More Americans have died in Afghanistan since Lord Obama became Commander-in-Chief than during 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined. Does the legacy media care much about American service deaths when the president isn't a Republican? Short answer: no.
Back in 2004 Democrat strategists, concerned that their candidate for the presidency was too anti-war for the electorate, came up with a cynical idea: claim to be FOR the fight in Afghanistan but NOT FOR the fight in Iraq. Iraq War Bad/ Afghanistan War Good was the marketing scheme. Of course, they didn't believe it, they just wanted you to believe it.
By 2008 Iraq was largely won and being anti-war was less of an albatross but the Dems had a marketing problem anyway. They needed for their beautifully packaged product, Obama, to still not be too squishy on defense. They may loathe America, but they also know you can't show that and win a national election.
So Obama continued the strategy of Iraq Bad War/ Afghanistan Good War. Just one big problem with the strategy. What happens if you actually become Commander-in-Chief and have to figure out what to do in Afghanistan? Well, it's nearly October and the poor dear doesn't have a clue. He can't cut and run easily because he claimed long and loud that it was important. He can't escalate easily because the nut barges of the left will whine and cry. He even has said to a media pal that victory is something he can't quite understand.
So he sits...
and he dithers...
and he goes to Denmark where Hamlet became World Champ of dithering...
and he decides to do....???
Lordy O is lucky though. His pals in the dinosaur media have given him a free pass every step of the way. The service members? They don't count for much. Just pawns in the game.
Byron York's "Without Bush, Media Loses Interest in War Caskets" catches the hypocrisy of our "objective" press nicely.