It’s been a while, but TJ Buonomo, probably the best-educated of the IVAW crowd (thanks to the free education he got at the Air Force Academy) decided to school me on what the US policy towards Afghanistan should be last night;<\/p>\n
As unsavory as the Taliban’s rule would be from a human rights standpoint, it is not the responsibility of the United States military to go crusading around the world conducting armed human rights
\nmissions. And I would argue that the Afghan government’s human rights record isn’t much better if at all.<\/p>\nSo the question is, can the Taliban be negotiated with and on what terms? The only ostensible U.S. interest in Afghanistan is to ensure that Al Qaeda doesn’t re-establish itself there and organize the Taliban under its own banner. There is substantial evidence to indicate that this is not the inevitable outcome that many assume it to be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Unsavory, TJ? A bit of an understatement, isn’t it? They denied an education to women. You know what women are, right? They’re at least half of the population, in case they didn’t teach that at the Academy. They stoned people…you know, like they’ve been doing since the beginning of human history. They throw acid on the faces of little girls. Yeah, unsavory. Does the current government treat it’s citizens like that? But you said their human rights record isn’t much better – well, other than the stoning and the denial of basic human dignities thing.<\/p>\n
Yes, the United States shouldn’t be traipsing all over the world stomping out injustice, but when the fruits of that injustice strikes us at home, our government has the responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We left Afghanistan to it’s own devices in 1987, we walked away from Somalia in 1993, we walked away from Yemen in 2000.<\/p>\n
TJ, you act like the Taliban are rational actors – you negotiate with rational actors. But they’re really not. They’re the same kind of extremists as al Qaeda…a large number of them came from other countries just so they could practice their extremism on real people. It’s painfully myopic to even attempt to negotiate with a group who has no intention of cooperating with anyone.<\/p>\n
Yes, yes, I know, it’s vogue to defend yourself with the “questions which must be asked” line, but after asking the same questions, after they’ve already been answered, they’re not questions any more. They become bumpersticker slogans and it becomes obvious that you, the questioner, just won’t accept any answer that isn’t one you’ve not preordained.<\/p>\n
IVAW has outlived it’s usefulness, if it ever had any. For one, it’s lasted longer than the war it opposed. Most of it’s remaining members have never set foot in Iraq (it’s right there in the title). It opposed the successful strategy which brought Iraq to this point. It’s now opposing the war in Afghanistan, which it’s own executive director supported a few short years ago. Do you really expect Americans to follow you on this one, too?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"