A thought-provoking column by Tunku Varadarajan on Forbes.com today on the rescue of New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell:

Let me begin by inverting the moral question and asking not whether Farrell–whose action in defiance of advice had generated an entirely avoidable need for rescue–bears moral responsibility for the soldier’s death, but whether the Brits were entitled not to seek to rescue him. The rational answer has to be “yes.” After all, the disregard of specific advice has to have some consequence. And did not Farrell assume the risk of some harm befalling him? So why not allow him to suffer the effects of his own recklessness? Fine military people spend huge amounts of thought and energy on trying to avoidcasualties. Farrell’s reckless rejection of their obviously correct advice was a choice as massive as its consequence for his dead Afghan associate.
Yet as the actual fact of the rescue demonstrates, matters other than mere reason are in play here. There is a long political and moral tradition in democratic societies by which endangered citizens are sought to be safeguarded. Rescues of this kind–of foolish hikers in mountains, of stubborn homesteaders who stay put in a flood, of gung-ho journalists in the enemy’s lair–are a hallmark of civilization. Had Farrell been left to die in Talib hands, the British would have been the first to regard a failure to rescue him–or a failure to contemplate a rescue–as a blot on their escutcheon. So however inclined one might be to hold Farrell in contempt as a reckless Pulitzer-grubber, the question of leaving him to die simply does not arise in a great and self-sacrificial society like Britain (or the U.S., for that matter).