Thursday, October 29, 2009

U.N. Shaken as Taliban Target World Organization in Afghanistan

The terrorists in Afghanistan are hoping to get their own Sergio Vieira de Mello. In August 2003, the United Nations left Iraq after the organization's top diplomat was killed in a massive truck bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. The attack, which killed another 22 along with de Mello, was denounced by then-U.N. chief Kofi Annan - who promptly pulled the organization out of Iraq, signaling a victory for the terrorists.

Now, in Afghanistan, Taliban terrorists attacked a U.N. guest house, killing 8, and raising questions about continued multilateral humanitarian operations in the country. From the Los Angeles Times, "
Afghan Attack Puts Aid Programs at Risk":

The deaths of five U.N. employees in a Taliban assault on a Kabul guesthouse Wednesday is forcing the world body and humanitarian agencies to reevaluate the way they operate in Afghanistan, officials said, putting at risk programs aimed at helping millions of people and stabilizing the war-torn country.

U.N. special representative Kai Eide said the attack, which killed eight people, including an American, would not deter his organization from continuing its reconstruction and development work.

But already the ability of U.N. workers to deliver aid has been compromised. With less than two weeks to go before Afghanistan holds a runoff presidential election that is the focus of the world body's current efforts, all employees across the country were placed under lockdown, said Adrian Edwards, spokesman for the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

"This is the most serious incident that we have experienced in Afghanistan," Edwards said. "Previously when U.N. staff have been killed, they have usually been in close proximity to the military. It is not often that we are specifically targeted."
See also, London's Daily Telegraph, "Afghanistan: U.N. Staff Killed in Attack on Kabul Guesthouse."

There's a horrible irony here for the Obama administration. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency lifted the hopes of liberal internationalists, seeing the Democratic victory as a validation of Obama's call for "a new era of global partnership" and of building "bridges of cooperation with the U.N. and other nations." Of course, now the president - who is stalling a decision on U.S. General Stanley McChrystal's request for troop reinforcements - is himself destroying that very vision of a new era in international relations.

It's a tragic shame.

God bless the families of those who were lost in Kabul.

Added: From This Ain't Hell...But You Can See It From Here, "Boehner: Time for a decision on Afghanistan." Plus, from the Thunder Run, "From the Front: 10/29/2009."


Dennis said...

One day maybe a number of people will understand you cannot talk to a determined enemy. Talking is seen as a weakness. Talking demonstrates that you do not have the wherewithal to stay the course. If you had the power to win you would.
Winning is done in small steps by them.
The UN will eventually become a non entity because they will be defeated by those who care nothing for talking except as a means to win.
Action is respected whereas talking, in this context, is a sure fire way to lose.

Dave said...

I am having a difficult time working up any sympathy for the U.N. This vapid organization has been winking at the Islamo-fascists for decades, and just had the audacity to assert that our drone attacks against same were a violation of "international law," whatever the hell that means.

This nation is currently at war with an entity that wishes to either convert, tax, or kill every human being on this planet, and that includes the idiots at the U.N.

As far as I am concerned, one of the largest impediments to eradicating this menace to civilization has been the U.N. itself, and when these 7th Century barbarians ultimately obtain nuclear weapons, the UN will bare a large amount of responsibility for it.