In this article:
This NATO logic makes no sense to me:
Ordering airstrikes is a command decision in Afghanistan. A NATO spokeswoman there, Maj. Sunset Belinsky, insisted they would continue. “Coalition forces constantly strive to reduce the chance of civilian casualties and damage to structures,” Belinsky said, “but when the insurgents use civilians as a shield and put our forces in a position where their only option is to use airstrikes, then they will take that option.”
The question I always have is what if insurgents used civilians as shields in, say, Houston? Would we conduct airstrikes on houses there and to blazes with any civilian victims? Of course not. What the U.S. military is saying is that Afghan civilian life is cheap to them. It’s immoral.
What are we doing there anyway? The original purpose, long since forgotten, was because they thought the Taliban government was shielding Osama bin Laden. That reason is long gone. Now the U.S. is just propping up a notoriously corrupt government and has turned into an occupying force which doesn’t seem to care about “collateral damage.”
I say pull out and let them sort it out for themselves.
doug