OK, of course we should get out. They have cultural and institutional problems that we cannot change, but only make worse, as others have pointed out. Unless you are prepared to permanently occupy the country or nuke them. Which is it? Otherwise they will continue to prefer struggling with their own people and will outlast any external efforts to mold them into some Western model.

Why are we there? Is it to combat terrorism, the Taliban or to save the local population from a terrible fate? We do not invade every country that experiences gross injustice. Even if we had the resources, we wouldn’t do so, as it is counterproductive from a humanitarian perspective as well as an economic perspective. There are a few rare instances where such action is justified. Those situations are recognised in international law. There are good reason that individual countries aren’t supposed to decide on their own when to intervene.

Why is US aid generally inversely proportional to countries human rights records? – i.e, the worse the record, the greater the aid to the existing government? The West, and particularly the US, ruthlessly follows its own perceived interests, regardless of other considerations. Democratic reform is not a requirement for US support, only alignment with US policy is. If you are aligned, the US doesn’t care what you do to your population as demonstrated in so many countries – Chile, Indonesia, even in the mid east where oppressive governments like Saudi get nary a mention due to their strategic importance. Where there is no alignment, human rights suddenly becomes a big issue because public support can be drummed up with it. But why should an Afghan woman’s plight be more important than a Saudi woman’s plight, or a woman from East Timor under Indonesia?

Why haven’t we taken Mugabe out, to name just one deserving regime? Surely the case there is even more straight forward. The difference is that he has nothing we want, unlike countries in the Middle East. The US had no real problems with the Taliban before 9/11. It was just as nasty then, but we were interested in an oil pipeline to the Caspian, so we looked the other way. This is the one pattern that can be counted on when looking at US military intervention, rather than the excuses it may give. Certainly there was no suggestion of invading to save its population from an evil govt. Were you campaigning for an invasion in the 1990’s wat?

If the West was really interested in democracy, it would support internal movements and institutions where they exist over the long haul as that is the only way to make the change stick. But they would also have to support the independent decision making of other countries. This means avoiding the knee-jerk reactions of the past to subvert even democratic government because they tick us off. Iran in 1953 was the most modern and most secular country in the mid east. Unfortunately they wanted to be independent and nationalised oil companies (with compensation). The West’s real priorities shone through once again, destroying the best hope the Arab world ever had to modernise in a compatible way with the West. We suffer from this catastrophic mistake even today.

Some will argue that since we’re there, we should do the job even if US intentions are not good. This is one of the most difficult fallacies as it plays so strongly on out desire to help people in need. But in fact, a country with bad intentions really can’t deliver a good outcome for the people on the street. Even when it looks like there is common cause, the real goals win out in the end and the people get screwed. The best we can do is get out and provide funding to clean up our mess. It will take longer, as it is even more broken than before we arrived, but otherwise we’ll be having this discussion for a long time to come.

Lastly, this is not really about the US. They just happen to be the current world power. That they consistently act in their own selfish interests should not be a surprise – what is there to stop them? (Potentially public opinion, but the public are so poorly informed that there is little chance of that in most cases.) The US is just doing what every single world power before it has done. The rhetoric of freedom is just a convenience fooling only the naive.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I support our troops so much that I dont want them going.
Not to a war which I suspect is driven by Trade Concessions.
After all, Uncle Sam didn’t care how many Kurds Saddam murdered in 91/92 did he?
Saved the OIL, packed up and went home – left Hussein to Gas all those civilians.
So lose the pretence this has anything to do with ‘rights’ or ‘freedom’.
The convoy carrying those kids went right by my door yesterday. Can’t recall seeing so many kids so obviously terrified….I hope they all survive there and thereafter – it’s people like me who have to work hard to help our casualties, go to their funerals, talk to the families in words no one can believe.
I don’t appreciate flippant and ignorant warmongering – if it’s all the same to you that is….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Lawrence – just a thought – a question really.. if you and your family were under constant threat of being bombed, would your opinion of your enemy change, if you knew they were mocking you publically, on the internet etc., as well as bombing you? Does it make any difference to the situation, in this electronic age, do you think?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The West has been their best recruiter so far – business is Booming.
Point that weapon at your own head and try and laugh!
Collect your Families body parts from the flattened area you used to live in and try laughing.
We are going there at a time when the rest of the World are leaving – we are inviting Terrorism from that quarter….there is nothing funny for anyone in this.
How could you think otherwise?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It sounds like you think the US is in Afghanistan out of the goodness of its heart.

Of course we should NOT be in Afghanistan except to help with rebuilding. The reason you give is only one of many, but I’m far too tired to engage tonight – hopefully tomorrow.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There are plenty of well articulated points thoughout these posts which I won’t rehash.

@Fin hits the nail on the head… Are we increasing the reach of the Taliban by marginalising the moderates of the country? I for one may become a little extremist if someone invaded NZ in 2001 and was still bombing us 8 years later…

2 thoughts..
Would Pakistan have had such a moderate election outcome if it wasn’t disheartened with their American allied govt and the US war in Afganistan?
Would there be such a soft border between Afganistan and Pakistan (not to mention regional/ tribal support on the ground) without the US invasion?

The most obvious point (and I apologise if I missed someone making this earlier) is it is debatable that the Taliban would have even be in control of Afganistan if it wasn’t for the Cold War that was fought out across their lands, and the power vaccuum left after 1991.

The longer we fight, the more extreme moderates on the ground will become, and the more sympathy the neighbouring countries will have for the Afghani people in general. The Afgani people are a proud people and they will never give up their land. To assume they are all Taliban supporters is like assuming every German supported the National Socialist party in the ’30′s.

Why are we forever forced to repeat the mistakes of history?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Fin says:

Because then the Afghans will see the good culture in all its glory

We’ll be their beacon of hope in a mad, mad world!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There is nothing immoral about killing combatants that are part of a murderous despicable stone age group of aggressors. Presumably if the Taliban could be fought and defeated by military means, with no civilian casualties, the Greens would support it?

Or, if the Taliban took over substantial parts of Pakistan, what should be the Western response to a Pakistani government seeking help to quell this?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It is possible that the war in Afganistan will not weaken the Taliban, it could even strengthen the ‘culture’.
It is likely that there are options other than war, which would see a better future for Afgan women. But the details of these other options, sadly I do not have.
In the man time it might help to “blow of[sic] a Taliban’s head and **** down his throat”…
Because then the Afgans will see the good culture in all its glory

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,

So are you saying that the West should pull-out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban rule with a free hand, because fighting them inevitably involves some civilian casualties?

If not, then what? Take as much care as possible to avoid them? Well duh.

So let’s hear you say it. Do you think the West should fight the Taliban and accept the inevitable civilian casualties, whilst obviously taking great care to minimise them?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Lost cause. The best one can do is point out his fallacies for others.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That is a very interesting thought. What would the Taliban find funny?

Just like all enemies it is easy to demonise them as humourless fundamentalists but I’m sure they laugh like any other humans. Just what would make them laugh though I have no idea.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh wat an ass you can be. I have never denied that the Taliban suck. That is just a straw man you’re using to avoid dealing with the fact that non-combatants are being killed as well.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat – are you suggesting that the ‘soldiers out there’ are on the same moral plane as us civilians?

Valis – wat has invited you to be his teacher. It’s an honour and a challenge at the same time. Grasp the opportunity and teach him good (there’s a great deal to be done, empty vessel and all that!)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They know where we live and they know now, what we consider funny. Bet they’re splitting their side too!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You can hide under a rock and pretend Helen Clark’s “benign strategic environment” is real if you want.

The Taliban know where New Zealand is. They know we’ve had troops there from the start. They’d come after us if they could but they’re in a fight for their lives so have more pressing priorities.

And when say “fully support” I mean just that. If you wear the uniform of the New Zealand Defence Force, you’ve volunteered to stand between harm and my family. I’m behind you 100 percent.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,

Oh what a wonderful, caring and deeply compassionate person you must be to post such a thought.

Really, it puts you in a different moral plane to the soldiers who are actually out there fighting the Taliban.

You know what? From now on I’m going to call you Sensei and you shall be my teacher.

In the meantime, why don’t google for “taliban” and “women” and click on a few links.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t think the collateral damage care much what size bombs killed them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m just a civilian, staying behind with the women and children, but I can honestly say that if I were in Afghanistan I’d be more than prepared to blow of a Taliban’s head and **** down his throat.

Therefore, when I see a picture of some troops showing high morale and welcome aggression towards this vile enemy I applaud it.

- “We now hear that American strategy has changed, and they are engaged more in “surgical” air strikes. Funny then how they are still using 2000 pound bombs. It doesn’t sound very surgical.”

Well gee, Keith. Maybe they’ve got a whole range of bombs for different scenarios; from big ones down to little ones. Do you think that could be possible? If only there were some interconnected web of computers where one could go to find this information and get informed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So why don’t you answer the question then?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)