Why are we more at risk?

[anotheoldgit]

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Fatalities:

UK 208

Germany 33

France 29

Spain 25

Italy 15

Why should our troops be at more risk than some of our European neighbours?

[VHG]

Maybe we have more troops there.

I have no idea if we do or dont, but maybe Italy has only 30 troops there but has had half of them (15) killed.

The figures on fatalities mean nothing on their own unless you know what percentage they are of the total number of troops there.

[rov1200]

I notice the US has 4 times the numbers of casualties as the UK. I suppose it makes sense the more soldiers you have on the battlefield the greater the risk to those killed.

Thats why I despair every time troop numbers are to be increased in Afghanistan. With the higher number involved you know for certain more body bags will be flown home.

After watching Brown on his latest trip there you feel his arm has been twisted by the US commander to provide more. Maybe he feels so guilty about the Lockerbie affair he needs to straighten the books somehow.

[ABerrant]

Around 40 countries contribute troops and equipment to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The numbers of each vary wildly (e.g. Ireland 7 troops, Spain 780 and UK 9,100) and each country's forces are deployed in different provinces and often for differing purposes e.g. the Spanish Parliament does not allow Spanish forces to engage Taliban insurgents unless being directly attacked first, nor to move into the south and east of Afghanistan, these being more active combat areas where UK, US and Canadian troops are positioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sec urity_Assistance_Force

[Booldawg]

Because we're not gay.

[Lonnie]

The problem is that the casualties from the other countries are rarely. if ever reported in our media.

[stewey]

That'a true, Lonnie. British casualties are not mentioned in Canadian newspapers, and I suppose Canadian ones are not mentioned in yours.