This was a good piece. I was particularly interested in this passage:
>the disarming of both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance by United
>Nations peacekeepers, followed by free and democratic elections--the
>course favored by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of
>Afghanistan--is not likely to happen peacefully either.
While I am opposed to the US military strikes against Afghanistan as currently constituted, the Taliban might be a case of a regime that could be ousted by UN action. I don't know the details of international law, but my understanding is that the UN charter does sanction the use of force to oust a regime under certain conditions. If genocide is being committed, the international community has the right to intervene to prevent it.
I'm not sure if the Taliban is guilty of genocide, but they certainly don't have any regard for human rights. And as Seth mentioned earlier, they are a pariah regime. Assuming a legitimate case could be made against them, I would support such an intervention. Under the current circumstances, this would have the added benefit of robbing Osama bin Laden of his "safe" haven.
I'm not sure you could make such a case. As bad as the Taliban is, they aren't rounding people up and killing the way Pol Pot did. I'm just pointing out that international law does allow for intervention under extreme conditions, and I'm wondering if the Taliban has created those conditions in Afghanistan.
Brett