In his blog below, he asks the tough questions about U.S. Afghanistan policy and quotes Congressman David Obey: "Equally important, he said, "Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?"
Grayson's argument for pulling out of Afghanistan is compelling, but I simply cannot agree. If we do not have to tools we need, we should acquire them. Let me qualify that immediately. By "we" I don't simply mean the U.S. but as many nations as can be convinced to join together in the project, preferably under the auspices of the UN. And "sufficiently transform" does not and should not mean trying to re-make the country into a Sweden or Norway.
Minimally, the goal should be the eradication of the barbaric practices inflicted on women and some form of the rule of law, even if Sharia-based, but minus the draconian punishments meted out by the Taliban and still practiced to a large degree under the Karzai government.
The Soviets actually planted the seeds of modernism during their occupation and I think that is a major reason there is a small but real women's rights movement there.
I think of the project in Afghanistan not so much as nation-building, but as the repression of barbarianism. Otherwise, let Afghanistan evolve as best it can.
It might mean dealing with the people of Afghanistan on a tribe-by-tribe, region-by-region basis, rather than mediating through a central government. So be it. (Though Juan Cole has remarks somewhere about how misleading the characterization of Afghanistan as "tribal" can be).
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/10/alan-grayson-explains-best-policy-for.html
No comments:
Post a Comment