Resisting the impulse may be fine. But, all said and done, doesn't Ingalls' argument amount to -- in different prose -- a version of the old "white man's burden"? To whit, secular democratic forces have to be developed in Afghanistan -- under the watchful eye of foreign troops. Leaving aside the befuddling notion of implanting democracy at the barrel of a gun, who would be these watchful troops if not American? NATO? European troops? Surely Ingalls isn't thinking of a some multinational force comprising troops from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.? And if he's thinking of troops under the UN flag, the record in Bosnia, Kosovo, various African countries is hardly encouraging. Indeed, how is Ingalls any different from the Soviet mission in Afghanistan -- developing "socialist" forces in Afghanistan against backward clerics and villagers?
Isn't it a sad commentary on events, nearly four years after the invasion and occupation, that "the people in Afghanistan most likely to take advantage of the anti-US feeling are not progressive secular democrats but right-wing fundamentalist extremists"? A mirror of what happened with the Soviet invasion and occupation.
kj khoo