Afghan War Crimes. Civilians Deliberately Targeted

[Peter F]

Scott SA:

... We're there to deny al Queda the national base it had.

That's done. As a correlary, we're there to overthrow the tyranny of the Taliban, disrupt to the point of irrelevancy its future appeal, and in aid of all this build infrastructure that allows social reform a fighting chance.

Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.

The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.

If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

[M.Dancer]

Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.

The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.

If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

1) Being a member of NATO is in our national interest.

2) Defeating the Taliban and disrupting Al Qaeda is in our national interest.

[Army Guy]

myata:

That won't change them one bit, but would definitely turn us into something we believe we have left in the past. Besides, it was already tried in the past, with questionnable effect.

It will change the dynamics of the War, they (taliban) are well aware of the genvenva convention and the protection it offers them regardless if they follow it or not. Although one can say the convention whole existance was to civilize the way we fight, there is no civilization in any war, death is the number one objective, making the other poor bastard die for his country or cause i believe the quote says...

What is legitimate government of a country invaded and occupied by foreign troops?

Yes Afgan was invaded, it's government of the time was ousted, and we did occupy Afgan....until Afganis voted in thier own government, and it asked for our assistance in rebuilding thier country...that is when NATO stoped being an occuping force.

If a government is a legitimate one (in the full sense of the word), wouldn't it imply that it should able to at least maintain basic security in the country on its own, without massive foreign support?

Because you are an elected offical does not give you some majical abilities to make things right again, keeping in mind that most of the infra structure was destroyed, and what was not the Taliban took with them....To assist them in getting on thier feet in a timly fashion means massive foreign aid, and security.

What is the meaning of election in a place which does not have any tradition of electing its government? And so on..

We create things that do not have any tradition or history everyday, To Afganis to finally have a say on whom was going to govern them was a huge step, and a freedom they very much enjoy. to make that piont alot of afganis walked over 200 kms thru hostile areas just for the chance to vote....how many Canadians can say they would do that, most would not even drive 200 kms just to vote...

Everything and every tradition has a beginning, or a first time..

No I suggest first of all trying to understand where and why you're going, then what are you trying you to achieve there, and finally how you're going to do it so that it actually stands a chance of success.

This comment burns my ass with a 5 foot flame. Why, because as a soldier i pray that before we get our orders to start training, and ship out that our government , the citizens have all sat down and thought out the problem thoughly, that they have wieghed the pros and cons. That being said, the majority of Canada was willing to send combat troops into Afgan, with a clear and pricise mission. To hunt down and kill scum bags, to assist the Afgan government in restoring thier country. That mission still stands today....

As it turns out in our fast food culture it is taking to long, alot of people have said the mission is clouded not clear,and stands no chance of success.

WHY is it that those that are serving in afgan, those members of this nation whom we have asked to carry out this task are the only ones that still see it with clear and pricise outlines , and believe that it is very achievable ...even when they know that by staying and continueing with the mission will cost them, repeated tours of duties, time away from there loved ones, and thier lives of thier comrads.

[Charles Anthony]

Forgive me but this:

Yes Afgan was invaded, it's government of the time was ousted, and we did occupy Afgan....until Afganis voted in thier own government, and it asked

is painfully difficult to accept. I challenge you to identify: who asked what?

[Army Guy]

Peter F:

Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.

The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.

If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

Why can it not be both reasons, i know of plenty of NATO countries that are not involved in Iraq or Afgan, these countries have alot more to offer than Canada could ever dream of. And yet they will continue to be part of NATO, and have not been treatened with pony up or find a new alliance. kind of tests your theory.

[myata]

Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.

The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.

If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

Correct. Canada is a member of Nato. And Nato has obligation to act if its member is under attack. And

trigger happy US chose the full blown invasion as a retribution. So we end up brigning democracy and so on. Although many questions still remain unanswered. E.g, if harbouring (not even directly sponsoring) a group that conspires and executes attacks against other countries should be equivalent to a declaration of war, maybe US itself should be invaded for all the uncounted instances when it did the same (Chile, Nicaragua ....)?

[myata]

We create things that do not have any tradition or history everyday, To Afganis to finally ...

The post is too long to reply line by line. Let's just say that like many before, you're bringing up this assumption that you (we, West, whoever) are entitled to "create things that do not have any tradtion" in other countries, that never asked you to do that for them. Why do you believe that this assumption has any merit, other than the merit of force (because I can)?

[Army Guy]

is painfully difficult to accept. I challenge you to identify: who asked what?

Why is that so hard to accept, After NATO had liberated Afgan from the Taliban as part of that Mandate it was determined to hold a free election, it did that the people of Afgan had decided to elect it's current government....

It is this current government that has asked NATO to provide security and to assist in rebuilding it's nation, not only the infra structure but to assist in establishing law and order, and it's policitical system.

It is at this time that NATO switched from being an occuping power to one that was asked to assist..you can't be an occuping force when you've been asked to assist them can you...

[Army Guy]

myata:

Correct. Canada is a member of Nato. And Nato has obligation to act if its member is under attack. And

trigger happy US chose the full blown invasion as a retribution. So we end up brigning democracy and so on. Although many questions still remain unanswered. E.g, if harbouring (not even directly sponsoring) a group that conspires and executes attacks against other countries should be equivalent to a declaration of war, maybe US itself should be invaded for all the uncounted instances when it did the same (Chile, Nicaragua ....)?

The question should be "what is the liberal response "to how many people have to die before we can go to war" the reason i ask is on 9/11 over 3000 americans died, your statement reads like the US did not have a legitimate reason....

As for the unanswered questions , they have clearly been answered you've just not been listening...The Taliban are not the inocent ones in this case, and they got exactly what they sowed. And it is a declaration of war when that country decides it will protect them at all costs.

The post is too long to reply line by line. Let's just say that like many before, you're bringing up this assumption that you (we, West, whoever) are entitled to "create things that do not have any tradtion" in other countries, that never asked you to do that for them. Why do you believe that this assumption has any merit, other than the merit of force (because I can)?

When you invade a country and oust it's government you do have a responsibility for that nation. You need to come to grips with the fact that more Afganis voted in thier elections per capita than Canadians did in our last election, and we are the ones with the tradition, you act like this is a bad thing giving them a option of picking thier leaders...that we the west have overstepped our bounds somehow...you make it sound that they do not want it and we are forceing it on them, which is untrue, the numbers that voted are proof of that. I'm not the one making assumptions you are.

[Sno]

Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.

The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.

If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

Correct. Canada is a member of Nato. And Nato has obligation to act if its member is under attack. And

trigger happy US chose the full blown invasion as a retribution. So we end up brigning democracy and so on. Although many questions still remain unanswered. E.g, if harbouring (not even directly sponsoring) a group that conspires and executes attacks against other countries should be equivalent to a declaration of war, maybe US itself should be invaded for all the uncounted instances when it did the same (Chile, Nicaragua ....)?

Your line of thinking is quite disturbing. The 'trigger happy' US waited a month before it invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11. Another fallacy you claim is that the Taliban were not even directly sponsoring Al Qaeda. NATO leaving Afghanistan will hand the country back to the Taliban and give Al Qaeda a place to organize and carry out attacks worldwide. It's obvious.

[myata]

The question should be "what is the liberal response "to how many people have to die before we can go to war" the reason i ask is on 9/11 over 3000 americans died, your statement reads like the US did not have a legitimate reason....

Do I sense an uncertaintly here? Legitimate reason for what exactly? To fight Alcaeda, sure, but it was already happening before 9/11. To respond in force after the 9/11 attack. Certainly. To invade and occupy whole country? I don't know. What if, X years ago, a contras (who were BTW trained and financed by US) blew up a building or a plant with similar number of casualties (maybe they did - who knows? Pinochet did murder more than 3000 innocent civilians), would that be a legitimate reason to declare a war on the US and invade it?

In any case, it's beyond the point. Whether legitimate or not (lawyers can decide that), does this strategy stand a chance of success, in the long run? This comes down essentially to the assumption that our democratic system can be transplanted onto the foreign soil and after a while would be able to sustain itself. I simply don't see any indication that it can be the case. And if does prove to be wrong, we'd have to pull out at some point, and maybe not so remote in time. And then, what?

When you invade a country and oust it's government you do have a responsibility for that nation. You need to come to grips with the fact that more Afganis voted in thier elections per capita than...

For the rest, I'll have to address you back to my earlier post. 45% voters in Canada vs 95% in Afganistan is not the same thing. A warlord comes to his serfs and tells them "vote for me". That's your 95%. You're under wrong assumption that this word, "election" somehow has a magical universal meaning. It does not. Election is nothing without first of all, population that understand the meaning of it, and secondly, all the other institutions that support a functioning democracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

In any case, it's beyond the point. Whether legitimate or not (lawyers can decide that), does this strategy stand a chance of success, in the long run? This comes down essentially to the assumption that our democratic system can be implanted onto the foreign soil and after a while would be able to sustain itself. I simply don't see any indication that it can be the case. And if does prove to be wrong, we'd have to pull out at some point, and maybe not so remote in time. And then, what?

See "Japan".

[myata]

Of course, other examples have been far and wide apart since. From all the countless episodes of American interference in the world. Hardly the success rate one'd want to bet thousands of lives and billions, no trillions of resources on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, other examples have been far and wide apart since. From all the countless episodes of American interference in the world. Hardly the success rate one'd want to bet thousands of lives and billions, no trillions of resources on.

I guess one could think of American intervention in Japan as "interference".....others called it WW2 and occupation....hell, we're still there!. May be your opinion, but it's American choice to invest lives and trillions, to wit:

...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy (1961)

[Army Guy]

myata:

Do I sense an uncertaintly here?

Not uncertainity but furstration. That you are not using all of the facts, to base your opinions, and you are making some big leaps in the ones you are using.

Legitimate reason for what exactly? To fight Alcaeda, sure, but it was already happening before 9/11. To respond in force after the 9/11 attack. Certainly. To invade and occupy whole country? I don't know.

I think this where we disagree, is how much force for 9/11 was proportionate, after all it was just not the fact that over 3000 died, but the targets they attacked, and just how easy it was to do seriously damage the US. A clear and heavy handed message had to be given, or face more of these attacks...

What if, X years ago, a contras (who were BTW trained and financed by US) blew up a building or a plant with similar number of casualties (maybe they did - who knows? Pinochet did murder more than 3000 innocent civilians), would that be a legitimate reason to declare a war on the US and invade it?

If the US had said we will defend those scumbags with everything we have then yes, invade the US, not an advisable plan but it fits...

In any case, it's beyond the point. Whether legitimate or not (lawyers can decide that), does this strategy stand a chance of success, in the long run?

The sucesses far out number the failures, Germany, most of europe after WWII was recieving US or allied aid to rebuild, Japan already mentioned, South Korea, Shit even mother Russia is recieving US aid for more than one reason or another, they may not be perfect examples but they are now standing on thier own...

It should also be pionted out that these countries took more than 20 years, before they could cut the strings.... Why can't Afgan be given the same time ?

This comes down essentially to the assumption that our democratic system can be transplanted onto the foreign soil and after a while would be able to sustain itself. I simply don't see any indication that it can be the case.

Why because it is not growing at the pace our face food culture demands...After 5 years did germany stand up on it's own.

And if does prove to be wrong, we'd have to pull out at some point, and maybe not so remote in time. And then, what?

The problem with this statement is it's a double edged sword, i can not prove to you that it is going to work, as you can not prove that it will not work. lets give it 10 more years and then decide...

The only reason we would pull out of Afgan, is if the people of Canada lost it's will to stay, not because of a military defeat or military actions, but because of it's citizens bought into the "Afgan is a lost cause" BS...

and if that happens Canada should seriously re think it's role in world matters....

For the rest, I'll have to address you back to my earlier post. 45% voters in Canada vs 95% in Afganistan is not the same thing. A warlord comes to his serfs and tells them "vote for me". That's your 95%.

Thats a big leap on your part, i'm not going to deny that it did not happen, but not on the scale you suggest. The voting process was set up so anyone could vote for anyone they chose without anyone knowing whom they voted for...

You're under wrong assumption that this word, "election" somehow has a magical universal meaning. It does not. Election is nothing without first of all, population that understand the meaning of it, and secondly, all the other institutions that support a functioning democracy.

Give me a break, this is not rocket science, part of the whole election process was an education process on what exactly these elections meant, teams from across the globe were involved, civilian , military, it was a very involved process...

And although it may not hold some magical meaning to you, being able to chose thier first leader was magical to them, like i said before many walked for hundards of KM's to voting stations , not at gun piont not under threat but because they wanted to take part, have a say in thier future...

As for the the other functions required to support a functioning government, NATO has looked after that providing experts in the area, and training AFgan civilians to do those jobs....

You sell them short, when all your freedoms are suspended for over 30 years of constant war, and dictatorship, you know freedom when you see it, and with those freedoms comes a chance of peace...

[myata]

Yeah, yeah we've heard all the right words before - there seems to be never ending supply of those. Just wondering if / when the walk is going to match the talk.

[Army Guy]

Thats part of the problem, is it you give up way to easily ....Our nations soldiers are doing thier part ensuring that our enemies do not win on the battle field, they are fighting and dying because we as a nation agreed to send them over there....And now they are 2 and guessing themselfs, by buying into this "Untenable" postion everyone is talking about...Thats absolute BS, that is not supporting our troops, thats handcuffing them.

Everyone except the soldiers themselfs, we're still in the first period of play and canadians have written off the game already.

Afgan is not just a military problem it is a Canadian problem, and Canadians are sitting on the bench with a defeatest attitude....get in the game or pull the entire team off the ice.

I've walked the walked in fact i've just completed my second tour in Afgan, and in 2008 will begin my 3 rd tour...when are Canadians going to start walking the walk is my question....

[myata]

It's good to argue these questions with someone who has first hand knowledge. I respect what you're doing and wish you every luck in those tours there. That, however, in no way means that I agree with the decision to send troops there.

If the US had said we will defend those scumbags with everything we have then yes, invade the US, not an advisable plan but it fits...

That at least is an honest position one can respect.

The sucesses far out number the failures, Germany, most of europe after WWII was recieving US or allied aid to rebuild, Japan already mentioned, South Korea, Shit even mother Russia .... Why can't Afgan be given the same time ?

Really far outnumber? Vietnam and south east Asia, Middle east, most of South America. The successes seem to be limited to specific events or places that already had a tradition of democracy before (like Germany, East Europe). Only Japan does not seem to fit the pattern. Other than that it's a big question. Why can't Afgan be the same - maybe because they aren't the same as us?

The only reason we would pull out of Afgan, is if the people of Canada lost it's will to stay, not because of a military defeat or military actions, but because of it's citizens bought into the "Afgan is a lost cause" BS...

and if that happens Canada should seriously re think it's role in world matters....

How much of our resources (including lives) should be spent trying to implement this uncertain proposition that a certain way of life can be transplanted onto totally foregin soil? What if it starts costing us too much? Or hurting too much?

Thats a big leap on your part, i'm not going to deny that it did not happen, but not on the scale you suggest. The voting process was set up so anyone could vote for anyone they chose without anyone knowing whom they voted for...

It takes enourmous leap of knowledge and courage for someone who was doing as the lord told them their whole life, to do something against their will. Or to even understand the concept of "anonymous" and "free". No matter what decorations can be set, it all comes down to what's inside. If people have no concept of electing their responsible government, the elections will be just a nice and fun distraction. Following which they'll return to the usual state of being run by a baron. How much has changed in that?

Give me a break, this is not rocket science, part of the whole election process was an education process on what exactly these elections meant, teams from across the globe were involved, civilian , military, it was a very involved process...

That's the most serious problem with the people who plan the mission. They start with assumptions from here (elections - easy - not a rocket science) - while they should first of all try understand how people live there. Do they even have these elections anywhere on their priorities, between basic survival and finding any kind of security for their families?

[ScottSA]

That's the most serious problem with the people who plan the mission. They start with assumptions from here (elections - easy - not a rocket science) - while they should first of all try understand how people live there. Do they even have these elections anywhere on their priorities, between basic survival and finding any kind of security for their families?

The people who plan the missions are smarter than you myata, and don't need lectures from armchair generals on cultural sensitivities. No one ever said Afghanistan will become a Jeffersonian democracy the first time it holds an election. To imagine that this was ever the game plan is to simplify the situation and intention of the occupation and warfighting to the point of simplemindedness. They first have to destroy the Taliban by making it untenable for them. That takes time. In the meantime they need to begin the process of democratization. There is no bin George al-Washington hanging around, no continental congress, nor anything else, so they need to do what is possible, as they did in Japan, to strike a balance between the old and new.

But first they need to win the war, and our forces will achieve that a lot faster if they have our backing than they will if a lot of people bitch and moan that it's a lost cause before it even gets going. How do you imagine that these people are going to achieve basic survival and security if the war isn't won?

[myata]

The people who plan the missions are smarter than you myata, and don't need lectures from armchair generals on cultural sensitivities.

Should we take into account the previous track record before jumping on such a mission? Or just blindly trust hurray patriots who'll start scratching their heads when the whole thing turns sour, like many times before?

But first they need to win the war, and our forces will achieve that a lot faster if they have our backing than they will if a lot of people bitch and moan that it's a lost cause before it even gets going.

Check your watch. It's April, 2007.

[ScottSA]

Should we take into account the previous track record before jumping on such a mission? Or just blindly trust hurray patriots who'll start scratching their heads when the whole thing turns sour, like many times before?

But first they need to win the war, and our forces will achieve that a lot faster if they have our backing than they will if a lot of people bitch and moan that it's a lost cause before it even gets going.

Check your watch. It's April, 2007.

To what previous track record are you refering?

Second, as I hear it, the Canadian offensive around Kandahar just started this spring. Have you heard differently? Have you noticed that we've been in Afghanistan for years and until recently took more FF casualties than casualties from the enemy? I wonder if there's a correlation between the casualties and the fact that we just started an offensive? Like I said, we just started. Just because we're taking incoming is no reason to run away. At least lets give it some time, ok?

[myata]

Second, as I hear it, the Canadian offensive around Kandahar just started this spring. Have you heard differently? Have you noticed that we've been in Afghanistan for years and until recently took more FF casualties than casualties from the enemy? I wonder if there's a correlation between the casualties and the fact that we just started an offensive? Like I said, we just started. Just because we're taking incoming is no reason to run away. At least lets give it some time, ok?

Previous track record of installing freedom and democracy in the world.

...

You mean, like starting all over, fresh and new? Did you notice that "we" are only a small fraction of the troops three (~40,000 if I recall correctly)? You mean, this one last push by ~5% of the force is going to make all the difference? Go on.

[Army Guy]

It's good to argue these questions with someone who has first hand knowledge. I respect what you're doing and wish you every luck in those tours there. That, however, in no way means that I agree with the decision to send troops there.

And not everyone is going to agree, regardless of the cause or situation. That is one of our basic freedoms.

That being said while we enjoy all the freedoms that we do have, do we not have a responsabilty to uphold those freedoms, alot of people have forgotten that almost 30 canadians died in those 9/11 attacks. Attacks that were not only on an allied that we have lived under thier umbrella of protection for as long as i can remember, but attacks on Canadians citizens...

As a nation of plenty, do we not have a responsabilty to share those freedoms with those that want it.

Really far outnumber? Vietnam and south east Asia, Middle east, most of South America. The successes seem to be limited to specific events or places that already had a tradition of democracy before (like Germany, East Europe). Only Japan does not seem to fit the pattern. Other than that it's a big question. Why can't Afgan be the same - maybe because they aren't the same as us?

You mean countries like Bolivia, equador,nicaragua, Haiti, columbia, Grenda, Israel, pakistan, plus the over 150 other nations that recieve US aid or are influenced by US foreign policy...yes some of those are not great examples, but they are examples none the less.

They may not be like us, nor do we expect them to be, everyone of these governments are different.

It takes enourmous leap of knowledge and courage for someone who was doing as the lord told them their whole life, to do something against their will. Or to even understand the concept of "anonymous" and "free". No matter what decorations can be set, it all comes down to what's inside.

They are very much aware of what freedoms means , just as the black slaves did in north america. What Afganis want more than anything else is peace, they want a life without war, after that they want to be able to work and feed thier families...

How much of our resources (including lives) should be spent trying to implement this uncertain proposition that a certain way of life can be transplanted onto totally foregin soil? What if it starts costing us too much? Or hurting too much?

Do we need to put a price tag on every endevour that our nation takes on. What price tag would Canada put on our current freedoms , what would it be willing to pay for them....we have given a horrific price in WWI for a similar cause. What have we given Afgan todate in regards to monies, does it even come close to what our nation pays in interest on our national debt every year. Has our commitment really begun to cost to much, has it it overly effected one tax payer...

If people have no concept of electing their responsible government, the elections will be just a nice and fun distraction. Following which they'll return to the usual state of being run by a baron. How much has changed in that?

Would you walk over 200 KM's for a fun distraction, again your selling the Afgans short they not the backwards people we think. they are quite aware of the outside world, hell there is an intra net cafee just outside the base....and they know exactly what freedoms they don't have. and they know exactly what they want...and for them these elections are a great start....i'm sure our first government was not the best for the job either, but we seemed to have survived, shit we survived the crietien and trudeau periods did we not....They may not be off to a great start but it is a start.

That's the most serious problem with the people who plan the mission. They start with assumptions from here (elections - easy - not a rocket science) - while they should first of all try understand how people live there. Do they even have these elections anywhere on their priorities, between basic survival and finding any kind of security for their families?

a great deal of time and planning went into those elections, done mostly from those outside of NATO, IE elections Canada had many reps there, along with many many Afganis etc etc ...there was an education process, canadates traveled about and spoke to the people. alot of these voters traveled great distances on foot, under constant taliban threat just to be able to vote...that has got to speak volumes in thier will to make change...it also speaks volumes to where thier priorities lay.

[Army Guy]

You mean, like starting all over, fresh and new? Did you notice that "we" are only a small fraction of the troops three (~40,000 if I recall correctly)? You mean, this one last push by ~5% of the force is going to make all the difference? Go on.

Combat operations are happening all over Afganistan, 24 and 7 , 365 days a year. The last operation which i believe is still ongoing is a british one in the hemland district, it involved approx 250 Canadians...not much about it has made the Canadian media, i don't know why...The British, american, dutch, and others all run combat ops all the time we just hear much about them...

Offensive operations are dictated by the seasons, the taliban retreat for the most part during the winter months, as the mountain passes become to hard to cross. can't have a war if nobody shows up...hence why there is a spring , summer, and fall offensives...

[myata]

Well, it won't do well for me to go into case by case analysis of election results and events on the ground. Obviously I wouldn't have enough information to substantiate any claim (although I'm not sure either how widespread are Internet cafees - could the proximity of your base be a factor?).

But as a general principle, I'm very sceptical about projects that would involve imposing anything, however good it may appear to us, on other people. For the same very reason that I wouldn' t like it myself. Imagine a complete stranger barging into your home, turning it upside down, kicking out a relative who may have been nasty, but with whom you lived your whole life, and then starting rearranging things the way they think it should be, saying all the way that they're doing it for your own good. I'm not sure it'll sell, no matter how much good we do, and how much money we'll pump into it. With all the history of colonization, democratization and liberation, things always go back to the way of life which is consistent with their beliefs and traditions. The way to deal with them is to understand it (way of life, traditions) and not piss them off if they don't touch us.

Afgans already had a stable govt - perhaps their first stable government in years, and also the one that originated in the land. Should it have been taught a lesson for harbouring our enemies, sure. Should it have been taken away, leaving us to manage a country we have no idea about - sounds like a very uncertain proposition.