Life After the Taliban

From time to time, I do wonder why American troops should continue putting their lives on the line for a government that would still kill people for making independent choices about their religious affiliation.

Sadly, as I watch the tarpit that is the countries we freed from retrograde, maniacal dictatorships, my response is increasingly becoming: Fuck 'em.

Comments

[hank]

Yes, it's sad but true. We can't "liberate " a people whose minds are in the 7th Century.

[Jack Malebranche]

Indeed.

[Tommy]

From the article: "The state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission" . . . huh?

[Josh]

I find it interesting that they may be looking to declare him insane as a way of avoiding having to execute him. That presents an intriguing legal loophole—anyone who converts away from Islam is clearly insane, therefore they cannot be executed for it. I could envision the more liberal minded of Karzai's government trying it.

Well, it's a thought.

[Queer Conservative]

Insane? Whatever works I guess. If he manages to avoid execution we need to grant him immediate asylum. We also need to make to clear to the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan that in return for their liberation we expect certain things...

I heard some pundit muse on this earlier in the week: after WWII, didn't we write Japan's constitution for them? "Here you go, this is how it's going to be." Perhaps we should have followed the same game plan in Afghanistan and Iraq...

[Josh]

In fairness to the Japanese, they attacked us first, whereas we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush was quite explicit that both actions were covered under the "preemptive" and "harboring" provisions of his new doctrine. It's not quite the same.

[Queer Conservative]

That's a very fine line you're not crossing...

[Robbie]

Yeah, when I think Bush administration, "subtle legal minds" isn't the first phrase that pops into my head.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Well, I would put it this way.....think of what would have happened to this man under the Taliban.

What we have isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better.

The Middle East is taking its first fledgling steps into democracy. The fact that they won't move from the 7th century to the 21st overnight is a given.

The question is, though; will we have the patience to wait?

[owlish]

Well, I would put it this way.....think of what would have happened to this man under the Taliban.

Under the Taliban: he would have been killed, maybe with, maybe without, a trial.

Now: from what I can tell, without a huge political response, he will be given the death penalty and killed.

Am I missing something here?

[Queer Conservative]

The only difference is that under Karzai's government he get's a trial...then he's executed. Maybe every time they betray an inalienable right (in particular freedom of religion, which I might add they've written into their own constitution) we should give the Taliban a province back. :-)

[Downtown lad]

Exactly. The only reason we are there is for OUR interest, not theirs. As it should be.

We went to Afghanistan to kick the Taliban out. Why in the world we let them set up another Islamic regime is beyond me.

And we went to Iraq to make sure there were no WMD's and to kick Saddam out of power. Mission accomplished. So why the hell are we still there????