Journalists Turn Attention To Afghanistan: "Baghdad Class Of 2003 Is Now The Kabul Class Of 2009"

New York Times:

As the Obama administration debates whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, a squadron of journalists has already arrived. Many of them are transplants from America's other overseas war, in Iraq.

"It's like the Baghdad class of 2003 is now the Kabul class of 2009," Richard Engel of NBC said by telephone Saturday from Kabul, the Afghanistan capital.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[SvrWx]

06:39 AM on 10/20/2009

Of course they are. Baghdad and Iraq have become stable. You have to move to where is there is more conflict.

[Nonamnesiac]

08:11 PM on 10/19/2009

Here come the "We-Must-Escalate" brigade again -- the same media that joined the Bush Administration in lying us into invading Iraq. Even lying Chris Matthews -- someone who supported the Iraq war in the beginning and then opposed it is now making the lying arguments in favor of escalation in Afghanistan. Their catechism -- Let's-Lie-About-the-Facts-Again-and-Cheerlead-the-Anti-war-public-into-supporting-escalation.

So the fact the escalation in Afghanistan will also escalate the depression why lavishing huge deficit resources onto Afghanistan is ignored, while the media tries to see there is no public option or one that "doesn't contribute to the deficit" (although the wars contributing to the deficit is ignored.

The media ignore that Afghanistan is geometrically weaker than the US militarily and economically is not threat to the US. The media ignores no Afghans flew planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The media ignores that the Taliban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to a neutral third country prior to our invasion. The media ignores the fact that Abdullah is as corrupt as Karzai or that the Taliban experienced "shock and awe" and wouldn't permit al Qaeda to use Afghanistan to launch attacks against the US.

Instead the media makes up BS about the Taliban helping Pakistan use nukes -- not even making any sense. So here comes the media hype-to-war again -- a war they'll make believe they oppose in a year when the casualties are high.

[voltage356]

04:22 PM on 10/19/2009

She just had a baby in Jan 09 and she off running to Afghanistan and before the feminist come after me i would say if a male reporter did the same thing. Also she not in the milltary where she has a choice to go or not.

[XRaraavis]

05:21 PM on 10/19/2009

There is a difference between a father and a mother and how infant children bond to them. The infant needs to have that bond with her mother and it is going to be devastating to the kid to have their mother go away for months. Luckily in this case I am sure the nanny is the primary care giver the child has bonded with and hopefully they have kept the same nanny the whole time.

[XRaraavis]

12:16 PM on 10/19/2009

Why is she wearing a head scarf. Is the oppression of women a cultural value that should be respected.

[MJinCanada]

03:24 PM on 10/19/2009

The hijab is not a sign of oppression any more than wearing a turban is for Sikhs or a cross for a Christian. Remember that 2 or 3 generations ago no respectable western woman would go out and about without a hat. Here in Canada, Muslim women have a choice whether they wear the hijab and many chose to wear it -- often in gorgeous patterns and colours.

Even worn in a distinctly westernized way, as she is doing, the hijab may help her look respectful of local customs when she's interviewing locals and get people to talk more openly to her.

Burkas are repressive.

[PWM]

03:53 PM on 10/19/2009

The hijab is repressive if women get punished for not wearing it.

[XRaraavis]

04:50 PM on 10/19/2009

I have not seen a single male reporter who felt it was necessary for him to dress in local garb in order to do his job.