Which group of Islamic terrorists is responsible for yesterday's massive suicide car bombing in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan? The body count so far is 90 dead, at least 400 wounded. That's more than four times the number of casualties in last week's ISIS-related Manchester massacre, but you won't be seeing much handwringing and crocodile tears from Western politicians or in the lamestream media, because hey, these are just towel-headed Muslims. Who cares? And that answers the question in today's headline.
It's worth noting, though, that this was one of the worst attacks Kabul had seen since the Prez (Obama -- how quickly we forget) declared victory in Afghanistan and started the drawdown of foreign forces from the country at the end of 2014. The bombing, which took place in what was supposed to be Kabul's safest neighbourhood, raises serious questions about the Afghan government's ability to secure the war-battered nation.
If the Afghans' democratically elected government (LOL) can't control their own country, must we go back in to pacify the Taliban and/or ISIS for them? There was talk of "re-engaging" even before yesterday's blast. Indeed, more than 8000 of US troops and "advisors" are still there, along with personnel from other NATO countries -- excluding Canada, of course -- but they are steadily losing ground. In fact, the Kabul government's writ runs only to the perimeter of the city, if that.
Last month, the Afghan Taliban announced the beginning of their spring offensive, promising to build their political base in the country while focusing military assaults on the international coalition and Afghan security forces. American and Afghan forces have been battling the Taliban insurgency for more than 15 years... and counting. If anyone has a persuasive argument as to why we should continue, please write it on the back of a postage stamp and send it to Walt at the usual address.
FURTHER READING, added 1/6/17: Don Murray, a formerly a CBC reporter and now a freelancer, thinks WE are responsible for the latest Taliban (or ISIS) attacks in Afghanistan, in the sense that, if "we" weren't there, the fanatical Islamists wouldn't be blowing things up. Read "Afghan civilians bear brunt of US-led war". The secondary title is "Few American, NATO troops now die in the conflict but their presence ensures ever more Afghans will get killed". Hmm. Could be.