Karzai is on whose side?
This past October, I argued that Afghanistan is taking a fundamentalist path after the jailing, for blasphemy, of an outspoken advocate for women’s equality. This past winter, we all remember the convert to Christianity that would have been sentenced to death if not for the international outcry. In today’s New York Sun we learn the following about our ally, Mr. Karzai:
The Northern Alliance had been in power before the Taliban. Because of their repressive Islamic rule, Afghan expatriate women’s groups like RAWA were opposed to their return. For our defense, which should be the only concern, it's good that we’ve achieved the removal of the sponsors of Al Qaeda training camps. However, we shouldn’t imagine that there is or can be a cultural change as long as Islam is the law of the land. Islam remains the problem. Perhaps our leaders in Washington could learn something about Islam. Would that be too much to ask?
“Karzai criticized the American-led coalition's anti-terror campaign yesterday, deploring the deaths of hundreds of Afghans and appealing for more financial help for his government.”That he believes that bashing our efforts brings increased financial aid (jizya) says more about our appeasing (dhimmi) administration than his duplicity. There’s more:
There’s been a “major offensive against terrorists across southern Afghanistan. More than 600 people, mainly terrorists, have been killed since May.”Clearly that’s good; isn’t it? Not according to Karzai. He says:
Whose side is he on? We are the ones who should me making the demands.“It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying. In the last three to four weeks, 500 to 600 Afghans were killed. [Even] if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land.”
The Northern Alliance had been in power before the Taliban. Because of their repressive Islamic rule, Afghan expatriate women’s groups like RAWA were opposed to their return. For our defense, which should be the only concern, it's good that we’ve achieved the removal of the sponsors of Al Qaeda training camps. However, we shouldn’t imagine that there is or can be a cultural change as long as Islam is the law of the land. Islam remains the problem. Perhaps our leaders in Washington could learn something about Islam. Would that be too much to ask?
posted by Jason Pappas at 11:39 PM
8 Comments:
Here is what Hugh Fitzgerald says in the comments section at Jihad Watch:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011963.php#c233963
"What can Americans do, really, other than waste more lives, and more time, and more Jizyah of foreign aid when we can always, if we need to, simply intervene every few years, from the sky, should there be any sign of a return of terrorist camps."
We should have carpet bombed Afghanistan and then left. But that would have required a spine.
For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, we could have removed the maintenance of several hundred neutron warheads from the Defense budget, with the added bonuses of killing lots of people who'd be better off dead, and cutting the deficit even further.
Karzai's words: "[Even] if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land."
There's that tribal mindset again.
they were "sons of wha..?"
Anonymous writes "We should have carpet bombed Afghanistan and then left. But that would have required a spine."
The same idea could be advanced about Iraq. The first phase of the war was brief, with little cost. Then we went on to 'win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people' which has been extensive and costly, and might end in defeat.
Were our objective to change the aim of the enemy by providing disincentives, it could be accomplished. Instead it has been to maintain the pretense that the people themselves are good, and are in need of benefits.
So although it appears as if our main obstacle is material, it is rather our altruism and denial that constitutes the bottleneck.
Weingarten said,
"Then we went on to 'win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people' which has been extensive and costly, and might end in defeat."
"Might" end in defeat? Hey, we're the despised infidels, we never had a chance to "win hearts and minds." We know about the "hearts" part, with commands not to befriend Jews, Christians etc., and as for the "minds" part - well, the Islamic "mind," such as it is, is imprisoned in a straightjacket of a truly incapacitating philosophy.
So long as there is Islam, and so long as there is a technologically competent civilization which Islam can parasitize, we will forever be looking over our shoulders.
Maybe one day we'll get tired of living this way and deal with Islam realistically.
I agree with Cubed.
What is being attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq is the destruction of traditional Islam by rewarding non-islamic activity (money paid for befriending Christian America & democracy) and punishing Islamic purity (600 dead in a month). Carrot and stick approach to destroy Islam (or at least Islam as defined by jihadwatch).
The tribalism works to our advantage because it forces them to make a choice based on the welfare of their whole tribe. Friends with the Americans and gain in capitalist prosperity or enemy of the Americans and look up the barrel of a very long gun.
Post a Comment
<< Home