Sunday, September 13, 2009

UK Soldier Killed Rescuing NY Times Reporter

A British soldier in Afghanistan paid the ultimate price to rescue a New York times reporter who was taken hostage by Afghan rebels. The London Evening Standard reports as follows.

"Corporal John Harrison, 29, from the Parachute Regiment, was described as "a wonderful son, brother and a dedicated soldier" by his family.

He died in a daring pre-dawn operation on Wednesday to rescue Stephen Farrell, a reporter with the New York Times.

Mr Farrell, who holds dual British and Irish citizenship, was successfully released during the raid but his Afghan interpreter Sultan Munadi also died.

Cpl Harrison's family said: "We are absolutely heartbroken.

"John was a wonderful son, brother and a dedicated soldier who was greatly loved and cherished by all his family and friends."

There was once a time when American reporters supported the American military and its allies. In all too many cases today, the American press has been as useful to the enemy as they once were to the United States and its allies.

I could understand the State Department attempting to arrange the safe return of a New York Times reporter. But it makes little sense for soldiers to put their lives at risk for reporters who all too often function as mouthpieces for the enemy.

My heart goes out to the family of Corporal John Harrison. his life should not have been expended in the way it was. Unfortunately, the New York Times will continue to function as a fifth column wherever they are assigned, from Baghdad to Guantanamo, from Kabul to Beirut.

Since the New York Times is so critical of American and allied military conduct overseas, perhaps they could handle hostage negotiations on their own.

What truly puzzles me is why the rebels in Afghanistan would even bother kidnapping a New York Times reporter. Isn't that a lot like kidnapping their own soldiers?

No comments: