Jacob-- >>History is strongly against the idea that a foreign power can rule, or even have any influence, in Afghanistan. Alexander The Great (Butcher) is the exception, not the rule.<<
I agree that an exit strategy is not apparent and that there are risks. However, there are many historical examples of occupying armies having a positive role, from the Norman occupation of England and including the recent occupations of Germany and Japan where troops are still stationed. I dare say that we were less welcomed there than, at least initially, in Afghanistan. Your point is well-taken that there are real risks. IMO, there are also risks of no intervention. It seems our welcome in S. Korea is beginning to wear thin -but after 50 yrs.
The main issue is how to encourage diversity in a manner that show mutual respect for the differences between us. I agree with you that Islamic fundamentalists still view the jihad as sacred duty. I also agree that we are quite limited as outsiders in our ability to influence the fundamentalists. However, after 9/11, our priority must be with security and that, given the determination of many fundamentalists,unfortunately, will be at a cost of lives and civil liberties.
It appears that more stability is occurring in Afghanistan. A national army is being created and more eductional programs have begun. Basically, it is my hope that if the Afghanis see themselves as better off with a national, rather than a tribal, approach, the reforms may last. That's why the president of Afghanistan is pleading for roads.
fred
PS--Alexander the Great was not a "Butcher". He tried to limit bloodshed and allowed local customs to dominate-- as long as they paid him taxes. |
