U.S. troops have pulled out of a remote outpost in northeastern Afghanistan, NATO-led security force said on Wednesday, three days after Taliban militants tried to overrun the base and killed nine U.S. soldiers.
If these clowns are fighting for my freedom, as they and their supporters claim, this action is unacceptable. Now my freedom and security is at risk.
Let me get this straight. If soldier boys fight and die they’re considered “heroes”, even though being killed would seem to indicate failure. After all, how can you successfully defeat your enemy when you are dead? So, what do you call them when they retreat and run? Cowards?
A NATO spokesman reassures us that, "such posts are established and removed when they are not serving a purpose.” Right. Besides, US Crusaders prefer bombing anonymously from the skies where they can pick on innocent civilians while padding their body counts.
Of course, I’m being satirical but I’m using the flawed logic of the state to expose its lies. The military abandoned that position in Afghanistan because the benefit or advantage of holding and defending that area was no longer worth the costs. Iraq War supporters claim that withdrawing from Iraq and completely ending the occupation would be defeatist, cowardly and refer to such an act as “cut and run.”
Critics of the Iraq invasion/occupation (some, former supporters of the action) have since concluded that a subsequent cost/benefit analysis of the war reveals a loss. The cost is no longer worth the benefit hoped for when the invasion began. Immediate, complete withdrawal is the only rational response.
The retreat from that area of Afghanistan was a perfectly rational move by the military. It makes just as much sense (for the same reasons generated from a rational analysis) to withdraw from the killing fields of Iraq. One may not agree with the cost/benefit analysis but would be incorrect and even hypocritical to label the action “cowardly.”
No comments:
Post a Comment