I thought this was a really good article by Newsweek (tho biased at points) ... on IRC, someone scoffed when I said the US was currently a lone superpower. Take a good read at the article and then tell me if you still disagree. Some highlights:
Argh! People are so afraid of violating copyright. You were simply quoting facts. Which aren't copyrightable.
The large publishing interests want you to think that any use of their material is somehow controlled by them; that copyright gives them that power. It doesn't. Don't concede the point to them!
Re:Copyright violation?
Purdy on 2003-03-19T14:21:15
You are probably right (IANAL and not knowledgable about copyright), but I conceded the point because I pretty much copied those points/facts straight from the article. I didn't want to paraprase the points/facts and be accused of adding my own bias. So re-typing those "snippets" from the article got me thinking about copyright - there were more "snippets" that I could have added, but I got to the point where I would have just been re-posting the whole article, and that got me to thinking about copyright.
JasonRe:Copyright violation?
chaoticset on 2003-05-14T13:54:07
Is it okay for me to quote you on this? Would you send me the contract so that I can review your comment?Please don't lawyer me for replying...! *whimper*
Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
Purdy on 2003-03-19T14:50:47
Yes, I would have to agree - our actions will have international ramifications for decades to come.
Last two paragraphs of the 1st section:I don't believe that Bush is "fscking" things up [Iraq, like Afghanistan, will be a better place after this is all done with] - more that he is not playing the international political game.
In one respect, I believe that the Bush administration is right: this war will look better when it is over. The military campaign will probably be less difficult than many of Washington’s opponents think. Most important, it will reveal the nature of Saddam’s barbarous regime. Prisoners and political dissidents will tell stories of atrocities. Horrific documents will come to light. Weapons of mass destruction will be found. If done right, years from now people will remember above all that America helped rid Iraq of a totalitarian dictator.
But the administration is wrong if it believes that a successful war will make the world snap out of a deep and widening mistrust and resentment of American foreign policy. A war with Iraq, even if successful, might solve the Iraq problem. It doesn’t solve the America problem. What worries people around the world above all else is living in a world shaped and dominated by one country—the United States. And they have come to be deeply suspicious and fearful of us.
I can't blame him, though, when other international "players" make decisions not based on what's good for the world or another country besides their own, but for their own financial interests or simply to keep the US in check.
Peace,
JasonRe:Scary ... but good, I guess
autarch on 2003-03-19T16:46:12
[Iraq, like Afghanistan, will be a better place after this is all done with]
What the hell are you talking about? The US has completely abandoned Afghanistan, and things there are about as bad as they were under the Taliban! Have you actually ready anything about Afghanistan recently? I doubt it, since the mainstream US media hasn't really covered it for quite a while. So did you just make your assertion up? You must have, because it doesn't really coincide with reality.
The RAWA (Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan) website has a list of recent news articles about Afghanistan, detailing the current blighted state of the country. It's certainly differnet in some ways, but not all that different. And to call it a better place is to speak from the purest ignorance.Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
Purdy on 2003-03-19T18:39:52
The US has NOT "completely abandoned Afghanistan" (what do you call the presence of troops (helping to rebuild the country and train the fledgling Afghan army), including Special Forces to continue to protect Karzai? Or what do you call the millions (billions?) of dollars of aid that the US has already provided Afghanistan?) and your statement or assertion (and dare I say ignorance or bias) almost prompts me to ignore the rest of this rant... almost.
I took a look at the Web site you linked to and there are articles talking about the blighted state of the country (but as the article says, it's a result of 20 years of war, not from the recent US extraction of the Taliban), but no where do I see news of the US abandoning Afghanistan or that Afghanistan is a WORSE place than it was before the US took out the Taliban.
You can't just wave a wand and expect a better situation - it takes time. At least without the repressive Taliban out of the way, Afghans are free to improve their country as they see fit.
Peace,
JasonRe:Scary ... but good, I guess
autarch on 2003-03-19T20:50:58
I didn't say Afghanistan was worse, I simply disagreed with your assertion that it will be a better place. Right now, over a year after the US "intervention", it is not meaningfully better. The articles I linked to suggest to me that it's unlikely to be better any time soon. Yes, there are historical reasons for this beyond the recent US bombing. One historical reason I'd point out is US funding of the Taliban (including Osama bin Laden) back when they were the mujahadin (sp?).
We will see if the country is better off in a few years. Given the current state of warlordism, I'd be damn surprised if it was. As to the aid, this article at least suggests that it hasn't been put to very good use. And $900M is a drop in the bucket next to our planned budget for the next war, at $50B+!
Other articles cited on the RAWA site discuss the failure of the US to really support Hamed Karzai, so I don't know what makes you think that the future of Afghanistan is going to be better, other than the vague idea that the Taliban was so bad that nothing could be worse. The Taliban was indeed horrific, but so is the current situation, and the US isn't doing much about it.Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
jordan on 2003-03-19T22:30:38
- One historical reason I'd point out is US funding of the Taliban (including Osama bin Laden) back when they were the mujahadin (sp?).
You need to get your players straight. First, Osama Bin Laden was never a member of the Taliban. The Taliban, which only really coalesced in 1994, was made up of Talibes, mostly Pashtun religious zealots who overran Afghanistan with Pakistani support.
Now, many of the Taliban had been mujahedeen, but it's hard to see where we ever funding the Taliban, except perhaps that foreign aid we sent them for destroying the Poppy crop one year.
The instability of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ousted was largely because the Tajik, Uzbeki, Pashtun and Persian groups were jockeying for power. It appears that all sides are working together now with the King having returned to lend stability.
Pakistan funded the Taliban to gain trade stability. It certainly appears that Pakistan will support the current Karzai government for much the same reason.
The US never funded one group, the Taliban, over another at the expense of Afghan stability as you seem to be claiming.
Well, unless you claim that the Soviet puppet government was stable and our support of the Mujahideen broke that up.
Things may well be bleak in Afghanistan for some time to come. By far, the largest cash industry has been the opium trade for some time and it's hard to see how we would support a government that would countenance that.
Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
autarch on 2003-03-19T23:08:58
You need to get your players straight. First, Osama Bin Laden was never a member of the Taliban. The Taliban, which only really coalesced in 1994, was made up of Talibes, mostly Pashtun religious zealots who overran Afghanistan with Pakistani support.
Now, many of the Taliban had been mujahedeen, but it's hard to see where we ever funding the Taliban, except perhaps that foreign aid we sent them for destroying the Poppy crop one year.
Fair enough, I wasn't trying to imply that the US had directly funded the Taliban, but I can see how it'd look that way from what I wrote. However, the US did provide money, arms, and training to the mujahedin, and many of those same people went on to become the Taliban. Others, like bin Laden, went on to become international terrorists. I am saying that this was stupid. Couldn't we have found anyone less vicious to support? Was there no legitimate democratic opposition to the Soviet occupation? Or did those people just not look likely to provide the economic access the US would want?
So yes, I think the US does have some responsibility for creating the Taliban and for creating the power vacuum that let them come into power. And the US also does have some responsibility for making bin Laden more dangerous, though any ultra-rich man with a lot of hatred is pretty dangerous, AFAIC.
As to the stability of the Soviet puppet regime, without the US-funded opposition, it probably would have been much more stable. Whether or not this would have been better for Afghanistan is really hard to say. But a civil war leading that replaces one oppressive, brutal gov't with more of the same is probably worse than just sticking with the original oppressive, brutal gov't. The price of civil war should buy you something better than the Taliban!Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
jordan on 2003-03-20T00:41:15
- Was there no legitimate democratic opposition to the Soviet occupation?
AFAIK, there was no opposition except for the Mujahideen. They were a very mixed bag, but there are legitimate Democratic elements, like Karzai (father was a Mujahideen leader) and Dr. Muhammed (new foreign minister, former Mujahideen).
- Or did those people just not look likely to provide the economic access the US would want?
Sheesh, where do you get your world view? The Worker's World Daily? Our support of the Afghani opposition had nothing to do with economic access.
It was Cold War politics, plain and simple. The US was concerned that with a destablized Iran that the Soviets could push their hegemony over the critical MidEast, perhaps taking Saudi Arabia. In the late 70's Iraq was cozier to the Soviets than they were to us, so it looked pretty frightening. Recall that Syria was a direct Soviet client state at the time. Syria and Iraq both had the Islamic Socialist model of government (the Bathist party is common to both).
The US only supplied very limited support anyway. Some weapons, some intelligence, not very costly. The Mujihadeen were highly motivated civil warriors that did the rest. The Pakistanis probably provided a lot of support to the Mujihadeen. In those days, Pakistan was closer to the west and India was closer to the Soviets. Pakistan couldn't stand the thought of being surrounded by enemies.
The civil war didn't immediately get us the Taliban. There was a fledgling democracy after the Soviets were ousted, but the in-fighting among the various ethnic groups led to chaos. Pakistan bolstered the Taliban as a stable solution, which they were. There were other problems, however.
In retrospect, things might have been done differently, sure. The Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan went a long way to taking down the Soviet Union. The leaders of the USSR lost all confidence in the ability of their military to be able to do anything right. They couldn't even keep down a bunch of ragtag guerrillas from a third world nation on their border.
It was perhaps naive to believe that a world without a Soviet Union would be safer...
Re:Scary ... but good, I guess
Purdy on 2003-03-20T04:33:52
autarch - First, I want to apologize for my previous response. I responded too quickly after reading your post and let my emotions get the better of me. I appreciate your input and your perspective - it at least pointed me to some insights on what's going on in Afghanistan (you're right - I don't get much news in terms of what's going on in Afghanistan).
I read your linked article and it disgusts me that monetary aid goes towards new buildings, air-conditioned jeeps, but not towards the people of Afghanistan. However, the article claims this as the "U.N. effect", not a "U.S. effect."
The original Newsweek article brought up the Marshall Plan, which the U.S. created after WW2 when sending aid to Europe and continues to use as a framework, it seems. We give the cash and other means of resources, and it's up to the receiving country(ies) to figure out what to do with it. The Newsweek article goes on to say that this bought us a tremendous amount of goodwill after WW2, so when it came to the Cold War, Europe found it easy to side with the U.S. with all of the pro-America warm-fuzziness going on.
So while we both agree that Afghanistan is not worse, I will gladly agree that conditions in Afghanistan are the same (not better) if we both agree that Afghanistan has the means to become a better place (YAPC::Afghanistan 2010 ?) AND we both continue to raise awareness of the lack of progress in that direction and work towards progress, by praying, hoping and engaging others of its status.
Peace,
JasonRe:Scary ... but good, I guess
Purdy on 2003-03-19T18:46:23
Facts - $900M already, with another $2B ($820M from the US) on the way, with international support.
