The Northern Alliance? Are we that stupid?

I have seen a lot of news reports about the exiled king of Afhanistan and the Northern Alliance and our State Department possibly supporting that duo in a return to power in Afghanistan.


This strikes me as incredibly stupid. Many of the problems we face in the world today are because we chose to back some rebels who ended up installing a horrific regime.


In fact, arguments can be made that the Taliban is a prime example. How can our leaders continue to act in this stupid manner?


Let me see, we armed and financed a bunch of rebels who fought against the Soviet Occupation. Eventually the rebels prevailed, the Soviets pulled out, and one of the most abusive, oppressive, even psychotic regimes in any country of the world came into being. Thanks to the US and our support.


Fine, it was a mistake. So our solution is just to pick ANOTHER group of rebels to finance and hopefully they'll overthrow the old rebels and set up a new regime?


I believe this is the height of folly. I personally don't know anything about the Northern Alliance except that they oppose the Taliban. Well, the Taliban opposed the Soviets and that OBVIOUSLY didn't mean they were any good.


I would lay SERIOUS odds that if the Northern Alliance were to manage a coup and re-install this exiled king, we see just another dicatorship. This Northern Alliance looks so virtuous and wonderful right now simply because they are not Taliban.


Will they initiate a government based on a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and speech and the right to assemble? Will they have free and open democratic elections?


Don't hold your breath.


natedogg

If you are going to overthrow a government, it seems obvious that you need local support. So, you must choose a faction that has at least some public support. The Northern Alliance fits the bill.


The key is not who we back...the key is that we don't just disappear if/when the fighting ends and the Taliban government is overthrown. I don't think our mistake was ever getting involved in other countries' civil wars. Our problem was turning around and ignoring what was happening after those civil wars ended.


Mojay

Jim Geary's "Giulliani should be the MacArthur of Afghanistan" idea may not actually be that stupid. Machiavelli, afterall, has recommended that it can sometimes be a good idea for a conquering nation to install one of it's own as the head of state of the recently conquered country. We can conveniently call the Giulliani Regime a "transitionary government". The former King of Afghanistan, who we will put in power, will act as the puppet much like Hirohito did in post-WWII Japan. Jerry Falwell can serve as a "secret religious advisor" to Giullani, in charge of indoctrinating the Afghan youths in Christianity in exchange for food for their entire family and village.

While there is certainly some truth to what you say, there are also some differences. First, the Northern Alliance in their interviews have political type views that are more compatable with ours. For example, they believe that it is okay to educate women and that it is okay to own a TV. Second, we should not make the mistake of pulling out quickly after the desired victory is achieved. Even though the Bush Administration has announced that nation buliding is not a business we want to get into, if the Northern Alliance was to take over, we may have to be involved.


However, with this being said, your other warnings are cetainly applicable and need to be and handled properly.

natedogg,


I don't get it either. What's up? I thought that we were going to change our foreign policy with the countries in the middle east, but my prediction is NOT. I don't think these terrorists will go away unless we change.


My understanding is we, USA, are Satan. We buy oil from oppressive regimes and arm them. It appears we're only in it for the money. Meanwhile, I predict lots of innocent civilians will be slaughtered.


Let's face it, they've been telling us for over ten years to get out of Saudi Araba and to change our policy with Isreal, but we don't care about anyone but ourselves. Notice how the media never talks about the current policies we have with Saudi Arabia and Isreal. I think if people in this country really knew, that would object to what we have been doing.

"My understanding is we, USA, are Satan. We buy oil from oppressive regimes and arm them. It appears we're only in it for the money. Meanwhile, I predict lots of innocent civilians will be slaughtered."


How does buying oil from oppressive regimes make us Satan? I doubt we could exist economically if we refused to trade with everyone we happen to disapprove of.


As for being in it only for the money, in many ways that is just a reality of commerce. Aren't all the other countries in it only for the money too? So does that mean that they are Satan too?


"Satan"--sheesh, I can think of dozens of countries which are more like Satan than we are.


Hopefully many innocent civilians won't be slaughtered in Afghanistan. One thing is for sure, though: if we don't stop bin Laden and his organization, many more innocent civilians will be slaughtered...right here on American soil.

...Yes.

Your history isn't quite correct. We didn't support the Taliban against the Soviet Union. They came later. The Northern Alliance is closer to what we supported. After the Soviets left, the Afghans couldn't agree on a government, continued the civil war, and the Taliban arose (with Pakistan help) on a "peace and order" program.


Whatever combination of Northern Alliance, Old King, or Southern Pashtun Chiefs arise to replace the Taliban, I'm pretty sure they won't be a liberal democracy. I'm almost pretty sure they won't be actively supporting terrorists that wish to hit the U.S., and that should be our major concern. By all accounts, whatever replaces the Taliban will be more liberal than the Taliban.


Pat Charlton