[lbo-talk] What Would Have to Happen First

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Wed Feb 17 14:46:49 PST 2010


On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:


> We weren't the only ones visited by Mr. Rhone.

Juan Cole was too, spouting a line similar to what got the real Rakesh thrown off Lou Proyect's list:

<http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/karzai-talk-to-mullah-omar-mutwakkil.html#c8332949869858483568

>

Leaving Afghanistan to Taliban conquest would destabilize Pakistan even more than splitting the Taliban and defeating militarily those who will not negoitate. I hope that you are not under the illusion (so comforting to the pacifist hippies that read this blog) that all NATO has to do is decamp and India make some concessions on Kashmir for the ISI to give up on Taliban control of part or all of Afghanistan. Get real, Dr. Cole! The use of force is necessary to marginalize those who are dead set opposed to national and regional negotiations happening and to development projects in which international forces play a positive role getting off the ground. No peace without force. The ISI will have to be made to live with a government that it cannot control. Think of it this way: what sane sovereign government in Kabul would not seek closer ties with dynamic India than failing Pakistan? Too bad that the ISI cannot live with that. That's why we have international law.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list