Most likely because, while no less regrettable in toto, America lost 2000 soldiers in Afghanistan over the course of 11 years, while the heavily covered 2000 Iraq losses your link references occurred in 2.5. It might also have to do with the fact Afghanistans former government actually aided and sheltered someone who planned the 911 attack, as well as the 1993 WTC bombing, while the 2000 troops slain in Iraq were simply discharging an old Bush family vendetta. See, it is the difference between sending Halseys 7th Fleet to shell Japan because of Pearl Harbor versus sending the 3rd Infantry Division into Moscow because Kruschev and Nixons Kitchen Debate.

Not to trivialize the US soldiers who have served in Afghanistan for over a decade, and certainly not those injured or killed, nor even to say I think we can accomplish anything further by remaining. But 2000 deaths in Iraq was prominently reported in 2005 because it was far more losses than most Americans had led to expect in a war that had continued longer than they had been led to expect, with no end in sight and few tangible accomplishments to justify the losses. Contrasted with the now well known costs and length of combat to which Bush committed us, bin Ladens bullet filled corpse and the expectation US troops in Afghanistan will soon follow those from Iraq home, I can understand why there was less coverage.

As can you, whether or not you will admit it publicly.