I think it would set an unacceptable precident for armed intervention in a soveriegn nation to invade based on religious differences.
It's not a matter of religious differences. The sort of fundamentalism that dynamites a 1600-year-old statue because a 1400-year-old book prohibits it... this must be recognized as insanity. (I think all religion is basically a form of mental illness, but at least in much of the West, it has decayed to little more than what the British would tolerate as charming eccentricity.)
going after the Taliban because they hosted Bin Laden is legitimate because Bin Laden orchistrated a major attack on the US.
If this is a self-defense argument, it's a pretty weak one. I'll assume you wanted to say something stronger than "hosted".
government toppling based on popular opinion that they are "bad," is a really really bad idea.
Is the opinion of the CIA or the UN a substantially better basis for such an action?
Why is it that everyone wants to intervene when a country invades a neighbor or engages in genocide, but a uniform oppression of your own citizens is OK?
The argument against going into Afghanistan years earlier is not that they were a "sovereign nation", and thus we are somehow obliged to sit on our hands, in the vain hope that they will respect our sovereignty to the same degree. A real argument is to claim that cultural infiltration would be more effective than armed invasion, or that we have higher priorities for our resources, or that Afghanistan has historically been a quagmire for foreign powers and it will be difficult to effect lasting change. Or even, that sufficient support for a multilateral effort does not exist, and a unilateral use of force would cost us far more in credibility and good will than the results could possibly be worth (cf Iraq).
"The argument against going into Afghanistan years earlier is not that they were a "sovereign nation", and thus we are somehow obliged to sit on our hands, in the vain hope that they will respect our sovereignty to the same degree."
Actually, this is a valid argument (although, read "they" as the rest of the world).
Invading for tearing down statues, is pretty damn shaky ground, no matter how valuable you and I think they are.
As for "...a uniform oppression of your own citizens is OK?"
Who is to say what constitutes oppression, and what constitutes law? First of all, regardless of what westerners thought of some of the Islamic law bullshit (which I also, incidentally think is bullshit) like burkahs etc, that Afghanastan had, the Taliban was the first stable government that they had had for years. They enforced law and peace.
It is the responsibility of the governed to oppose oppression, not the outsider. One could argue that there are oppressed peoples here in the US, or in any country, and just as the Civil Rights movement, the Sufferage movement, and the Labor movement (to name a few) won rights here. If the governed accept that the customs of their religion should be the law, that is their right, or are you suggesting that any nation that does not share the ideals of the US constitution should be invaded?
"Why is it that everyone wants to intervene when a country invades a neighbor or engages in genocide,"
To answer the rest of your question, once a nation starts killing a minority wholesale, that minority cannot speak for itself, and therefore internationally accepted moral obligations require intervention (although, it is often late in coming... see Congo, Sudan, Indonesia, etc.) This is a moral obligation that is recognized for the same reasons that the Geneva Conventions are generally recognized, "oppression" may be a matter of opinion or culture in many cases, but killing people wholesale for the simple crime of an unfortunate racial birth cannot be overlooked as acceptable within what the international community recognizes as "basic human rights."
Archeological structures are not covered under "basic human rights."
Afghan land, Afghan statues. Crazy or not, those statues weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is.
"It's not a matter of religious differences. The sort of fundamentalism that dynamites a 1600-year-old statue because a 1400-year-old book prohibits it... this must be recognized as insanity. (I think all religion is basically a form of mental illness, but at least in much of the West, it has decayed to little more than what the British would tolerate as charming eccentricity.)"
Actually, what you have described here is precisely "a matter of religious difference."
Do you have the right to tell Muslums that their government is invalid because their God is invalid, any more than any one has the right to demand that you believe in their God? What makes us so special that we can demand that other nations have a secular government, just because we believe in separation of church and state? Wasn't the reason that our nation formed with that separation entirely based on our founding father's agreement that no one should have the right to dictate to another their religion or beliefs, and that our people should have the right to self-rule?
So, if the Afghan people decide that "God's Law" should be their government's law, what makes their choice of self-rule less valid than ours, without violating the very basis of our own principles? What, just because they made what you judge to be a poor choice, they don't get to choose anymore? Bullshit.
"I'll assume you wanted to say something stronger than "hosted"."
No. That is the word I intended. "Hosted" has a specific meaning in the culture of the Pashtun, and it is the word they used. What it means, is that once they host someone, it is their responsibility to defend that person against any enemy, even us. Since he was coordinating terrorist activities actively from their land where he was "hosted," his continued leadership did constitute a direct terrorist threat (he directed both WTC attacks from there... remember the first one? How many times must someone direct attacks to become a real threat?), and the Taliban declared (since 1991 I believe) that they would defend him with arms, his apprehension (which we failed to do, of course) would only be possible with military action.
So, no. I meant "hosted."
I'm not trying to spin facts for moral high-ground to somehow shore up Bush. Nor am I big on marching into other countries. I am pointing out that supporting the warlords to overthrow the Taliban, and putting US troops in to attack Al Qeda was a direct response to an overt attack on US soil (actually more than one), not for differences in the relative value of archeological artifacts.
"Is the opinion of the CIA or the UN a substantially better basis for such an action?"
This is a red herring that has little to do with the question of Afghanastan, as is discussion of Iraq. The Iraqi invasion isn't very defensible. The Afghani invasion is.
Internationally recognized human rights are pretty clearly defined. Freedom from religion is not among those rights.
To Clarify my initial position:geekalphaOctober 11 2004, 12:22:17 UTC
The only goal of overthrowing the Taliban was to get Bin Laden and break his tie to Al Qaeda, as a direct response to the WTC attack. Period.
"A real argument is to claim that cultural infiltration would be more effective than armed invasion, or that we have higher priorities for our resources, or that Afghanistan has historically been a quagmire for foreign powers and it will be difficult to effect lasting change. Or even, that sufficient support for a multilateral effort does not exist, and a unilateral use of force would cost us far more in credibility and good will than the results could possibly be worth..."
These would all be valid arguments for not going into Afghanastan prior to the escalation of the goal to cut Bin Laden off from Al Qaeda, due to 9/11 (particularly the "quagmire" argument).
This is why the US used the warlords that opposed the Taliban to break the Taliban government. This was a strategicly sound move (as far as expediency is concerned).
However, what annoys the crap out of me, is specifically Bush arguments like "let freedom reign in Afghanastan." That is a load of bullshit.
The warlords are drug lords. 60% of the Afghan economy is opium trade. The Afghan government we installed, had no central authority and could not provide security for the rest of the country.
Democracy without security is not democracy at all.
The reason that this is fucked up, is that we misdirected our efforts in Afghanastan into Iraq, including the troops and funding (particularly funding and training for Afghan security forces... hell, the same mistakes we made in Iraq too, but bigger) that might have given the Afghan government a chance to establish control.
Now, Afghan votes have been bought, extorted, and rigged, and Bush gets a neat little talking point about spreading freedom and democracy.
I will admit that it is a step into capitalism, but the illegal nature of the product tends to foster violent security problems for the country's citizens.
Columbia and Bolivia are not exactly poster children for liberty from their coca trade.
That is the word I intended. "Hosted" has a specific meaning in the culture of the Pashtun, and it is the word they used.
"Hosted" is an English word, not Pashtun, and you are using it, not them. Perhaps to be clear you could choose a translation with a more closely matched connotation, such as "shelter" or "harbor".
Nor am I big on marching into other countries.
Neither am I, to be sure. But I'd like to try something other than trade sanctions, which only isolate the suffering people and embattle the existing power structures in these places.
Internationally recognized human rights are pretty clearly defined. Freedom from religion is not among those rights.
""Hosted" is an English word, not Pashtun, and you are using it, not them. Perhaps to be clear you could choose a translation with a more closely matched connotation, such as "shelter" or "harbor"."
Okay, I'll concede this.
"But I'd like to try something other than trade sanctions, which only isolate the suffering people and embattle the existing power structures in these places."
I understand this.
I appreciate the better motives of trying to make better lives for those who are saddled with oppressive and abusive government. I have another friend that posted something similar. This was my response.
There are some other issues, too.
1. It's been tried (colonialism).
2. As a foriegn power occupying a nation, we lose the moral high-ground that our motives would otherwise afford us.
In other words, our actions would invalidate our promises of freedom, and the principles of our own Constitution and laws would read as arrogant hypocracy to those we were trying to help. This would ultimately do more harm than good.
You know, I have no love for religion. I certainly have no love for the evils committed in the name of religion.
That said, I also believe that a person's understanding and relationship with the universe is a more personal affair than even sex. To me, nothing is more fundemental to freedom than the freedom to explore and weigh the basic concepts of faith, ethics, morals, and meaning in the universe and come to one's own conclusions.
For all the evils committed in the name of religion, there have been equal evils committed in the name of a secular state (Iraq was secular for instance, as was the Soviet Union, the Khamer Rouge, and the People's Republic of China).
The problem isn't just religion, per say, the problem is the unreasoning close-mindedness that people adopt when they are convinced they are right, and they believe that the ends always justify the means.
I don't have a problem with religion as long as it is always kept separate (both ways) from the state.
Actually, this is a valid argument (although, read "they" as the rest of the world).
It argues against doing so alone. It doesn't mean the whole world shouldn't look at the Taliban and say "gosh, those people are nuts".
Invading for tearing down statues
I'm not offering that as the sole justification; I'm saying it should have been the nail in the coffin for world opinion, a clear symptom of how Afghanistan was regressing under the Taliban.
Who is to say what constitutes oppression, and what constitutes law?
Well, my philosophical position is more or less that law *is* oppression, but given how crowded our world is, I can be pragmatic and allow for finer distinctions. I think part of why we disagree here is that I want a less extreme threshold beyond which oppression is seen as actionable.
the Taliban was the first stable government that they had had for years.
Stability is a goal, but not the only one. I'll be surprised if Iraq remains politically united now that Hussein is gone, but something ultimately better for the citizens of Iraq could still emerge from this mess.
It is the responsibility of the governed to oppose oppression, not the outsider.
A fine argument, but morally bankrupt in this case. We armed the oppressors; we can't just wash our hands of the situation now. The only variation which might have weight now is to argue that "freedom" and democratic reforms cannot be imposed, but require a popular revolution for success, and so it is hopeless to make them our objective.
Do you have the right to tell Muslums that their government is invalid because their God is invalid, any more than any one has the right to demand that you believe in their God?
Their government would be equally invalid with or without a god involved. The central role played by religion just makes it more obvious that they have no rational justification for their laws.
Archeological structures are not covered under "basic human rights."
No; but you recognize and accept the concept of "basic human rights". It has expanded over time, and I am saying here that I want a continued expansion, and that if this expansion had been accelerated in the past, the Taliban would have been recognized as a problem worthy of intervention well before 9/11.
Afghan land, Afghan statues. Crazy or not, those statues weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is.
"Afghan land, Afghan women. Crazy or not, those lives weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is."
I think the line must be somewhere in between.
Wasn't the reason that our nation formed with that separation entirely based on our founding father's agreement that no one should have the right to dictate to another their religion or beliefs, and that our people should have the right to self-rule?
You can look at it as "no *government* should have the right to dictate to a *citizen* their religion". I'm not asking for a crusade here, only that we recognize that if those rights are so precious to us, they are worth ensuring for others as well. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and all that.
If someone cuts off their own hand for stealing because their religion demands it, they are exercising their freedom to choose their own beliefs. If their government does it to them, it's a different story. I don't buy any claims that people living under Sharia law have entered into a mutual covenant which makes it acceptable. There are some rights you cannot sign away.
the Afghan people decide that "God's Law" should be their government's law
The idea that the Afghan people as a whole chose a government representing their wishes is laughable. Furthermore, you can democratically elect a government which proceeds to violate human rights. (It's pretty easy in a place with tribal divisions.) No amount of popular support can make some policies ethically acceptable. Finally, there is the question of when a government effectively brainwashes the next generation into supporting the same government, through the use of propaganda and censorship. (Of course, radical Islam would argue that Western culture is the dangerous brainwashing.)
" I think part of why we disagree here is that I want a less extreme threshold beyond which oppression is seen as actionable."
I'll buy that.
"...but something ultimately better for the citizens of Iraq could still emerge from this mess."
I really hope so.
"A fine argument, but morally bankrupt in this case."
Indeed it is. Unfortunately, I don't believe that government foriegn policy can ever be particularly moral. A government's first responsibility is to it's own citizens, and it must be practical about this matter before addressing any other.
In a perfect world, I would agree that we should intervene in cases where we have done dirty things. Hell, in a perfect world, people would not exploit power or use warfare and terrorism to try to further their goals, the weak would be protected, knowledge would be valued above might, and reason would overcome predjudice.
This is a far from perfect world, and governments must act based on how the world is, rather than based on how the world should be. The consequences of failure are too high.
"Their government would be equally invalid with or without a god involved. The central role played by religion just makes it more obvious that they have no rational justification for their laws."
While I might personally agree with you about "God's Law," and I fight every effort in this country to try any such thing, doesn't a foreign power (us) dictating to another nation that they cannot choose such laws, counter to the whole idea of freedom and self-determination?
If I were a Pashtun, and yet another white man came telling us that our beliefs were invalid, and they reached down to me to "bring civilization to the wogs" (Brits) or "teach us secular socialist principals" (Soviets) or "teach us secular government and freedom," I would be inclined to do what they have always done: Grab a rifle and say "no."
I wouldn't blame them for it.
I don't believe that freedom can be brought to them by armed occupation from a foriegn country, even if that country is us, and we really morally believe that we are right.
I think that backward religion-based governments will suffer and either adjust (ex. Turkey) or collapse (ex. the "divine right of kings" in Europe) under their own wieght, as other nations prosper. Just because their religion has brainwashed them, doesn't make them stupid. Capitalism and freedom of expression/choice/speech are viral ideas that infest oppressive nations. Smashing governments with tanks does not prove their value. Education, ingenuity, opportunity, luxury, and richness of ideas come from communication, trade, and time, not from bullets.
Just because "we should do something" doesn't mean that the something we can do, will be an effective or correct something. Remember, the very people you are trying to help get killed, lose infrastructure, are displaced, and starve everytime that army's go to war. I believe that we should only use military force when our own pragmatic interests, i.e. security, demands it.
The idea that the Afghan people as a whole chose a government representing their wishes is laughable."
Oh? It worked.
What they had prior to the Taliban was "whoever has the AK get's his way." Kabul was traded back and forth by warring mujahdeen factions. The taliban, for all its harshness, was not random. It was clear-cut law and order. There were no more rape gangs and bandits, and people could live their lives without having to bribe, hide, or be victimized by whoever wandered through with a gun.
Is it sane to cut off the hand of a theif or keep women hidden? You and I don't think so. But, after years of civil war, the people recognized that a religious government was the only objective and fair (if draconian) rule of law that everyone could agree on that provided security in people's persons, lives, and livelyhoods without irrationally favoring any particular tribe.
Just because in our eyes it was fucked up, doesn't mean that the locals didn't recognize it as valid and better than all of the other alternatives they have seen to date.
Rolling in with tanks will not prove to the Afghans that our way is better. It will just prove that we are yet another bandit, yet another invader trying to tell them what to do.
If the Taliban had not fucked up by allowing Bin Laden to plan attacks on the US, I belive that trade and communication with the people of Afghanastan would, over time, reduce the government's death-grip on the people within a few generations, and I don't believe that this is anything war could ever achieve. We shall see.
It's not a matter of religious differences. The sort of fundamentalism that dynamites a 1600-year-old statue because a 1400-year-old book prohibits it... this must be recognized as insanity. (I think all religion is basically a form of mental illness, but at least in much of the West, it has decayed to little more than what the British would tolerate as charming eccentricity.)
going after the Taliban because they hosted Bin Laden is legitimate because Bin Laden orchistrated a major attack on the US.
If this is a self-defense argument, it's a pretty weak one. I'll assume you wanted to say something stronger than "hosted".
government toppling based on popular opinion that they are "bad," is a really really bad idea.
Is the opinion of the CIA or the UN a substantially better basis for such an action?
Why is it that everyone wants to intervene when a country invades a neighbor or engages in genocide, but a uniform oppression of your own citizens is OK?
The argument against going into Afghanistan years earlier is not that they were a "sovereign nation", and thus we are somehow obliged to sit on our hands, in the vain hope that they will respect our sovereignty to the same degree. A real argument is to claim that cultural infiltration would be more effective than armed invasion, or that we have higher priorities for our resources, or that Afghanistan has historically been a quagmire for foreign powers and it will be difficult to effect lasting change. Or even, that sufficient support for a multilateral effort does not exist, and a unilateral use of force would cost us far more in credibility and good will than the results could possibly be worth (cf Iraq).
Reply
Actually, this is a valid argument (although, read "they" as the rest of the world).
Invading for tearing down statues, is pretty damn shaky ground, no matter how valuable you and I think they are.
As for "...a uniform oppression of your own citizens is OK?"
Who is to say what constitutes oppression, and what constitutes law? First of all, regardless of what westerners thought of some of the Islamic law bullshit (which I also, incidentally think is bullshit) like burkahs etc, that Afghanastan had, the Taliban was the first stable government that they had had for years. They enforced law and peace.
It is the responsibility of the governed to oppose oppression, not the outsider. One could argue that there are oppressed peoples here in the US, or in any country, and just as the Civil Rights movement, the Sufferage movement, and the Labor movement (to name a few) won rights here. If the governed accept that the customs of their religion should be the law, that is their right, or are you suggesting that any nation that does not share the ideals of the US constitution should be invaded?
"Why is it that everyone wants to intervene when a country invades a
neighbor or engages in genocide,"
To answer the rest of your question, once a nation starts killing a minority wholesale, that minority cannot speak for itself, and therefore internationally accepted moral obligations require intervention (although, it is often late in coming... see Congo, Sudan, Indonesia, etc.) This is a moral obligation that is recognized for the same reasons that the Geneva Conventions are generally recognized, "oppression" may be a matter of opinion or culture in many cases, but killing people wholesale for the simple crime of an unfortunate racial birth cannot be overlooked as acceptable within what the international community recognizes as "basic human rights."
Archeological structures are not covered under "basic human rights."
Afghan land, Afghan statues. Crazy or not, those statues weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is.
"It's not a matter of religious differences. The sort of fundamentalism that dynamites a 1600-year-old statue because a 1400-year-old book prohibits it... this must be recognized as insanity. (I think all religion is basically a form of mental illness, but at least in much of the West, it has decayed to little more than what the British would tolerate as charming eccentricity.)"
Actually, what you have described here is precisely "a matter of religious difference."
Do you have the right to tell Muslums that their government is invalid because their God is invalid, any more than any one has the right to demand that you believe in their God? What makes us so special that we can demand that other nations have a secular government, just because we believe in separation of church and state? Wasn't the reason that our nation formed with that separation entirely based on our founding father's agreement that no one should have the right to dictate to another their religion or beliefs, and that our people should have the right to self-rule?
So, if the Afghan people decide that "God's Law" should be their government's law, what makes their choice of self-rule less valid than ours, without violating the very basis of our own principles? What, just because they made what you judge to be a poor choice, they don't get to choose anymore? Bullshit.
Reply
"I'll assume you wanted to say something stronger than "hosted"."
No. That is the word I intended. "Hosted" has a specific meaning in the culture of the Pashtun, and it is the word they used. What it means, is that once they host someone, it is their responsibility to defend that person against any enemy, even us. Since he was coordinating terrorist activities actively from their land where he was "hosted," his continued leadership did constitute a direct terrorist threat (he directed both WTC attacks from there... remember the first one? How many times must someone direct attacks to become a real threat?), and the Taliban declared (since 1991 I believe) that they would defend him with arms, his apprehension (which we failed to do, of course) would only be possible with military action.
So, no. I meant "hosted."
I'm not trying to spin facts for moral high-ground to somehow shore up Bush. Nor am I big on marching into other countries. I am pointing out that supporting the warlords to overthrow the Taliban, and putting US troops in to attack Al Qeda was a direct response to an overt attack on US soil (actually more than one), not for differences in the relative value of archeological artifacts.
"Is the opinion of the CIA or the UN a substantially better basis for such an action?"
This is a red herring that has little to do with the question of Afghanastan, as is discussion of Iraq. The Iraqi invasion isn't very defensible. The Afghani invasion is.
Internationally recognized human rights are pretty clearly defined. Freedom from religion is not among those rights.
Reply
"A real argument is to claim that cultural infiltration would be more effective than armed invasion, or that we have higher priorities for our resources, or that Afghanistan has historically been a quagmire for foreign powers and it will be difficult to effect lasting change. Or even, that sufficient support for a multilateral effort does not exist, and a unilateral use of force would cost us far more in credibility and good will than the results could possibly be worth..."
These would all be valid arguments for not going into Afghanastan prior to the escalation of the goal to cut Bin Laden off from Al Qaeda, due to 9/11 (particularly the "quagmire" argument).
This is why the US used the warlords that opposed the Taliban to break the Taliban government. This was a strategicly sound move (as far as expediency is concerned).
However, what annoys the crap out of me, is specifically Bush arguments like "let freedom reign in Afghanastan." That is a load of bullshit.
The warlords are drug lords. 60% of the Afghan economy is opium trade. The Afghan government we installed, had no central authority and could not provide security for the rest of the country.
Democracy without security is not democracy at all.
The reason that this is fucked up, is that we misdirected our efforts in Afghanastan into Iraq, including the troops and funding (particularly funding and training for Afghan security forces... hell, the same mistakes we made in Iraq too, but bigger) that might have given the Afghan government a chance to establish control.
Now, Afghan votes have been bought, extorted, and rigged, and Bush gets a neat little talking point about spreading freedom and democracy.
That is what, specifically, annoys me.
Reply
One could argue that this is a step forward for liberty.
Reply
Columbia and Bolivia are not exactly poster children for liberty from their coca trade.
Reply
"Hosted" is an English word, not Pashtun, and you are using it, not them. Perhaps to be clear you could choose a translation with a more closely matched connotation, such as "shelter" or "harbor".
Nor am I big on marching into other countries.
Neither am I, to be sure. But I'd like to try something other than trade sanctions, which only isolate the suffering people and embattle the existing power structures in these places.
Internationally recognized human rights are pretty clearly defined. Freedom from religion is not among those rights.
I hope that someday it will be.
Reply
Okay, I'll concede this.
"But I'd like to try something other than trade sanctions, which only isolate the suffering people and embattle the existing power structures in these places."
I understand this.
I appreciate the better motives of trying to make better lives for those who are saddled with oppressive and abusive government. I have another friend that posted something similar. This was my response.
There are some other issues, too.
1. It's been tried (colonialism).
2. As a foriegn power occupying a nation, we lose the moral high-ground that our motives would otherwise afford us.
In other words, our actions would invalidate our promises of freedom, and the principles of our own Constitution and laws would read as arrogant hypocracy to those we were trying to help. This would ultimately do more harm than good.
Reply
You know, I have no love for religion. I certainly have no love for the evils committed in the name of religion.
That said, I also believe that a person's understanding and relationship with the universe is a more personal affair than even sex. To me, nothing is more fundemental to freedom than the freedom to explore and weigh the basic concepts of faith, ethics, morals, and meaning in the universe and come to one's own conclusions.
For all the evils committed in the name of religion, there have been equal evils committed in the name of a secular state (Iraq was secular for instance, as was the Soviet Union, the Khamer Rouge, and the People's Republic of China).
The problem isn't just religion, per say, the problem is the unreasoning close-mindedness that people adopt when they are convinced they are right, and they believe that the ends always justify the means.
I don't have a problem with religion as long as it is always kept separate (both ways) from the state.
Reply
It argues against doing so alone. It doesn't mean the whole world shouldn't look at the Taliban and say "gosh, those people are nuts".
Invading for tearing down statues
I'm not offering that as the sole justification; I'm saying it should have been the nail in the coffin for world opinion, a clear symptom of how Afghanistan was regressing under the Taliban.
Who is to say what constitutes oppression, and what constitutes law?
Well, my philosophical position is more or less that law *is* oppression, but given how crowded our world is, I can be pragmatic and allow for finer distinctions. I think part of why we disagree here is that I want a less extreme threshold beyond which oppression is seen as actionable.
the Taliban was the first stable government that they had had for years.
Stability is a goal, but not the only one. I'll be surprised if Iraq remains politically united now that Hussein is gone, but something ultimately better for the citizens of Iraq could still emerge from this mess.
It is the responsibility of the governed to oppose oppression, not the outsider.
A fine argument, but morally bankrupt in this case. We armed the oppressors; we can't just wash our hands of the situation now. The only variation which might have weight now is to argue that "freedom" and democratic reforms cannot be imposed, but require a popular revolution for success, and so it is hopeless to make them our objective.
Do you have the right to tell Muslums that their government is invalid because their God is invalid, any more than any one has the right to demand that you believe in their God?
Their government would be equally invalid with or without a god involved. The central role played by religion just makes it more obvious that they have no rational justification for their laws.
Archeological structures are not covered under "basic human rights."
No; but you recognize and accept the concept of "basic human rights". It has expanded over time, and I am saying here that I want a continued expansion, and that if this expansion had been accelerated in the past, the Taliban would have been recognized as a problem worthy of intervention well before 9/11.
Afghan land, Afghan statues. Crazy or not, those statues weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is.
"Afghan land, Afghan women. Crazy or not, those lives weren't ours to declare war over, no matter how tragic the loss is."
I think the line must be somewhere in between.
Wasn't the reason that our nation formed with that separation entirely based on our founding father's agreement that no one should have the right to dictate to another their religion or beliefs, and that our people should have the right to self-rule?
You can look at it as "no *government* should have the right to dictate to a *citizen* their religion". I'm not asking for a crusade here, only that we recognize that if those rights are so precious to us, they are worth ensuring for others as well. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and all that.
If someone cuts off their own hand for stealing because their religion demands it, they are exercising their freedom to choose their own beliefs. If their government does it to them, it's a different story. I don't buy any claims that people living under Sharia law have entered into a mutual covenant which makes it acceptable. There are some rights you cannot sign away.
the Afghan people decide that "God's Law" should be their government's law
The idea that the Afghan people as a whole chose a government representing their wishes is laughable. Furthermore, you can democratically elect a government which proceeds to violate human rights. (It's pretty easy in a place with tribal divisions.) No amount of popular support can make some policies ethically acceptable. Finally, there is the question of when a government effectively brainwashes the next generation into supporting the same government, through the use of propaganda and censorship. (Of course, radical Islam would argue that Western culture is the dangerous brainwashing.)
Reply
I'll buy that.
"...but something ultimately better for the citizens of Iraq could still emerge from this mess."
I really hope so.
"A fine argument, but morally bankrupt in this case."
Indeed it is. Unfortunately, I don't believe that government foriegn policy can ever be particularly moral. A government's first responsibility is to it's own citizens, and it must be practical about this matter before addressing any other.
In a perfect world, I would agree that we should intervene in cases where we have done dirty things. Hell, in a perfect world, people would not exploit power or use warfare and terrorism to try to further their goals, the weak would be protected, knowledge would be valued above might, and reason would overcome predjudice.
This is a far from perfect world, and governments must act based on how the world is, rather than based on how the world should be. The consequences of failure are too high.
"Their government would be equally invalid with or without a god involved. The central role played by religion just makes it more obvious that they have no rational justification for their laws."
While I might personally agree with you about "God's Law," and I fight every effort in this country to try any such thing, doesn't a foreign power (us) dictating to another nation that they cannot choose such laws, counter to the whole idea of freedom and self-determination?
Reply
If I were a Pashtun, and yet another white man came telling us that our beliefs were invalid, and they reached down to me to "bring civilization to the wogs" (Brits) or "teach us secular socialist principals" (Soviets) or "teach us secular government and freedom," I would be inclined to do what they have always done: Grab a rifle and say "no."
I wouldn't blame them for it.
I don't believe that freedom can be brought to them by armed occupation from a foriegn country, even if that country is us, and we really morally believe that we are right.
I think that backward religion-based governments will suffer and either adjust (ex. Turkey) or collapse (ex. the "divine right of kings" in Europe) under their own wieght, as other nations prosper. Just because their religion has brainwashed them, doesn't make them stupid. Capitalism and freedom of expression/choice/speech are viral ideas that infest oppressive nations. Smashing governments with tanks does not prove their value. Education, ingenuity, opportunity, luxury, and richness of ideas come from communication, trade, and time, not from bullets.
Just because "we should do something" doesn't mean that the something we can do, will be an effective or correct something. Remember, the very people you are trying to help get killed, lose infrastructure, are displaced, and starve everytime that army's go to war. I believe that we should only use military force when our own pragmatic interests, i.e. security, demands it.
The idea that the Afghan people as a whole chose a government representing their wishes is laughable."
Oh? It worked.
What they had prior to the Taliban was "whoever has the AK get's his way." Kabul was traded back and forth by warring mujahdeen factions. The taliban, for all its harshness, was not random. It was clear-cut law and order. There were no more rape gangs and bandits, and people could live their lives without having to bribe, hide, or be victimized by whoever wandered through with a gun.
Is it sane to cut off the hand of a theif or keep women hidden? You and I don't think so. But, after years of civil war, the people recognized that a religious government was the only objective and fair (if draconian) rule of law that everyone could agree on that provided security in people's persons, lives, and livelyhoods without irrationally favoring any particular tribe.
Just because in our eyes it was fucked up, doesn't mean that the locals didn't recognize it as valid and better than all of the other alternatives they have seen to date.
Rolling in with tanks will not prove to the Afghans that our way is better. It will just prove that we are yet another bandit, yet another invader trying to tell them what to do.
If the Taliban had not fucked up by allowing Bin Laden to plan attacks on the US, I belive that trade and communication with the people of Afghanastan would, over time, reduce the government's death-grip on the people within a few generations, and I don't believe that this is anything war could ever achieve. We shall see.
Reply
Leave a comment