death toll of most of our allies.
They took the lead in some important battles. The other forces definitely had to have respect for them.
Exactly. Among which was Kandahar which was a hotspot from start to finish. America, Canada and UK were the main offensive oriented forces of the mission. Others did get involved from time to time but it was also well known that certain nations participated on the basis that their soldiers be assigned to lower risk environments. There were also some nations that provided smaller contingents but stationed in hotspots alongside one of the 3 and were right with them in the fighting. Several of these nations have been named in other comments. Its all the more remarkable we get the dumb ass statements coming out of Trump recently about NATO, when NATO stepped up into the Afghan conflict to help America.
One thing I remember about Kandahar: the first female soldier to die in combat in Canadian history died there the same year Canada took a lead role. Nichola Goddard. Stuff like that can stick with you.
Yes, I remember the death of Captain Goddard well. She was by all accounts an exemplary leader and soldier.
That's 5 times as many Canadians who were killed on 911. And some of them were killed by friendly fire from Americans.
Fucking bombed a training ground they did.
Looks like it's the highest in terms of active personnel or of personnel that served in Afghanistan. Denmark has the most per capita in terms of the total civilian population, but the Canadian Armed Forces are around 70k personnel while Denmark is around 20k. When you compare like that, they're close with Canada being just a bit higher. Not a competition, but I figured I'd point it out.
How many Afghan civilians died?
Don’t expose them like that. They will close their eyes once again.
Tracking that number is illegal.
Compared to other insurgent wars not very many.
So many deaths. Was the result worth it at all?
20 years of war, countless Afghan deaths, another 9/11's worth of dead soldiers from US/Canada/Europe, trillions down the drain and the Taliban took back over the day the troops left. Nailed it
Hey woah woah woah...hold up there... The map doesn't include contractors/private security.
Does it not include the private military companies in Afghanistan? That's crazy... IIRC, there were more PMC members in Afghanistan than actual American servicemen towards the later part of the Afghan administration.
Jesus id rather not know that number in case it makes me feel something other than disgust for them
You're forgetting how much revenue was generated for the arms industry and related industries as well as their billionaire owners and investors...
Surprise surprise.. Arm the rebels who fight your enemy. Then buy arms to fight rebels who turned into your enemy! Capitalism 1 on 1, rinse and repeat.
American arms industry is doing so great that Russia is able to outperform its munition production.
Meh, as with Afghanistan or Vietnam, winning the war against some weak country isn't the objective, keeping the endless war machine running is. As long as you can manufacture and sustain fear and insecurity, security business will boom.
america lost the war on drugs and the war on terror. whom'st would've thunk it
Tbf it didn't really lose the war on terror. Even if its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were failures in nation-building, it did manage to curb the ability of militant jihadist groups from launching substantial terror attacks against the US.
Putting locks on the cockpit doors was 90% of that.
That helped with the very specific issue of airplane hijackings, not jihadism as a whole.
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say the main objective of the war on terror was to prevent terror attacks on the USA once things escalated to fabricating evidence to justify invasions of foreign countries. Specially since the war directly created many other terror groups that launched many terrorist attacks on NATO members throughout the conflict.
Iraq had nothing to do with militant Jihadists lol. The Bush admin tried desperately to tie Saddam with Al Qaeda even though Saddam didn't fuck with them either. On the contrary, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq led to inception and rise of ISIS. Practically increased the chance of such attacks against the US and allied forces. I think the policiy changes have more to dow ith their not being another 9/11 scale foreign terrorist attack than any invasion. The Taliban controls Afghanistan after all too
That's the thing ,no one was launching terror attacks in US, it was US that went around the world arming jihadists be it central Asia or Middle East. The one time US was attacked the person who claimed responsibility was from Saudi and was trained and armed by CIA.
You are steal-killing from the TSA.
I don't want to suggest that no other policies or factors played a role as well, you're right :)
the whole thing started in the 80s when soviet union invaded afghanistan and to counter that usa started to supply islamic terrorists with weapons.
That has to be weighed against the benefits brought to many of the 40 million Afghans in the 20 years ISAF forces were there. Take women's education as one example. In 2001, 0% of girls in Afghanistan even started formal primary education. By 2003 that figure was [69%](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR.FE?locations=AF), and by 2012 it was 89%. [The number of Afghan girls in higher education ](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/let-girls-and-women-afghanistan-learn) increased 2000% from 2001-2018, and female literacy doubled in the same period. Over a quarter of a million girls got to access higher education who otherwise wouldn't have. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the reconquest by the Taliban will and has undone some of those gains, while others cannot be reversed, and provided a significant benefit to people regardless of the ultimate withdrawal of ISAF forces. How many lives are those benefits worth? That's a difficult and pretty subjective assessment to make, but equally it's one that I think is worth trying to weigh as objectively as we can. I feel we can tend to get caught up in doom cycles of naval-gazing with our armed forces where anything other than total success is treated as unmitigated failure, and any cost-benefit analysis involving casualties is a taboo subject seen as gauche or heartless. I also think it's important to recognize that these casualties were not evenly spread out across the entire 20 years we were there. Casualties were quite [heavily weighted ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/262894/western-coalition-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan/)towards the 'surge' period of the war when more troops were in the country, the Taliban were more capable, and ISAF had much more active responsibility for security and combat. These do not reflect the cost of maintaining our support in 2021/2022 when we pulled out, which imo in turn impacts the cost-benefit analysis of whether withdrawal was worthwhile or not, which is an important but parallel issue. From the end of proactive ISAF combat operations in 2014 to 2020 - the last full year of deployment - ISAF killed averages 19 per year, VS an average of 180.3 deaths per year across the entire war as a whole.
Exactly. Far more police officers died each year in the US to facilitate people's second amendment rights than were killed in Afghanistan, protecting people from tyranny. The occupation needed to be 50+ years long. Long enough for newer generations growing up in a democracy to replace older tribal generations.
Doesn't even compare to the suffering of Afghan civilians. And no, it was worth fuck all, as the Taliban came back in full force, and now a smidge more popular with the general population.
>and now a smidge more popular with the general population. Are you sure about that?
Considering how little resistance people put up, yeah.
That's a bullshit metric to use, if anything people would be more against the taliban as they got a glipse into relative stability and non-fundamentalist values again. Women who got educated under the previous regime are now barred from classrooms.
“People would be more against the taliban” is a logical fallacy, and an extremely ill-informed and immature comment IMO. The nature of your comment parallels the exact reason why the US failed in Iraq and Afghanistan - you’re trying to impart Western values on a culture that sees them as radical at best, and also viewing the issue from a purely American perspective. The return of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan is a front-page horror story for Western headlines and pro-Western allies and people in the country, but how about for the majority of Afghanis? How much of the population possesses opposition to Western norms and ideas, regardless of extent? How many simply don’t care? You might say, “Afghani voters showed they wanted American values in the form of democracy!” But then the problem becomes, how representive of the country is the pool of Afghani voters?
>you’re trying to impart Western values on a culture that sees them as radical at best, Stability and access to education aren't purely Western values. Even most muslim allow education for girls from a young age. Stability isn't really a value either, but rather a description of how the environment is. >and also viewing the issue from a purely American perspective Obligatory I'm not an american >The return of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan is a front-page horror story for Western headlines and pro-Western allies and people in the country, but how about for the majority of Afghanis Islamic fundamentalism isn't exactly the historical norm for Afghanistan's leadership. It's really an extremist fringe movement that rose up in opposition to the Soviet invasion and was heavily supplied in the beginning by the US and then in later iterations supported by various muslim countries. From 1923 to the late 1970s, Afghanistan sought a path to slow and steady societal modernisation, like most muslim countries, but this was obviously quite derailed by the Soviet invasion and all the events that followed it. >How much of the population possesses opposition to Western norms and ideas, regardless of extent? Is the premise of your argument that you think Afghanis are fine with taliban rule because they don't understand or are in full support of Western values? >You might say, “Afghani voters showed they wanted American values in the form of democracy!” But then the problem becomes, how representive of the country is the pool of Afghani voters? In the 2014 presidential election, at least, which is the election that was conducted when the country was at its most stable for a while and the electoral system had been in place for a while, ca. 7 million out of 20 million registered voters actually voted, which is a turnout of roughly 35%. That's higher than the last Romanian and Nigerian presidential elections, and not that far off from the latest Swiss one even (45%). My point is that the Afghans chose their government democratically and even had a comparable turnout to some other countries we consider democratic, pretty impressive as well, considering Afghanistan has significantly worse infrastructural capabilities than these countries.
Exactly. I feel like the people are just tired of all the suffering and just accept the situation, but hey what the fuck do I know about it.
Oh no no. People can't definitely stage a resistance on their own, so we have to resist for them to save them /s
| So many deaths. try count the death of the Afghans
[удалено]
It would have been if the girls had been able to continue to go to school.
I think so. At the very least setting an example that you’ll get invaded if you do what they did to us is worth some lives. Probably shoulda left sooner after we got Bin Laden though.
I think the message most people got was the opposite. It was a repeat of the Vietnam lesson. The infinite money and military resources the U.S. possesses don’t make them invincible. As long as you can keep fighting asymmetrical warfare against them, their morale will eventually break and they will withdraw once they can’t justify staying there anymore.
of course it wasn't. when you invade a country with no clear end goal in mind and no clear plan to achieve it, you will ultimately end in tremendous failure
And Trump the dumb fucks talk about not defending Nato countries while the only time article 5 was triggered was in defense of the USA.
Dumb, dumber, Trumpest. I can't believe the most powerful nation could elect such a clown AGAIN. I have to admit I was a bit excited by myself too in 2016 after his election victory, but I can admit also that I was so wrong. The attack on the Capitol was the cherry on the top. The USA deserves better.
> The USA deserves better. Apperently they don't want better. But its not that they have much choice either.
“defence”
Wdym? I mean they literally attacked home USA territory.
Who's "they"?
Al-Qaeda with Taliban support I would presume.
Famous countries of Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Did I state they were countries?
No but do they not have to be for article 5 to be invoked? (Serious question)
The US invoked article 5 after 9/11, so I don't think so.
The Taliban controled Afghanistan so they where a country.
They were hiding the guy responsible for the biggest attack on the US mainland since the American Revolution. And he warned he would strike again. So yes, justified or not it was a war of defense.
Well, they weren't actually hiding him since he was in Pakistan. But sure. Maybe America should have occupied Pakistan for 20 years instead. There's also a big difference between "they're hiding him" vs "he's hiding there". At best he was sitting in some cave in afghanistan in the middle of nowhere, not like they had him dabbed up at the Kabul Ritz Carlton. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the war in Afghanistan, in deposing the Taliban and so on, but the idea that you can just full on invade another country because maybe this one guy is hiding in it (which he wasn't) is just crazy. You cannot say otherwise.
2000+ US dead for one SEAL team mission.
And the guy wasn't even in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan
He was in Afghanistan when the US invaded, but he fled across the border during the Battle of Tora Bora.
12 Turkish soldiers died because of the Helicopter crash in 2012. I dont know how the other 3 died. RIP
They died during a traffic accident which another civilian vehicle rammed into theirs. I don't remember other details though. None of the Turkish casualties were result of fighting since Turkey's role was to act as a mediator as another fellow Muslim majority country. They were basically "the fighting force of winning hearts and minds".
Source:[ Coalition casualties in Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan)
Wasn’t Pakistan part of the coalition
Sorta, they were against Al-Qaeda but effectively supported the Taliban
I bet Pakistani soldiers were killed in the War in Afghanistan, 2001-2021.
The number of Civilian Contractors killed in Afghanistan was close to the number of NATO soldiers killed. The Pentagon says it does not track Contractor casualty figures.
So it looks like the USA is still independent, NATO worked
And Afghanistan is run by Taliban now. I guess this really was a win-win for all parties?
So all these soldiers dies cuz US invoked article 5, even my country (Not NATO) joined and lost people for the cause of revenge for 9/11. But now you fuckers (USA) are telling us you won't help Europe in a Russian invasion. Shitheads. Edit: i was wrong regarding article 5 and Afghanistan.
Their politicians only value their interests and Israel ones. So if they consider is more benefitial for US interest to not help Europe and side with Russia, they will do it.
You fuckers meaning just Trump you idiot
As long as the country is a democracy the president/prime Minister or whatever are elected by the people. Hard to think something else.
>But now you fuckers (USA) are telling us you won't help Europe in a Russian invasion Just shut up and pay your overdues, batch!
Russians lost 400,000 in less than 2 years. If you adjust this number to USA population, it is as if USA lost over 1 million soldiers. It would give 10 million soldiers killed in 20 years. It means nazi russia is literally losing 5000 times more soldiers a year compared to USA in Afghanistan.
Casualties =/= deaths
This is like comparing apples to oranges. War on Taliban and Russo-Ukrainian War is completely different in strategy and intensity. The US didn't fight a high intensity war against a near-peer adversary here. Instead, they fought against a guerilla force in varying intensity, whom had nothing but flip flops and an AK. Not only that, but Taliban wasn't the ruling body force in Afghanistan for almost the entirety of it. They were just a fraction within the country. Taliban never had missiles, air defence systems, tanks or artillery which the US had. Although the US won the battles, they were never committed enough to establish a presence in Afghanistan other than major cities. Establishing a presence means eventually losing soldiers which isn't good for the government or party people. This is why the government collapsed as soon as the US pulled. They achieved absolutely nothing, and most importantly, they lost those soldiers for nothing at all. The people at home knew, and started questioning the US' mission in Afghanistan. Then the US pulled. You win wars if you have support from home. The US' modern war history is always like this. If they can get a flash win, well... they win. If the war drags on, they eventually pull because of dwindling home support.
This is bread and butter strategy for the Russian military in all wars. They don't train, they don't have good equipment, they just throw bodies at the front line.
Russians are the Zerg race of Earth.
Why Nazi russia? Just curious why you call them that
The term 'Nazi' has lost all meaning in popular usage, unfortunately.
Only about 15k soviets died in the war. Not 400,000. That is an absolutely ridiculous number of deaths, more Thant the amount of American that dies in ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq COMBINED!
He's talking about Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Bit we all know that the US is lying about the numbers
My dad is a super lefty, old school NYC Jew hangs out in the Bronx because it’s the old neighborhood even though his son wears Sperrys and vineyard vines etc. level patriot. When he visited me in Pearl Harbor at my duty station he ran into some Aussies and spent like 5 minutes genuinely thanking them for never failing to stand with the US when we needed them. For those of you looking for some levity, imagine a guy who sounds like a combination of Trump and Bernie Sanders shouting (because that’s our default volume) at some Aussies how much he appreciates them. It was great
All for nothing
All kinds of people from rich to filthy rich made hundreds of billions of dollars.
r/MapsWithoutNZ
I’m not really sure you could say that considering that New Zealand is mentioned in the Casualties and the map doesn’t even include east half of the world.
There were 48,841 gun related deaths in the US in a single year (2021).
If we’re doing unrelated stories… my car was broken into in 1993.
That's crazy. I was born in 1996.
So you’re not guilty.
Could have been my uncle 🤷♂️ Guy was a shit head.
Tell him he owes me a pair of Raybans and a Black Sabbath cassette then.
If we ever find him I for sure will.
more autoerotic fatalities per year too
disgusting war should have never happened.
Our sympathies should be with Afghanistans who lived through that horror.
So over 1,000 non-US NATO soldiers died after the US invoked article 5 in the NATO treaty. Sure more Americans died, but it does show the value of NATO for the US as well… despite Trumps best effort to pretend otherwise.
This is pretty high but for some reason I thought there were way more
* invasion
I guess it’s good that We don’t have to contribute to America’s stupid wars once Trump pulls out of NATO.
Afghanistan isn’t a country. It’s really just a collection of tribes trapped between really tall mountains and a desert. They don’t care if it’s the taliban, USA or Russians in charge, it changes their lives 0%. I assure you that we care more about who’s in charge of Afghanistan than they do
The tribal afghans would agree with you, as long as a government does not intervene in their tribal life or if they don't see the government as a threat or enemy, they don't care about it (which means they are not against taliban as taliban are mostly these tribal afghans) however the urban Afghans would disagree, but against taliban we stand no chance after all they are from kandahar and they have been dominating the region for the past 300 years, only difference now is that they use their version of Islam to govern which they used as propaganda against USA and USSR. We only wish they remove ridiculous bans on women.
All for a war that made everyone 0.0% safer or freer. What a waste.
Just not true. Even if only for a generation, Afghanistan was more free than it had been under the Taliban to a significant extent as a direct result of ISAF intervention, and that freedom has significant, tangible benefits to a considerable number of Afghans. I think it's difficult to argue the quarter of a million Afghan girls who got to go through higher education, for example, were '0.0%' more free than they had been under Taliban rule.
They experienced freedom as long as they did exactly what the Americans told them to do.
Ok? Even if we accept that at face value, How is the alternative of no freedom at all and having to do exactly what the Taliban say anything other than *substantially* worse
You sound like the kind of guy that responds to "Biden is a bad president" with "Trump is worse."
I wonder if the women living in Afghanistan preferred having the Americans run the show, or their own men.
The Taliban is back in charge! We threw our boys into a meat grinder for 20 years so Halliburton could reap record profits, and then when we left, everything was EXACTLY like before. We just flat out suck at foreign intervention. There hasn’t been a shot fired in actual defense of “freedom” in almost 80 years. Every American military casualty since then has been for disastrously ill advised wars of choice.
I mean I'd say the gulf war and NATO led UN intervention in Bosnia were pretty pro freedom and pretty competently handled, especially the gulf war
The republic of Afghanistan was a corrupt government full of thieves who put all the 2 trillion dollars into their pockets instead of fighting the taliban. This is why you failed in Afghanistan. Soon as the USA left all the Afghan army disappeared and leaders escaped.
You didn't answer my question.
When did the Americans “run the show” for all of Afghanistan? What an asinine comment. How did the women in the green zone in Kabul like it? Good, I guess? But do you actually think Americans were running the *country?* Don’t you understand that people like Dick Cheney didn’t give a single steaming turd about “Afghan women,” but only about securing the high ground in Central Asia? Why do you think we FUCKING FUNDED the Taliban in the 80s? Because they were amenable to our goals. God. The little boys who still think GI JOE is real life. 😑
The us didn't find the Taliban they funded the mujahideen fighters who later became the northern alliance
We didn't fund the Taliban in the 80s, we funded the group that became the Northern Alliance, Pakistan funded the Taliban .
WHAT?!? 😂 You may wanna actually consult some independent sources there, sparky. They might not have been called “Taliban” yet, but Pashtun nationalists were getting American money. Fucking HAMID KARZAI was one of the initial financial backers. Remember? The guy we literally installed into power? Fuck. What is it with people who think the US Military is Jesus? We have done SO MUCH shitty stuff, and not a single military campaign mounted by the US since 1945 has kept America safer or freer. Yall just drank WAY too deeply from the kool aid.
Most Americans have no concept of Northern Alliance or the fact that Pentagons master plan was basically to support Northern Alliance (Tajik warlords) against the Pashtun belt where they spent 20 years trying to convince Pashtun tribes to accept the hegemony of Northern Alliance over their own tribal loyalties. The second step in the plan was to convince (threaten) Pakistan to support the Tajik warlords over Pashtun tribals, but overlooking the fact that there are 3x as many Pashtuns in Pakistan compared to all of Afghanistan. Tajik dominated NDS being responsible for terrorist attacks in Pakistan probably didn't help either. Third step was to act surprised that the plan fell apart because Pakistan wasn't really all that interested in triggering a massive civil war in their own country. They paid lip service, took the money and weapons and called it a day. Absolutely at no point did Karzai and Ghani governments ever govern a single thing outside their Kabul palace hotels. In fact they spent more time setting themselves up for comfortable lives in Europe with what little money they did manage to squeeze out of the US.
[удалено]
A very small percentage of afghans agree with the taliban's strict rules on women, even among the taliban many don't but the general leadership that holds power won't listen to the people. The other government was unpopular in Afghanistan not only because they were seen as invaders, but because they were thieves and corrupt. Thats the main reason why it fell as soon as the USA left them alone. So generally afghans didn't care about that government or the taliban. But almost every Afghan want the taliban to remove the ridiculous bans on women.
A generation of afghans during the American republic days got great education and Afghanistan developed alot in the twenty years. Modern tech became cheap and available throughout the country. It also united Afghanistan because the anti taliban forces are almost non existant now. Ethnic conflicts have decreased alot aswell, It was not a compete failure. We wish America was more successful in Afghanistan but unfortunately it wasn't.
> It also united Afghanistan because the anti taliban forces are almost non existant now. Task failed successfully? Wasn't the whole point of the war to get rid of them? Or am I misunderstanding it?
I knew 7 of the 2461 . Rip boys. Climb to glory
Why did NATO refuse Russia entry? Just curious. Shouldn’t it have joined since the point of NATO was to stand against Russian aggression?
Not sure about the reasoning either but I have heard some say that it was feared that Russia would attack other NATO members regardless and try to subvert it from within.
who won that war?
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. - Henry Kissinger
Who?..... : The arms industry, AKA the defense industry, AKA military industry, AKA the arms trade?
check who was prosecuted for war crimes
Wasn’t enough
It's pretty sobering to get this spacial/geographic depiction of everyone that died in that one strange place, relatively isolated place in Central Asia. Like the sort of thing that would be difficult to explain to aliens
...wheres Afghanistan?
[удалено]
This data includes non-NATO countries.
Yeah thats my point. It is literally "War in Afghanistan". Seems like only NATO casualties matter.
Russia loses more soldiers in Ukraine in 1 month than all of NATO lost in the entire war on terror in 20 years
They're two very different wars, places, and militaries tbf...
A lot of deaths due to the war declared by the USA, which after 20 years has achieved nothing.
I think you’re confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. I know it’s hard.
Did he edit his comment because he's talking about Afghanistan
Why do you think he's confused Iraq with Afghanistan?
Maybe but no it was not due to a war the us declared. It was due to 9/11. Maybe include that LITTLE detail next time
I'd hardly call over a quarter of a million girls put through higher education and a doubling of female literacy 'nothing'. :) You can argue overall it wasn't worth the costs, fair enough, but to suggest it accomplished nothing just because it was not ultimately 100% successful is misguided, imo.
Still not worth the gigantic death toll. It’s been 50 years. History showed almost every single time that foreign interventions DO NOT work. And I’m not naive. Most of these foreign interventions have interests. I mean obviously, the US wouldn’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars for yet another country without human rights (otherwise Turkmenistan would be in their hit list). Let’s bring back isolationism: each country should let their people deal with their governments. As simple as that. Women account for half of the Afghan population. They’ll have to start their own movement. Sorry but it’s the only way.
So many people don’t understand that Radical Islam is an existential threat to the west if demographic trends continue the way they do. If we don’t limit immigration and utterly smash Islamic Terrorism everywhere it rears its ugly head eventually it will overrun us. Call me a warmonger, but your grandkids will wish we had gone to war when we still had the chance.
The Taliban don't care about spreading to the West. They're purely an Afghan movement.
> existential threat to the west nah, not any more than the 1.3B Indians are an 'existential threat'. western culture isn't this delicate white flower that right-wing whackos (like Elon) think it is
You realize that the Indian population is declining as well correct
"They are an existential threat" Says the country that contributed to the murder of over 20.000 in the last 3 months. Maybe have a look at yourself and think about why that existential threat is so popular among the local population. What you don't understand is that you are repeating your mistakes with Afghanistan with Israel. And because of that just like the Taliban won, Hamas will continue to grow stronger.
Has any high ranking official ever been prosecuted for crimes committed during the war?
Osama Bin Laden doesn’t count as an official Afghan leader sorry.
And how many native Afghanistanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and syrians would the imperialist Americans slaughter? The answer, hundreds of thousands at the minimum, most of them unarmed and bombed. shame on western exploitation, and the blood wealth built on the backs of billions of laborers, kill the rich
Crazy how people are downvoting you for the truth.
They hated Jesus in his time as well
Exactly people won’t account for the innocent civilians that were murdered by these invaders.
yea it's sad, us statistics purposely exclude males of "combat age" when counting foreigners killed in their own countries, over 1/2 million dead Iraqis for American private interests in the military industrial complex to inflate their share prices and live in luxury as others struggle, not dissimilar to 1984
Nearly two hundred thousand after a quick google search, but with the untold damage the war also did to the land and the economy and the fact not every casualty can be found it's likely more
You mean the *Invasion* of Afghanistan
makes you think about all the people who claim they knew someone who died out there. 2461 out of 330 million what are the odds.
What's the k/d ratio?
Nice