However, the "invasion," was poorly planned and the followup, which could have been of great benefit to Afghan citizens, was botched. The entire effort was doomed when GWB and his advisers decided to attack Iraq. In my opinion, prospects for bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan were never good even before the Iraq misadventure due to the fractured nature of Afghan society and incessant meddling by elements within Pakistan (for many years before and after the invasion). Once Iraq entered the picture Afghanistan became hopeless. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
It is possible to promote democracy in areas without that legacy, but certainly not Afghanistan for the reasons you gave. I don't think it's institutionally possible for any wealthy nation's government to purse it, though. Their interests lie in keeping other nations politically and economically weak.
you are the media you consume.
The bottom line is that technology has advanced faster than cultures can evolve.
Just kidding.
The Wall Street Journal Online: White Guilt and the Western Past: Why is America so delicate with the enemy? (by SHELBY STEELE, May 2, 2006)
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II. For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency. Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.
For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.
Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
Portsmouth Herald World/National News: U.S. Jets Pound Targets Around Kabul
Bush ordered the strikes Oct. 7 after Afghanistan's Islamic regime refused repeated demands to surrender bin Laden, chief suspect in the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed an estimated 6,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no. ``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president said in Washington. Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.
Bush ordered the strikes Oct. 7 after Afghanistan's Islamic regime refused repeated demands to surrender bin Laden, chief suspect in the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed an estimated 6,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field.
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no.
``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president said in Washington.
Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.
believe that the "invasion" of Afghanistan was an evil that was necessitated by 9/11 and the Taliban's insistence upon harboring and nurturing the planners of that and other murderous events.
I strongly dissent, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. As I have said on other occasions, if we play the game like that, then Cuba has the right to bomb Miami and invade the USA (if only it could!!!) based on the US harboring of Posada Carriles (as well as plenty other terrorists it has no doubt funded, trained and collaborated with). And if you want to talk about sponsoring anti-democratic forces, we can go on forever! "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
