They force women out of the workplace.
They end the schooling of girls after age 8.
They force women to cover themselves from head to toe.
They force women to be escorted by a male relative.
They force men to wear turbans and beards.
They harbor terrorists.
They destroy priceless art.
They shut down UN run bakeries for women so that poor widows cannot even buy bread.
They make all non-moslems to wear a mark indicating their religion.
What step will be too much and cause the world to say enough and try to do something to stop this?
I think we’re talking about the Taleban in Afghanistan and IMO I think they’ll probably keep on doing what they’re doing without external interference until they either declare war or begin brutalising a particular ethnic group en masse.
Personally, I have to desire to get shot in the ass defending some piece of artwork.
Their system seems to have worked for them for 1,000s of years. As long as it doesn’t bother us or our friends, I say let them run their country any way they choose.
We can’t win anyway. If the US does interfere with other countries, everyone bitches that we are evil imperialists acting like the “world cop”. If we let these countries alone, everyone cries that we are sitting by and doing nothing.
When will enough be enough? when they invade Poland, of course!!
(unless you mrsmith, then enough ain’t enough unless they are breaking down your own door)
The hardliners took over in 1997, i beleive. that is hardly 1000s of years.
if you think this doesnt apply to you, just think about how thrilled india must be at this news. india has atomic bombs. big booms. you’re dead. will you care then?
IMO, a nation loses its right to any claim of sovereignty when it tries to force religious minorities to wear brands so they can be readily identified.
I would have no objection whatsoever to the use of American military authority to put an end to this repressive regime. The only reason why Afghanistan doesn’t pose the risk Germany does is they lack the industrial power that Germany did.
And I think the “Great Debate” here is “Just when do we say ‘enough is enough’ and send in the troops?”
What exactly do you interventionists propose that we do about the Taliban? Afghanistan has no trade, so sanctions won’t work. They get no aid, so threatening to cut that won’t work. They don’t care about our opinions, so bad press won’t work. In fact, no peaceful means will work.
That leaves military means. An invasion is out, for obvious reasons. Where are our troops going to be based? How are we going to supply them? How many casualties are we willing to take? How are we going to sell this to the Islamic world? An invasion of Afghanistan could actually prop up the Taliban, if Iran decides to help them against the US. Or we could just bomb them. And that would accomplish what, exactly?
No. There is really nothing that can be done about the Taliban, until their regime starts to crumble. Then we, or perhaps a neighboring Islamic country, will bankroll a rebel group. Another couple of years of low-level warfare will ensue, another couple million people will die or become refugees, and eventually a faction that is not quite as bad as the Taliban will take over.
Covertly, the U.S. could fund or arm an invasion by India, who has an obvious interest in replacing the Taliban. I’m not sure how advisable it would be politically to replace the Taliban with a territory run by India, but it would solve the immediate problem.
On the other hand, it might start World War III between India and Russia.
Of course, when Clinton sent cruise missiles into the terrorist camp the Taliban was harboring, there was quite an uproar about how he was simply trying to distract people from the blowjob story. I wouldn’t expect an administration with isolationist impulses to do even that much.
What effective military or economic options actually exist against the Taliban regime, anyway? They have no dependence on, or interest in, any other country’s opinions that I’m aware of, and they must have a significant level of popular support. Anyone calling for some kind of invasion and occupation is drastically underestimating the job - look how the Soviets, right next door with a huge army, got driven out by these people.
Except that Pakistan is in the way, and Pakistan is the nation that is as close to being friendly with the Taliban as any nation in the world. They are not happy with India, and I really don’t see them letting Indian troops cross their borders with a smile. Nor do they want India on both their fronts. And Pakistan, even if they would ever go to war with the Taliban, which I doubt, dosen’t have the military to do what the USSR couldn’t do in 20 years. (Mind you, this time the Afganis would not have covert US support, which would make a difference). The only possibility for military change in Afganistan is some sort of coordinated Indian-Pakastani action, and I don’t see that happening in the next 50 years.
Near as I can tell, all we can do is wait til they are desperate enough to request aid from somebody (other Islamic nations before the West, obviously). However, I don’t expect that to happen until every non-Muslim in the country is dead and 2/3 of the country has starved to death. I Nthe meantime, programs to smuggle refugees out might help individuals, if not the society.
well, who says we have to use US ground forces? just fire a couple dozen missiles, and a few air raids, and then send in the UN human rights committee. Since we ain’t on it anymore, we don’t gotta go…
Remember that the Taliban had the direct support of the U.S. during that war, receiving weapons and supplies, just as North Vietnam was being aided by China and Russia. Without that support, neither guerilla hellhole (as they were for the invaders) would have successfully humiliated a superpower.
First off, we never supported the Taliban. We supported various anti-Soviet militias, none of which was the Taliban. The Taliban was set up in Pakistan, and took over the country AFTER the soviets left, while the various mujahadeen factions were fighting each other.
Yes, our support was very helpful in making life difficult for the Soviets. But guerillas can make life impossible for an occupying force, even without outside support. It depends on the attitude of the country people. Just look at Somalia. The Somalis weren’t supplied by anyone, and they convinced us to leave pretty quickly. Now, we could have went in seriously intending to occupy the country and disarm the populace. But that would have taken years, and in the meantime how many US soldiers are getting killed?
Second, how exactly will a bombing campaign convince the Taliban to accept UN humanitarian agencies? Afghanistan is not Serbia. What are you going to bomb? There’s no industry, no communications, no infrastructure. How would bombing improve the life of the average Afghan? How would the rest of the Islamic world react? Even Iran has condemned the Taliban as misusing Islamic law. But if they were attacked by the US that would almost surely change. Suddenly the Islamacists stop being embarrassed by the Taliban and start supporting it.
I cannot a single thing that might be accomplished through bombing.