So naturally, some are upset at the British and not the Taliban:
Criticism mounted on Thursday of the dramatic airborne rescue from Taliban territory of a kidnapped Western journalist who walked free as four others, including his Afghan colleague, were killed.
Negotiators were deep in talks with the Taliban to free New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell and appeared to be progressing well when British commandos intervened with the rescue operation, a source told AFP.
Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, was freed unharmed, but his Afghan colleague, father-of-two Sultan Munadi, as well as a British soldier and an Afghan woman and child were killed.
In Afghanistan, journalists expressed anger over the death of Munadi, saying it was "inhumane" that his bullet-riddled body had been abandoned at the scene.
I'm sure the jihadi kidnappers were honorably negotiating and anybody who doubts their good hearts is a monster.
I'm sorry the Afghan journalist died, as I am about the British soldier and even the Afghan civilians.
But blaming the British is not the way to go. Had the hostages been relocated into the hills, I'm sure nobody would be attacking the British for failing to strike while the hostages were in reach, right?
Be grateful we got out one journalist and no money--that would purchase lots of dead innocents as victims of Taliban violence--went to the enemy.
The British can surely learn lessons by reviewing their mission--but that's a matter of learning from the fortunes of war and not a basis for blaming the British for trying to save the victims of the Taliban.
