October 24, 2001

12:03 PM

There's something unsettlingabout this story, something about General Colin Powell being responsible for the establishment of a progressive government in Afghanistan, some kind of question like 'Under whose authority... how is he qualified... whose interests is he repres...." floating in the back of my mind, but it's the strangest thing, I just can't articulate it. All that bile must be hindering me somehow.
posted by saladin (30 comments total)

Someone has to do it.

There is precedent, after all.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:16 PM on October 24, 2001

I guess you would have been unhappy back in 1946 when General MacArthur rewrote the Japanese Constitution, too?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:17 PM on October 24, 2001

It's called nation-building, and has been more or less effective in establishing stable and peaceful governments in nations where a power vacuum has threatened the rise of new war-hungry regimes. It worked in post-WWII Germany and Japan, and is designed to avoid the kind of troubles we've allowed in the Middle East in the past. Namely, the US' advocacy of regimes like the Taliban and leaders like Saddam Hussein taking power after we're done destroying our enemy of the moment. Rather than allow the Northern Alliance, the same regime we displaced over a decade ago, to take over, we're probably going to try to install some sort of democratic government based on the will of the people, not whomever has the most guns.

Personally, I don't see what's so bad about it.
posted by dogmatic at 12:21 PM on October 24, 2001

Wow, Bush doing the "nation building" thing. Funny that he condemned it so much during his campaign...can you say hypocrite?

But hell, bud...not to worry. Drive those uneasy feelings out of your head. Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam, etc...we're in the business of installing governments that we prefer. We're experts. Look how stable those regions have been as a result of our expertise.

Hey, it's cool. Of course, notice that we don't even have to declare war on a nation now to overthrow its government. No United Nations mandates or pesky details like that to worry about. And remember, we have atomic weapons and can do a little Nagasaki/Hiroshima number on those recalcitrant countries if they don't let us do a rewrite job on them!

So buck up, bucko. Like...our country, right or wrong.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:25 PM on October 24, 2001

I guess you would have been unhappy back in 1946 when General MacArthur rewrote the Japanese Constitution, too?
I am enormously unhappy that McArthur rewrote the Japanese Constitution today and everyday.
posted by thirteen at 12:27 PM on October 24, 2001

um crosspost, but here's the plan!

...four principles that will underpin decision-making on Afghanistan:

· The future of Afghanistan must rest first and foremost with its own people.

· A global coalition must be constructed to help rebuild the country.

· The UN must take the lead in any transition.

· A long-term commitment must be made to Afghanistan...
posted by kliuless at 12:27 PM on October 24, 2001

saladin:

Careful, your Liberal is showing.

Afghanistan is pretty clearly a cesspool that almost no one wants to clean up. America has every reason to make sure that Afghanistan has a stable and more pro-US government in place -- the Afghans themselves clearly have no ability to make this happen, and we dare not trust Pakistan or Iran to serve our interests in this matter.

"All that bile" is probably a leftover your guzzling of the far-left liberal drool that passes for intellectualism these days.
posted by mrmanley at 12:29 PM on October 24, 2001

saladin: Who do you think should do it if not us? Should we just leave the country to get fucked over like we did before?
posted by delmoi at 12:37 PM on October 24, 2001

Saladin is right -- we should be unsettled, uncomfortable, and very, very watchful of what our government is doing in this regard.

But it is necessarythat we do this, too, as others here have remarked. Someone's got to do it, and not only is the U.S. the most involved in the situation, it'd probably take far too long for the U.N. or any international coalition to arrive at a plan to foster a new government in Afghanistan.

Not to mention, I for one am reassured to know that Powell is in charge of this effort.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:44 PM on October 24, 2001

It's important, because America and the UK believe so very strongly in democracy, liberty and freedom, that we decide for Afghanistan what kind of government Afghanistan has. It will of course, as the people want, be a democratic nation following the western capitalist model.
posted by skylar at 12:48 PM on October 24, 2001

I have to agree that the best choice for Afghanistan is to be helped by the US this anti-terrorist coalition that is forming.

If you object to the US helping with the building of Afghanistan (lets face it there is nothing to be "rebuilt") what do you suggest should happen to Afghanistan?

Personally i think we will end up reinstating the ex-afghan king, Mohammed Zahir Shah.

I don’t think there is any better idea currently.
posted by Qambient at 12:53 PM on October 24, 2001

oh and here's jack straw's speech! (real audio) the sound is crappy, but i thought it was pretty good. (the speech)
posted by kliuless at 12:57 PM on October 24, 2001

I think Dogmatic stated my feelings perfectly. For the most part, rebuilding helped keep West Germany and Japan from languishing as stagnant lands filled with violent power struggles. You can't really say that we hurt the people of those countries by doing so. I believe the same thing will wind up happening here.
posted by Darke at 12:59 PM on October 24, 2001

i don't think shah is a viable candidate, he's already signed an agreement with the northern alliance. powell has talked about "moderate" taliban which although vague suggests he thinks a legitimate govt must include them. one guy might be gulbuddin hekmatyar...
posted by kliuless at 1:07 PM on October 24, 2001

It's important, because America and the UK believe so very strongly in democracy, liberty and freedom, that we decide for Afghanistan what kind of government Afghanistan has. It will of course, as the people want, be a democratic nation following the western capitalist model.

It's important that we establish a democratic government because otherwise the will of the people will not be expressed. Without US intervention, the people of Afghanistan will have no choice but to live under whatever military power takes hold.

So which is better: US intervention or status quo oppression?
posted by dogmatic at 1:13 PM on October 24, 2001

Qambient:

I don't really think instituting a monarchy is really the best idea...
posted by delmoi at 1:17 PM on October 24, 2001

Good thing it's Powell. Cheney would just discover (after long, serious deliberation) himself to be the best person to rule Afghanistan :)
posted by electro at 1:27 PM on October 24, 2001

Afghanistan is pretty clearly a cesspool that almost no one wants to clean up.

We have no choice, because there is more than merely localized bad odor emanating from this one. Unfortunately, "cesspool" describes much of the developing world, and most of it run by Muslims. I suspect many people are not sufficiently aware of this. Basically, the United States is so hated because its influence "risks" upsetting the cesspool order of things throughout the developing world.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:29 PM on October 24, 2001

Yes, it is important that we do it, but it is also important that we do it correctly. There is as much precedent for the US government botching the job as there is for them doing it correctly. It will work out much better if it is a transparent open process I think, than if it is some sort of "We can use these guys to get these other guys or to protect us against these other other guys" backroom covert CIA kind of thing. It is in America's best interest to establish some sort of just and viable government there, in the absence of anything similar. It is not so definitely in the US's best interest to attempt to install newer, more democratic governments in the place of existing stable governments, like in Iraq for instance. The people have to want it.
posted by donkeymon at 1:30 PM on October 24, 2001

I didn’t mean that he would literally be the King of Afghanistan but I think he should be more or less be in charge of establishing a stable government.

If you had read the article he states he doesn’t really want to be the leader of Afghanistan but I think he does know what it takes to unify the land and establish a stable government in his land.
posted by Qambient at 1:32 PM on October 24, 2001

My Liberal is showing, eh? If it's liberal to fear the outcome of military leaders and friends of the Bush family establishing a government and imposing it on a developing country that is so wholly aligned against a Western/capitalist/democratic political ideology, then go ahead and cover me head to toe with big warning stickers that read 'Leftist Commie Environmentalist Peacenik Fag', because the idea makes me fucking sick to my stomach. When was the last time you spent any considerable amount of time in Central America, mrmanley? I tell you what, son, I'd really strongly endorse that you give it a try; it might change your views on what it means to despise American Imperialism.
posted by saladin at 2:19 PM on October 24, 2001

far-left liberal drool that passes for intellectualism these days.

Um, I was under the impression that Bush was opposed to "nation building"? As well as the Reform Party and the Libertarians. I believe it's been referred to as "international socialism". So, uh, I think this is actually far-right conservative drool, in most respects.

I'm an insane, ranting, feminist, union-supporter liberal, and I most definately think that we should help the Afghanis rebuild their country. I just don't want to see the CEO of Calco as their new president.
posted by kittyloop at 3:05 PM on October 24, 2001

saladin:

There is something so sad and yet so...inevitable about the New Left's agenda. They live in a society that permits dissent, encourages open and free exchange of ideas, and allows individuals unparalleled freedom of thought and action...and yet they can find nothing better to do than shit on that very same society.

If you hate American imperialism so much, what do you propose to replace it with? The UN? Don't make me laugh; ask the Muslims in Serbia how well the UN responds to crises of this sort.

Like most cynical anti-US ranters, you are long on vitriol and short on solutions. You are a pampered child of the same system you claim to hate. Do something constructive...like voting, volunteering in your community, and working to make things better.

kittyloop:

The CEO of Calco would be an improvement over what they have now, wouldn't you say? But all sarcasm aside, it's more likely to be a coalition of various sects with the UN as an overseer. And this coalition is likely to be just as fractious and divided as all the others Afghanistan has had in its history.

Ultimately the people of Afghanistan are going to have to take responsiblity for their own government. They have to shoulder at least part of the blame for letting this situation develop.
posted by mrmanley at 3:40 PM on October 24, 2001

mrmanley:

Sorry, I was thinking of Unocal, who was looking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan untill they realized that people were paying attention. And no, it might not be better than what they have now.
posted by kittyloop at 4:01 PM on October 24, 2001

Wow, Bush doing the "nation building" thing. Funny that he condemned it so much during his campaign...can you say hypocrite?

So, fold_and_mutilate, what you're saying is that you'd prefer our elected officials to not learn from ongoing events and change their positions on issues -- even though, as in this case, the different approach Bush is taking has nothing to do with getting more votes at home and everything to do with making a tough and costly but preferable moral choice?

What, you'd prefer Gore was president instead, so that he could do the same thing -- move to install a post-Taliban reform government, that is? Because you can be assured that that's exactly what he'd do, too.
posted by verdezza at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2001

It amazes me how some of you can not understand the difference between rebuiding a nation after a war (i.e., Japan 1946, Afghanistan 2003) and "nation-building" as practiced by the previous administration (i.e, restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.) Attempting to establish a stable and democratic state from the remnants of a defeated enemy has little or nothing to do with using the military to restore, install, or create governments in regions of the world when the national security of the United States is not threatened in any concievable fashion.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:35 AM on October 25, 2001

ljromanoff, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly over how each of us sees Afghanistan. It is incumbent on us to do both things there -- help rebuild it economically and assist with humanitarian aid (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.), and install a peaceful, democratic government. It is my hope that this administration will commit to, and carry through with, both; because to me, there is an inescapable moral and political obligation for us to do so.
posted by verdezza at 9:57 AM on October 25, 2001

ljromanoff, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly over how each of us sees Afghanistan.

I find your statement somewhat perplexing.

How do you think I see Afghanistan? I see Afghanistan as a semi-chaotic totalitarian state that has demonstrably threatened U.S. security. Consequently, it should be dismantled and rebuilt into a more democratic, free state. We do this not merely because of what Afghanistan is, but because what Afghanistan is constitutes a threat to the U.S. and other nations.

I would not suggest the U.S. attempt to dismantle every state that oppresses its citizens and install democratic states. While that objective might be noble, it is utterly unrealistic - and that is "nation-building." The military should only be used for its true purpose, defense of the nation, which is what I believe it is doing presently in Afghanistan.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:18 AM on October 25, 2001

How do you think I see Afghanistan? I see Afghanistan as a semi-chaotic totalitarian state that has demonstrably threatened U.S. security.

From your second post on this topic, I had the impression that you placed Afghanistan in that category of a "region of the world" that did not threaten U.S. security "in any conceivable fashion" -- in other words, the exact opposite of what I believe to be true, and the exact opposite of what you quite unambiguously explained your position to be in your third post.

Sorry, ljromanoff, my misinterpretation.
posted by verdezza at 7:05 PM on October 25, 2001

Yes, ethics aside of people from another nation deciding what the government of one nation will be, Afghanistan's present situation and past is far different from Japan's and Germany's. Remember that Japan and Germany were far more stable and *modern* states before the wars.
posted by Charmian at 9:16 PM on October 25, 2001