Saturday, October 17, 2009

Economist: "Obama's War: Why Afghanistan needs more troops"

Does it get any more inane than this?

Just in time, too, after this morning's post about The Economist's weaknesses.

Here's what's going on in Afghanistan: "A Swedish aid agency said Monday that American soldiers stormed through one of its hospitals in Afghanistan last week, searching men’s and women’s wards for wounded Taliban fighters, breaking down doors and tying up hospital staff members and visitors."

The Economist says that "withdrawal [from Afghanistan] would amount to a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, some of whose troubles are the result of Western intervention."

So, the Afghans have trouble with thugs invading their hospitals and beating up patients, doctors, and nurses. What better solution than to follow Stanley McChrystal's advice, and send more thugs to beat up patients, doctors, and nurses.

Apparently, U.S. military makes a habit of aggression against hospitals. Snipers in Falluja shot at ambulance drivers.

Why are we doing this? Why does anyone read The Economist?


CP said...

We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

So, you go to a village and everyone down to the women and children shoot at you.

Could there be a clearer signal that people don't like you and want you to go away? Why not take the hint?

eh said...

"What are you going to do?" Maj. Talib, the operations officer of the Afghan army unit, asked Maj. Williams through his translator.

And the American forces cannot communicate with their supposed allies. What a fucking nightmare it all must be.

I still think there's a small chance those who hand out the peace prize hoped to dissuade Obama from sending more troops by awarding it to him; what else can explain the absurdity of it?

eh said...

That said, I don't blame western forces for not wanting to tolerate that insurgents are patched up (and then can go out again and potentially kill or wound more western soldiers) at hospitals run be western aid agencies, even if the country sponsoring the agency is not one providing troops or other material support to the fight against insurgents. If you were a soldier over there, how would you feel about that? But there are no doubt other ways to go about trying to make sure that does not happen.