Under international law, the United States is entitled to carpet-bomb Afghanistan if it so wants. The Taleban invaded and set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which is, under the law of nations, an act of war to which the United States is entitled to respond with military force if it so chooses. So, according to your own thesis stated above, the United States is justified in conducting an out-right war against the Taleban for the purpose of ending its practices of human rights abuses, if such a war would be useful toward that purpose.
Do you believe that it is possible to put an end to the human rights violations in Afghanistan without toppling the Taleban? How many more women must die before you are convinced that military action is necessary?
We can’t predict with any certainty that the Northern Alliance would rule any more fairly than the Taleban, but it is difficult to imagine how they could be much worse. In any case, it is imperative that the United States and its allies take all necessary steps to ensure that, whoever is left in power in Afghanistan, that government is committed to the restoration of human rights in Afghanistan.
It is important to note that most of the people who sympathize with the Taleban are in Pakistan. The Taleban is not of Afghan origin and is not representative of Afghan culture.
Probably not – the Bush administration isn’t getting too cozy (officially) with the Northern Alliance right now because they’re not a savory bunch of folks (I mean the NA, not the Bush administration ). The Alliance is held together only by their mutual dislike of the Taliban; take that away, and odds are good that they’ll just turn on each other. This infighting is part of the reason the Alliance hasn’t been effective against the Taliban so far.
Which still leaves the interesting question of who should rule in Afghanistan if the US manages to depower the Taliban. Can we import some moderate Afghanis from Pakistan or Egypt or whatever and put them in charge?
There is apparently an effort to reinstate Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan deposed in 1973. Zahir Shah has lived in Italy since being deposed and is apparently participating in talks with the United States, United Nations, and representatives of the Northern Alliance and others toward this possibility. It is likely, given Zahir Shah’s decades of living in the west, that he is more inclined to lead a moderate, humanitarian government, especially with the likelihood of UN oversight of any such regime.
Zahir Shah is a Pashtun, as are the majority of Afghans, and is thus more likely to be acceptable to the populace as a leader than the Uzbek and Tajik clans that make up the Northern Alliance.
Led by Tranquilis and Eve, the SDMB was taking the Taliban to task and looking for solutions to the problem of human rights in Afghanistan long before September 11. I read all of the threads linked below and found them painfully frustrating because it did seem as though there was little we could do to stop the erosion of basic freedoms.
Back in February, 2001, the Taliban ordered Buddhist statues to be destroyed.
And in September, 2001, they finally gave us an excuse to go in and use our military to do something about the ongoing oppression.
Not for the first time, I agree with you, Acco. We do have a moral responsibility to do something to prevent the kinds of atrocities being perpetrated by the Taliban. But as the linked threads show, even the great minds of the SDMB had a hard time coming up with a workable solution.
First you say that the UN is “painstakingly slow” or “ineffective,” (I say both). Then you turn around say that we should nonetheless work with organizations “such as the UN” In other words, according to you, we should administer such improvements in a painstakingly slow or ineffectual manner. You want to have your political cake and eat it too. Although the USA should not act unilaterally, neither should it allow itself to be fettered by such a self-negating and impotent organization as the UN. Many more thousands of innocent people could easily be slaughtered while the UN argues over how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin. Sitting on our hands waiting for a meaningless and on-paper-only consensus while more lives are lost hardly seems either ethical or practical.
I agree with your assertion that if the U.N. cannot be motivated to respond to a human rights autrocity that other avenues need to be followed to prevent needless suffering or loss of life. It would be nice if the U.N. could be reformed/revised to render it more effective in responding to potential disasters. I don’t know if this is possible. A possible alternative would be for the U.S. to collaborate with other nations in a fashion similar to the collaboration leading up to the present Afghani situation. If such an ad hoc alliance is the only vehicle for responding to crises in a timely, effective fashion, then I am all for such an approach. What I am not for is for the U.S. to unilaterally decide on a course of action in dealing with a foreign government.
I agree that the U.S. has a responsibility to utilize its strength to discourage and eliminate human rights abuses throughout the world. I feel, however, that it is essential that the U.S. collaborates with other nations, particularly with the neighbor nations around trouble spots, before reacting with force. I believe that we must build and sustain a collaborative network in the world community in order to promote stability while pursuing human rights.
I do not agree with your assessment of how autonomously the Taleban should be able to operate or their cultural validity. However, I will largely agree with the foregoing. Few other countries have demonstrated the USA’s devotion to humanitarian aide. Acting in concert with the other global partners, we should be able to craft a functional and far more effective form of alliance than the UN represents today. The fact that terrorist-harboring Syria is being considered for a seat on the UN security council is enough to invalidate much of the UN’s doctrine.
I think there may be some precedent for “crimes against humanity” being one reason countries can get involved in another’s affairs, regardless of what the U.N. thinks. Nuremburg comes to mind. The Hindu ID, ethnic “cleansing,” and the Taliban’s treatment of women is on point if you ask me. Do we really want to try to get China, Sudan, and Iraq on board before we do something regarding “crimes against humanity?” Seems pointless.
Zenster,
I failed to make myself clear. I am completely opposed to the Taleban rule of Afghanistan. The Taleban represent a tiny minority of the Afghan population, they rule by force, they completely disregard human rights, and they harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. I wish to see the Taleban removed from power as quickly as possible and replaced with a truly government representative government. My only concern was that the U.S. collaborate with other nations, which the U.S. has been doing commendably.
Zenster,
I failed to make myself clear. I am completely opposed to the Taleban rule of Afghanistan. The Taleban represent a tiny minority of the Afghan population, they rule by force, they completely disregard human rights, and they harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. I wish to see the Taleban removed from power as quickly as possible and replaced with a truly representative government. My only concern was that the U.S. collaborate with other nations, which the U.S. has been doing commendably.
I see a rather conspicuous reorientation of your stance here HP. I’ll leave it that for now, but I am very curious as to how you reconcile the two quotes shown above.
At least you get a Kewpie doll for mentioning the Firesign Theater.
“Reduncancey Department”? What in Hades is that? Some office where they serve you leftover layer cakes? A Scottish repatriation organization? A yo-yo repair clinic?
I don’t regard the Taleban as a legitimate government of a sovereign nation. They do not represent the majority of the people of Afghanistan, but rule by force. Also, by imposing tremendously harsh policies that infringe on the human rights of their citizens and by promoting terrorism, the Taleban meet my criteria of “extreme and obvious abuses are taking place”. I believe that the world community has an obligation to curtail extreme abuses of human rights. I believe, however, that great care must be taken to allow for cultural differences, so as not to infringe on the autonomy of a country unless substantial human rights abuses are taking place.
I adore the Firesign Theater series. “Nice Paisley Horsey”
I’m obliged to say that the offenses of the Taleban are so blatant that your initial objections and admonitions seemed (and still seem) entirely out of place.
[Tiny Doctor Tim]
Give the nice paisley horsey a sugar cube!
[/Tiny Doctor Tim]
::horse’s neigh tranforms into the trumpeting of a stampeding elephant::
That said, lots of things suck. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabis (our great Arab ally) is comperable to the Taliban. Read Princess about what it is like to be a Saudi Arabian princess where you can legally be drown in your family’s swimming pool if you have the mistfortune of being raped (it only takes three witnesses to day you “seduced” them, and only men can be witnesses).
And the Taliban did stop the war. People had a few years without their houses being blown up. They could reasonably expect food. Sure, it was a horrible existance, but it was better than perpetual war.
As much as I don’t like what happens in the Taliban, or in many other governments, I don’t think it is my right to go about toppling them as I see fit, especially when I have no real plan for picking up the pieces. We don’t have a decent idea about what to do with Afghanistan even if we did get rid of the Taliban. We havn’t really thought through how we could very well plundge a very scary region into chaos. None of this is going to be clean and easy, and I certainly don’t want to make people endure more years of war.
And for all of the Afghan women it is still is a horrible existence. It’s only nice (if you can call it that) if you’re a man in that chauvinist hell-hole. And dying a premature and slow death of cervical cancer or breast cancer doesn’t sound like much of what you call an improvement over perpetual war. (The only difference is that now the war is being carried out against women.) Nor does having to live in a home with blacked out windows, not being able to laugh loudly, sing non-religious songs, view television or the Internet, walk the streets freely, show even so much as a bare ankle (or even one clad in a white stocking), get an education or talk to a male friend in public.
Being an apologist for the Taleban ranks as pretty stupid in my book.
PS: even sven, please preview or learn how to spell.
). The Alliance is held together only by their mutual dislike of the Taliban; take that away, and odds are good that they’ll just turn on each other. This infighting is part of the reason the Alliance hasn’t been effective against the Taliban so far.