tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post4511312744010787430..comments2024-01-20T11:56:48.682+01:00Comments on WindRose Hotel: Why Die For Kabul?S.R. Piccolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15622464895435470724noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-31363324447591670892010-10-12T19:34:21.467+02:002010-10-12T19:34:21.467+02:00Giuliano got it right.Giuliano got it right.Hans-Hermannhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33445632.post-14457725650283441072010-10-12T17:54:12.874+02:002010-10-12T17:54:12.874+02:00To me this war makes sense, because Europe and the...To me this war makes sense, because Europe and the Occident have no other choice. Ironically the 'moderate' Arab States, would be the first to be engulfed by the djiadist tidal wave if the Taliban were allowed to retake Afghanistan, but they sit and wait on the side lines, like silent supporters without a cause. Yet if, after Obama decides that the war will end in the summer of next year, and Nato consequently withdraws, the Taliban could retake Afghanistan then Pakistan. And in this latter case the rest of the world would be there's for the taking. And that's why we have no other choice.<br /><br />This is an important article, also because it's written by an Italian, a European. But isn't the difference between Obama and Bush even clearer? For Bush there was no other option possible. It was a matter of course, and the democratic world followed this logic, delighted by the rapid success even in Iraq, at least up until the punishing, rabid reactions of al-Qaida, obsessed with dividing the people and destroying the democracy.<br /><br />But if errors were made, they weren't made in Iraq, they were made in Afghanistan. The Occident reacted far too late and withdrew far too soon. And the Occident relied on an untrustworthy ally, Pakistan. We are now paying the price for those errors, but with Obama, there's even less incentive to finish the job properly.<br /><br />One wonders if Bush would have so easily accepted (on the pretext of security reasons) the presidential fiasco in Afghanistan. A man of conviction and integrity could never have accepted what would have been totally unacceptable in the USA.<br />Yet there Obama shrugged it off. The very principles for which Nato is fighting in Afghanistan, the principles of democracy, were waved. How can the young soldiers understand what they are defending if their leaders don't set the example, if even they spit on democracy's flag for reasons of facility, thus going along with Karsai's conviction that 'fraud is normal in a young democracy'. Would it then be less normal in a middle-aged democracy? Where does one draw the line if it's not clearly defined and established in the first place? And the Afghans, those who were maimed and killed for having had the courage to vote. Where is the respect for them when 'fraud is normal in a young democracy'?<br />How under such circumstances can confidence and trust reign? If the young soldiers don't understand, how in hell can the Afghanis understand? Perhaps it could all be reduced to an inconceivable conclusion, a common denominator: the president of the USA doesn't understand.Mirinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14762774089637304953noreply@blogger.com