Ted Rall for February 23, 2009

Do I hear a rimshot? Anyone?

Even without US military Drones, shooting guns in the air like that is just stupid. Those bullets don;t just disappear in the air.

OTOH, if we hadn’t botched this whole thing, the Afghans would left alone to do whatever they liked n their wedding day.

Yep, it’s better Afghans are forbidden to do what they please by the Americans.

That way they will have no doubt as to who is occupying their country.

The Afghan women looked so happy when they were allowed freedom from the burkha.

“The Afghan women looked so happy when they were allowed freedom from the burkha.”

Were they ? I thought it just went on as usual, and the occupation did not change anything in that regard. That makes better sense. Did you really think bringing over guys with guns would change anything ? No. I suppose not.

It was probably more a projection of our values on people living on the other side of the planet.

Yet, what tells you the Afghans opposed the Talibans as much as you would have ? And for the same reason you would have ?

You do know that prior to the Talibans, there were warlords, who cared just as much about civil liberties and emancipation. The situation was such that when the Taliban won over those warlords, the West, including the US, welcomed the change, saying it would bring stability.

There was even a time when Mullah Omar sent a Taliban delegation to Texas, to negociate the construction of a pipeline.

In light of the previous, the least you can say is America is not in Afghanistan to restore civil liberties. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise, and dishonest to lament the Afghan women’s plight. They had the same plight in 1998 (if my memory serves correctly), when the Talibans visited America and were welcomed with open arms.

Oh, and by the way. Have you heard what they’re saying about Karzai ? That he doesn’t stop the opium traffic. Fact-check: the opium traffic exploded IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INVASION. This has been happening for YEARS. And it makes bleeep sense. You destroy the government that was keeping a lid on the traffic, OBVIOUSLY the opium is going to flow a lot more after its overthrow.

Again, it’s profoundly dishonest to blame Karzai for it, and especially considering the fact that he has no control outside of Kabul. He’s nicknamed the “mayor of Kabul” there.

“It was probably more a projection of our values on people living on the other side of the planet.”

I don’t like leaving Afghans to those monsters, but you kinda hit the head on the nail there, littlehorn.

“I don’t like leaving Afghans to those monsters, but you kinda hit the head on the nail there, littlehorn.”

Thanks.

That’s not how I see things. We are not in control of Afghanistan, or any other place on the planet, for that matter. The Afghans control Afghanistan. The Talibans could only rule because they were tolerated by the population. And while war and occupation are waged on behalf of the people, they rarely are the ones who decide this, and they always are the ones who pay the most. Something is fishy when you’re forced to pay for something that you don’t want. I believe I’ve read somewhere that most Afghans wanted a withdrawal in the course of the next 6 months.

Thanks, Littlehorn. I’ll add that Americans are all too happy to try to go after war criminals in other countries, but not so good at dealing with our own.

On a related topic, why do people think taking out heads of state will lead to more moderate leadership? That sort of thing destablizes countries and that tends to radicalize leadership. Does anyone really think the USA would be a better place if foreigners had assassinated Bush and Cheney?

“No really good answers here that I can see.”

I personally don’t see where the dilemma is. A dictator wastes people’s lives for his own ends of domination. It’s up to the people to stand up to him, not some country on the other side of the planet. If they won’t move, then they’re going to get what they’re not willing to fight against. Some people prefer to live, even under dictatorship. It’s cowardly, but it’s their decision to make. Again, they’ll be the ones who pay for their cowardice, and that’s how it should be. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, Americans make Iraqis pay for something they didn’t choose. It could even be argued that Saddam’s dictatorship is a product of CIA action. Wasn’t Saddam working for the CIA once ? Against Commies ? I think he did.

So long as I have your attention, watch out for WMD mark 2. This time, the target is Iran. And what do you think happens ? Well Obama’s administration is going Bush-y on Iran. Everyone’s getting apoplectic because the IAEA said there was more uranium than they thought. Guys, the IAEA is all over the place in Iran. There is no way Iran could develop a nuclear weapon without them knowing.

Well, I guess no one here will believe this. I’ll probably get called a lunatic of the fringe, once more.

But wait another two years, you’ll probably hear the NYT apologize once again and promise not to spread bulls**t ever again. The key to spot bull’ is the words “anonymous official.”

“On a related topic, why do people think taking out heads of state will lead to more moderate leadership? That sort of thing destablizes countries and that tends to radicalize leadership.”

I think it’s more about doing justice and drawing lines on what can and cannot be done. I wouldn’t have leaders assassinated, but rather, I would have them judged for their crimes. That would be enough I think. And it’s already far more than what anyone would accept in the US, or anywhere else.

That’s where it gets touchy; they were behind 9/11 (according to the official version).

The Taliban has an agenda to attack the Western World. Who wants to ‘control’ Afghanistan? I think we want to protect America. This pro-Taliban retoric makes me sick to my stomach.

“This pro-Taliban retoric makes me sick to my stomach.”

What pro-Taliban retoric (sic)?

“Do you interfere when you see someone trying to kill or otherwise harm someone else?”

And how do you interfere? By killing both the bad guys and those who were being killed by the bad guys in the first place.

When it comes to killing people, the US foreign policy seems to rely on this: “better that those civilians die at our hands than by the bad guys. Because *we* are the good guys!”

And if that doesn’t work then you end up paying the bad guys to keep the control over the region (Iraq).

Bad guys and civilians look alike when they are shooting at you. US Foreign Policy is for Americans. Protecting our interests and ultimately American lives.

If you see injustice in another country, you address it with the perpetrator. History has shown over and over that jumping in with guns a blazing just makes things blow up more. However, we did not go into Afghanistan to improve anyone’s life – just to get the guys who messed with us. We really didn’t care about the civil rights of women there. Do I wish we could do something to help those who are clearly being hurt by the cruelty of the Taliban? Yes. But imposing our own rule and careless cruelty is not the way. As others have said, there’s no easy answer.

I look at it like a bank robber holding a bank hostage. Do you immediately go in, guns ablaze, to save the hostages?

I can hear the “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!” people already. Negotiating implies that the bank robber/terrorist will get what he wants.

How many bank robbers typically get the private plane afterwards?

Daniel, If the bank robber was trying to KILL YOU or had you hostage.. I bet you would want some action.

I love how we assume they are US drones, what about Russian, Iranian, or Pakistani UAVs…. :|

You people had no interests in both Afghanistan and Iraq untill your army invaded it.

The British tried it. They didn’t win. The Soviet Russians tried. They didn’t win.

The US are trying it. They will lose but not before more Afghan civilians and American soldiers are killed.

it = conquering and subjugating a foreign country and make the country exploitable by your big business.

American foreign policy NEVER is about saving (American) lives. They will gladly sacrifice American lives of the lower classes so the upper classes can rake up the profits.

Audie, I just cannot agree with your statement. Foreign policy is about protect American intersts and American lives. If we ‘lower class’ all die in war, who will be left to pick up the taxes….

All I want is for the extremist not to attack my country again. That is the backbone of our policies in Afghanistan, unlike Britian, Russia, and Pakistan.