>
>This is one of those very rare instances in which I would actually (in
>theory) support so-called "humanitarian imperialism" -- exploiting 9-11 as
an excuse to
>liberate the Afghani people from the Taliban
Figures... Scratch a leftist, and ya get a liberal...
>w/refugees, and a commitment to setting up a post-war secular reform regime
>that had popular backing.
Is such a thing possible? Really, is it possible to create a secular reform regime in Afghanistan that will have any significant degree of popular support? ESPESCIALLY in Pashtun areas, has it dawned on you that such a move might meet violent resistance? The Daoud government was basically an attempt to, from top down, impose "progressive" reforms on people who largely did not want them.
While outside States did have a hand in the fall of the Daoud regime, most leftist commentators ignore the possibility that there really was SIGNIFICANT popular discontent with this regime. Especially in areas like Nuristan, the Nuristanis were even more dead set against secular reforms than the Pashtuns.
> I don't think progressive formations in Afghanistan
>(or in exile in Pakistan) -- Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan, small radical
labor
>parties, secular reformers -- would oppose this.
A better option would be to leave the Afghani people alone, they have had 200 or so years of well meaning progressive outsiders meddling in their affairs, leave them alone, they will work their own way out. If they want their corrupt, though now senile, King Zahir Shah back then fine, if they want a Wahabi style Islamic regime then fine, if they want a secular socialist regime then fine.
These people deserve the right to as a people chart their own destinies without outside agitation, either from the right or the left.
>Bin Laden for 2 weeks or so, despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence
>services have yet to convince NATO (much less world opinion) that
>Al Qaeda was behind 9-11.
US and British, SAS has a heavier presence there than US SPPECOPS forces, from what I understand anyway...
>etc. It doesn't even appear to be very ideal from UnoCal's point of view.
You underestimate UnoCal. One does not need a viable state in order to push a pipeline project through, just agreements with enough factions and tribal groups to provide physical security, and to ensure that all significant parties have a stake in the project's success.
>is that according to Afghani labor radicals
Obviously objective sources...
>the Taliban will fall more easily (due to the populace's
>almost total antipathy toward them, save a few groupings of students in the
>clerical schools) than will bin Laden
These guys should smoke less Hashish. A *few* groupings of students in clerical schools? What labor radicals told you this? From my understanding, this picture is almost completely unrealistic. There are HUGE numbers of Pashtun Talibs in Madressas in the NWFP and along the Afghan border who support the Taliban, in addition support for the Taliban has risen IMMENSELY amongst non Talib settled Pashtuns along the Afghan border in the NWFP. Support for the Taliban is low in Tajik areas from what I understand, but while they ARE disliked my many Pashtuns, from what I've heard many see few other viable options.
>, since he apparently has a huge private army of sympathizers
Much smaller than the number of Talibs. Seriously, who the hell is saying this kind of stuff ? I really wonder if they are trying to spread misinformation, or are simply just clueless...
I hope that this sort of stuff is not coming from RAWA sources, it would just further lower my respect for them...
>Even though I am still espousing Yoshie's program, I must admit that the
>more and more I survey
>the details of this whole atrocious mess, the harder it becomes to take a
>clear position. All the
>better, then, I suppose to take an unyielding stand against U.S. military
>intervention of any sort,
Right on. And against any forign political intervention as well...