Wednesday, June 29, 2011

"If the most heavily guarded ...

Hotel in Afghanistan comes under attack, what does it say for security in the region?" - George Alagiah of the BBC.

...

Nato helicopters were called in to kill three militants to end a five-hour clash by suicide bombers and gunmen on a hotel in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

The attack on the Intercontinental Hotel, frequented by Westerners, left six more attackers, two police and 11 civilians, including a Spaniard dead.

A security official said the militants may have exploited renovation work to gain access to the high-security hotel.

...


Beeb story here.

It says, 10 years on, that even in Kabul, security is a most tenuous thing. Is this where Obama and his Corps of Ass-Kissers generals say "never mind" on the troop withdrawal or will it be the next incident that gives them the opportunity to say "we'll have to stay longer because Af-Pak is still a haven for terrorists"?

The only people who've benefited from this war are the American Military Industrial Complex, Hamid Karzai and his 40 Thieves, and the Pakistani government (who are playing both sides for profit). The rest - American soldiers, Afghan and Pakistani civilians, and the American people - are all paying the price in one form or another.

None of us can afford to pay any longer.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You wait. This will cause the Repubs and wingnuts to claim this means we need to stay in Afghanistan forever and ever. I'm waiting for old "One Hundred Years" McCain to spout off.

Of course, the real point is that this is a war we're never going to win.....

Gordon said...

Three attackers did all that? That hotel is not as heavily guarded as they claim. Or it's guarded by a civilian contractor on our dime. They do best against unarmed civilians.