Karzai Twists the Knife - Would Support Pakistan over US

[patrick1]

It's not possible we've done both?  There has never been more children going to school in the country, that probably wasn't possible without the invasion.  And this isn't about Afghans being grateful or not, it's about Karzai.

No country appreciates being invaded and occupied. Especially Afghanistan, which has been invaded and occupied more than enough.

Karzai follows in a long line of people we thought would be our puppets but it didn't work out that way. If I remember correctly, that's pretty much what happens all the time.

We should stop invading countries to install new governments. It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

In the case of Afghanistan that is not really the reason we wound up there to start with. Further, I doubt that had the aged King or Rabbani been not pressured to stand aside and were selected at the 2002 Loya Jirga that things would be much better.

[patrick1]

We should stop invading countries to install new governments.[/b] It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

In the case of Afghanistan that is not really the reason we wound up there to start with. Further, I doubt that had the aged King or Rabbani been not pressured to stand aside and were selected at the 2002 Loya Jirga that things would be much better.

The Bush Doctrine is exactly the reason we went there. It took us 10 years to find Bin Laden, but in the meantime we DID quickly overthrow Afghanistan's government and put Karzai in power.

I'm not defending the previous Afghan government, but it is not our place to go overthrowing one government to install another. Bringing 10 years of war to Afghanistan has not helped them. Karzai is no a good leader.

The problem that I have is that I think you have your timeline incorrect and are failing to put events in their proper context.  The real thrust of what became the Bush doctrine did not exist.  Bush had campaigned in 2000 on a non interventionist policy in contrast to the Clinton admin's nation building projects.  I think 9/11 proved to them that our borders now offer little protection and that we should take the fight to the enemy.  Now there are solid arguments to be made pro and con this strategy and about its ultimate efficacy.  These are all with the benefit of hindsight.   I wanted to interject a little context.   

[patrick1]

Afghanistan didn't need to be bombed to get Osama though. The Taliban didn't even know what was going to happen with 9/11. Leave the stone age tribes alone. I would love to go in there and rescue the Afghani women (they should all be given automatic green cards), but we can't have everything.

As for the other countries, the US shouldn't be the world police.

AQ had thousands of heavily armed supporters and training camps throughout the country.  The Taliban had close financial and military ties with Al Qaeda-  Why else kill does AQ kill Massoud days before 9/11. Further, the Taliban outright refused to hand he and his co-conspirators over directly after the attacks. 

Presently, I think our mission should now be wound down as we have achieved many of our objectives.   The structure is now much more amorphous and I think it is now time for the scalpel approach. Thus, we should reduce our footprint.

[patrick1]

Do you care about any other religious minorities in the mideast or Islamic Asia other than Christians, Jmf? Like say, Hindus under Islamic rule India for example? Pretty sure their population rose under kings like Akbar. Though to be fair to you, he was the exception, and most Islamic rulers were pretty sh**tty.

what is this, the exception that disproves the rule? 

Jmf, it is not just an exception to the rule.  There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.  Of course to put these things into an Islamic vs Christian structure is simplistic and misguided in the first place. Both religions span continents and intersect with different cultures, producing wildly varying forms of expression.

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

[patrick1]

There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.

you know, after the 839th time, it's gets boring having to explain that I don't care for any kind of theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

---

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

again, another straw man argument - for I haven't advocated preemptive strikes against the Arab Spring countries, only Iran and Syria.

Sorry, my mistake.  It is tough to keep up with whom you are advocating a kill crazy rampage against. So you only want to bomb Iran and Syria.  Please update us when Egypt or Turkey are added to your list

Also, I am not saying that you were advocating a theocracy. It is frustrating when people misinterpret and misconstrue someone's political positions.

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.   Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

[patrick1]

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.

such as...?

---

Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

my knowledge of current events is a bit hazy...remind me again which Muslims countries currently have a growing Christian population?

Really?  There are hundreds of examples.  Edward I expulsion of the Jews, Ferdinand and Isabella's forced conversions and expulsions, pogroms throughout C. and Eastern Europe for 600 years.  Religious tolerance isn't exactly a western virtue.

If you read several posts earlier, I am not making the claim that the "Muslim world" is very tolerant right now. However, Muslim nations are not as monolithic as you are inferring and intolerance is not necessarily its default position.  Perhaps, I am reading you wrong but you seem to equate every majority Muslim country as one short step away from a Wahhabist regime. I just dont find that a realistic fear.  Now I think it is true that in many of these countries the people feel that the Western ideologies have failed the large majority of the population and they wish to re-incorporate some Islamic principles into their governments.   That doesn't mean they will turn into Talibs overnight.