Actually, depending on the audience, I may take it in or simply shrug it off.
It is especially important to be pro-American in times of crisis.
Yes, I agree (obvious national switch aside). But I don't agree that it's "pro" a country to support everything it does, if you can see a better path - or at least one which is arguably better.
If you recall back, for example, you may notice that I was strongly in favour of targeted and violent military action.
You'll also noticed that I criticised the apparent lack of any plan for "what happens next", and said this should be communicated if known, or even more strongly worked on if not. Otherwise it would cause problems. This attracted castigation from certain quarters - perhaps as implying that the military could not solve everything, or perhaps as anti-American carping.
Which attitude is now proved correct, would you think? I believe my stance would have put the US in a stronger position now. Certainly one likely to give more influence on what happens next, and the future dfirection of Afghanistan...
Currently, Rumsfeld is unwilling even to contribute troops etc. to a putative peacekeeping force, in other words abdicating responsibility. I believe this is perpetuating the problem, and makes it likely to recur in worse form in a few years' time. Quitting a war zone hardly means that the problems go away - as Iraq (headed by another former US ally) should prove.
Possible scenario? In 2004 the unrestrained Northern Alliance grow tired of (alleged) terrorist incursions from the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan, and invade... |
