The price of life in Afghanistan

Stephen Farrell, reporter for the New York Times, has been freed in Afghanistan. This is, I'm afraid, where the good news ends.

In the process of freeing the reporter, his interpreter Sultan Munadi was killed. In the ensuing gun battle, Mr Munadi was cut down by bullets whilst trying to escape and identifying himself by shouting "Journalist! Journalist!".

Listening to the news this morning was indicative of the way the conflict in Afghanistan is understood and assessed. The death of the interpreter has been seen as perhaps tinging the 'success' of the operation. Indeed, judging by the headlines on The Times website, the interpreter's death does not seem to have had any impact on its judgement of the success of this operation. Had death and survival been the other way around, undoubtedly this operation would have been deemed a failure, a tragedy.

Added to this is the fact that two Afghani civilians were also killed during the operation. Browsing the news sites very briefly, I am struggling to find any real reference to this 'colateral damage'. They are after all only two Afghanis (the very people this Liberal Crusade is meant to help).

The condolences directed at Mr Munadi's family have so far been conditional (after all, the operation was a success), but none have made any reference to the two civilians who lost their lives during this operation.

Now, for the denouement. A British serviceman has also been killed during this operation. This is now headline news and has also led to a slightly sterner criticism of the operation.

All deaths are tragedies, which most of those untouched by the actions in Afghanistan cannot begin to comprehend. Yet this latest event encapsulates neatly the devastating nature of this Liberal Crusade. As over the last eight eyars, Afghani deaths do not matter, unless they are Afghanis with some kind of western connection, in which case they matter a little. The deaths of servicemen seem to be the only point of criticism exercised by the western media. All the while, the journalists 'embedded' in Afghanistan are celebrated as the real heroes in all of this for providing (mostly at least) the drivel that sustains the Liberal Crusade in one way or another.

This of course should lead any thinking person to consider the point of this war. But most people are untouched by this and seemingly continue to believe one myth or another (it will help the Afghanis in the long run, i.e. they are dying for their own good; it will make the streets of Cirencester a safer place; we must support our troops and so on and so forth).

The war in Afghanistan is unsustainable, in every sense of the word. There has never been a moral highground for NATO's intervention. What started as an operation to quench American thirst for blood has been reinterpreted a million times by the hacks and propaganda artists who continue to insult people's intelligence.

It is ultimately a consumerist war: Pick your cause (feminism, human rights, anti-terrorism, anti-extremism, a loathing of Muslims, concerns about energy supply, being patriotic etc...) and support out troops, our side, without considering the deeper meanings of this futile devastation.

UPDATE:

It transpires that there is more to Farrell's capture. Thanks to a post on The Guardian website by a poster called 'Marchmont', it seems that the idiot has a history of getting himself caught and was only there to dish the dirt on the Germans for bombing two fuel tankers which killed over 100 Afghanis last week. So UK soldiers were sent into to free an idiot journalist, which then results in the deaths of several people - from local Afghanis, to the interpreter, to the British soldier.

Can anyone remind me of the point of this war again, please?