.Questions raised over bloody raid to free British journalist in Afghanistan
Military officials tonight defended the decision to launch a dramatic raid to rescue a British journalist from the Taliban, in which his Afghan assistant and a soldier were killed, against angry criticism in Afghanistan that the operation had been ordered while talks for his release had already begun.
Gordon Brown hailed the helicopter assault, carried out by the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines, as an act of "breathtaking heroism" and said the bravery of the soldier who was killed would not be forgotten.
Stephen Farrell, a 46-year-old New York Times reporter who had been held by the Taliban in Kunduz for four days, was freed as a result of the raid in the early hours, but the Afghan journalist working with him, Sultan Munadi, was killed.
There were reports that at least two others were killed, possibly a woman and the owner of the house, but details remain unclear.
Sources in Kabul claimed that at the time of the assault, talks were under way with the Kunduz leadership of the Taliban and a deal seemed possible.
Munadi had been allowed to call home at 10.30pm yesterday. According to his family, his captors made no threats against his life, and told his mother there were just "a few issues" to resolve before he would be set free.
A western diplomat in Afghanistan said Farrell was being held under the orders of Mullah Salam, the Taliban's "shadow governor" of Kunduz.
"He was out of money and open to doing a deal. The plan was to keep negotiations local and appeal to the decency of Afghans to do the right thing and release a civilian journalist. But then MI6 charged in and, with next to zero knowledge of the local situation, decided to launch an operation," the diplomat said.
British officials, however, said the rescue operation, by the Special Forces Support Group flying in US helicopters, had been ordered after intelligence, including intercepts, suggested that the journalists' lives were in imminent danger.
"An opportunity arose and it was seized," said one official.
The New York Times editor, Bill Keller, said Farrell had told him the situation in the Taliban hideout where they were being held had been growing more menacing just before the raid. Keller said he did not know what had triggered the assault, but it is possible the military had intercepted plans to move the journalists or to do something to them.
Moeen Marastial, an MP for Kunduz, said the Taliban had left the British with no choice but to launch a rescue.
"The people in Kunduz had been talking to the Taliban about getting him released. The local people were telling them that they have to release them or otherwise there will be another Nato airstrike and more civilians will be killed. But the Taliban had been promising, promising, hour by hour, but they never released him," he said.
The reporters had gone to a village which had been the target on Friday of a Nato air strike on two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban. The tankers exploded, killing a crowd of civilians, and anti-western feeling in the area was running high.
The New York Times was caught entirely by surprise by the rescue mission.
The newspaper had asked British officials to use force only as "a last resort," according to sources close to the negotiations. However, British officials made it clear to the newspaper straight after Farrell and Munadi were kidnapped that their policy was to carry out raids when they deem fit. The US government seeks consent from the next of kin first.
The first news of the raid came when Farrell called his editor in the early hours of yesterday morning to say he was free.
"We were all in a room, the Talibs all ran, it was obviously a raid," Mr Farrell said, according to the New York Times. "We thought they would kill us. We thought, should we go out?"
He said the two journalists hid behind a wall as the fighting went around them, and at one point Munadi, a 34-year-old father of two, raised his hands and walked into the open, shouting: "journalist, journalist". But he was shot down by "a hail of bullets".
Afghan reporters and interpreters who work with foreign journalists have been incensed by the incident. They congregated at the northern edge of Kabul to honour the return of Munadi's body. "The media community is very angry," said Ali Safi. "They are saying that these foreigners launch these operations only to release their own people."
The raid has heightened an internal Nato debate on how to respond to the kidnapping of journalists working in dangerous areas, often against the advice of Afghan and alliance officials.
"This guy was told not to go in there. He was told by local officials," said a western military source. "But being stupid should not give you a death sentence. How do you decide when not to go in? That's the hard thing? When do you give a bad man with a gun the right to decide. You always go back and get someone."
The source said if a raid had not been ordered, the military would have been criticised for "standing by and doing nothing".
A diplomat in Kabul suggested the British may have acted to make the point that they did not do deals for hostages.
The prime minister said: "Hostage-taking is never justified, and the UK does not make substantive concessions, including paying ransoms. But whenever British nationals are kidnapped, we and our allies will do everything in our power to free them."In the last two years, six foreign journalists have been kidnapped in Afghanistan by insurgents and criminal gangs. Five were released after negotiations and one, David Rohde, another New York Times reporter, escaped after seven months in captivity.
Guardian
Gordon Brown hailed the helicopter assault, carried out by the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines, as an act of "breathtaking heroism" and said the bravery of the soldier who was killed would not be forgotten.
Stephen Farrell, a 46-year-old New York Times reporter who had been held by the Taliban in Kunduz for four days, was freed as a result of the raid in the early hours, but the Afghan journalist working with him, Sultan Munadi, was killed.
There were reports that at least two others were killed, possibly a woman and the owner of the house, but details remain unclear.
Sources in Kabul claimed that at the time of the assault, talks were under way with the Kunduz leadership of the Taliban and a deal seemed possible.
Munadi had been allowed to call home at 10.30pm yesterday. According to his family, his captors made no threats against his life, and told his mother there were just "a few issues" to resolve before he would be set free.
A western diplomat in Afghanistan said Farrell was being held under the orders of Mullah Salam, the Taliban's "shadow governor" of Kunduz.
"He was out of money and open to doing a deal. The plan was to keep negotiations local and appeal to the decency of Afghans to do the right thing and release a civilian journalist. But then MI6 charged in and, with next to zero knowledge of the local situation, decided to launch an operation," the diplomat said.
British officials, however, said the rescue operation, by the Special Forces Support Group flying in US helicopters, had been ordered after intelligence, including intercepts, suggested that the journalists' lives were in imminent danger.
"An opportunity arose and it was seized," said one official.
The New York Times editor, Bill Keller, said Farrell had told him the situation in the Taliban hideout where they were being held had been growing more menacing just before the raid. Keller said he did not know what had triggered the assault, but it is possible the military had intercepted plans to move the journalists or to do something to them.
Moeen Marastial, an MP for Kunduz, said the Taliban had left the British with no choice but to launch a rescue.
"The people in Kunduz had been talking to the Taliban about getting him released. The local people were telling them that they have to release them or otherwise there will be another Nato airstrike and more civilians will be killed. But the Taliban had been promising, promising, hour by hour, but they never released him," he said.
The reporters had gone to a village which had been the target on Friday of a Nato air strike on two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban. The tankers exploded, killing a crowd of civilians, and anti-western feeling in the area was running high.
The New York Times was caught entirely by surprise by the rescue mission.
The newspaper had asked British officials to use force only as "a last resort," according to sources close to the negotiations. However, British officials made it clear to the newspaper straight after Farrell and Munadi were kidnapped that their policy was to carry out raids when they deem fit. The US government seeks consent from the next of kin first.
The first news of the raid came when Farrell called his editor in the early hours of yesterday morning to say he was free.
"We were all in a room, the Talibs all ran, it was obviously a raid," Mr Farrell said, according to the New York Times. "We thought they would kill us. We thought, should we go out?"
He said the two journalists hid behind a wall as the fighting went around them, and at one point Munadi, a 34-year-old father of two, raised his hands and walked into the open, shouting: "journalist, journalist". But he was shot down by "a hail of bullets".
Afghan reporters and interpreters who work with foreign journalists have been incensed by the incident. They congregated at the northern edge of Kabul to honour the return of Munadi's body. "The media community is very angry," said Ali Safi. "They are saying that these foreigners launch these operations only to release their own people."
The raid has heightened an internal Nato debate on how to respond to the kidnapping of journalists working in dangerous areas, often against the advice of Afghan and alliance officials.
"This guy was told not to go in there. He was told by local officials," said a western military source. "But being stupid should not give you a death sentence. How do you decide when not to go in? That's the hard thing? When do you give a bad man with a gun the right to decide. You always go back and get someone."
The source said if a raid had not been ordered, the military would have been criticised for "standing by and doing nothing".
A diplomat in Kabul suggested the British may have acted to make the point that they did not do deals for hostages.
The prime minister said: "Hostage-taking is never justified, and the UK does not make substantive concessions, including paying ransoms. But whenever British nationals are kidnapped, we and our allies will do everything in our power to free them."In the last two years, six foreign journalists have been kidnapped in Afghanistan by insurgents and criminal gangs. Five were released after negotiations and one, David Rohde, another New York Times reporter, escaped after seven months in captivity.
Guardian
posted by madtom at 6:27 PM
6 Comments:
More of the same. The raid might have been a net winner if the entire valley where this guy was held had been carpet bombed after our side had been evacuated.
"entire valley"
Didn't the Russians already try that, and not just years ago in Afghanistan, but just recently in the Caucasus.
Why would you except a different result from our bombs?
Are you comparing the Russian army of 30 years ago to the US Army today? This aversion to killing the enemy out of fear of making the citizenry mad at us is idiotic. The citizenry fears and respects our enemy, and we are fools. Carpet bombing was an exaggeration, but anyone in the area needs to think that we are not to be fucked with--- no better friend, no worse enemy should mean something. But, we have adopted the opposite approach in the world, now to the point of hopelessness.
The only reason I see for even remaining in that pile of rocks is to be positioned for the coming war with Iran--- question is, whose side will we be on when Israel decides they can wait no longer ( I give it 6 months)? Things could be completely turned on their head by this time next year-- I think the chances are at least 50-50 that some form of world war breaks out and the Left is preparing to take advantage of the crises to beat all crises. You WILL be assimilated for your own damn good....
"Are you comparing the Russian army of 30 years ago to the US Army today?"
No, that would be you, wanting to carpet bomb the entire village.
"50-50 that some form of world war breaks out"
The world is already at war, I think that it's just that most people don't realize it yet, but we are already at that stage. You saw the news from the Russian Duma, they know it, and are getting ready to take back what is theirs as soon as we are too mired in other places.
Even his O'liness (funniest thing you have ever writen) knows it, that's why he's reinforcing the bases in Columbia, too protect our flank.
Could it be that he would let it expand, just to assimilate us? I don't know, I would guess not, but his smile troubles me. I can't see behind it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As I said, and I thought would be clear, I wasn't serious about 'carpet bombing', but the aversion to use of overwhelming force in an effort to curry favor among the great unwashed of Afghanistan is idiotic. They are so far removed from the modern world in every way that our concern for human rights has got to be a source of humor around their campfires at night. If we have enemy living freely with kidnapped US citizens among others in a village, they should know there will be consequences for that village. And to have squadrons of our forces lost because we are afraid artillery or air strikes might unintentionally hurt 'civilians' is criminal. THAT was my point. WE are doing much better in Afghanistan than did the Russians, not because we are more concerned for 'civilians', but in spite of it. It has more to do with the hated previous regime, our goals, and mostly, our technology. But to win a war, you have to fight the war and we aren't. So it goes on, and on....
Yes, the world is always at war, but I'm talking about a hot war in which tyranny is going to have the upper hand, I, too, suspect that His O'liness and his minions are and will continue to do very little to divert Israel from doing what it must do without unified world action against Iran, and are instead preparing to take advantage of the coming conflict to bring us in the unruly mobs under firm control. They're probably preparing the bills as we speak. Nationalized Health care, Cap and Trade, Immigration will all be offered up in the week flowing and Israeli attack, with more to follow. Many of us will not sit quietly while that happens and it could get messy.
And Russia? Happy Days will soon be here again for the powers that be in that former extended Gulag. The 'Free World' is about to shrink in size and numbers and this isn't shaping up to be a good Century for Liberty anywhere in the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home