Bush vindicated

[Dr Fear]

The incomparable Mark Steyn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/01/do0102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/01/ixop.html)


Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.

But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz - thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the dunce's corner of history by far too many British Tories. No surprise there. The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Iranian people, etc.

Prof Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratisation is a process, not an event". Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle East is the start of a long-delayed process.

[Tim Partlett]

There have been a few encouraging signs, but it is a little too early to start celebrating. Despite what Steyn believes there is plenty worse than the "thug-for-lifes" that inhabit the region, and that is total anarchy where you have no way of knowing what is happening let alone controlling it. At least with Saddam he was largely predictable, and what you can predict you can control. If you have countries that are totally unstable you don't know what they are going to do. If they become completely anarchic, like Afghanistan was or Chechnya is, they can become terrorist factories. I can imagine many far worse horrors than Saddam, and some of them are allied with us.

[Doug Erickson]

Good ol' Mark Steyn; always trying to spin something golden from the dross he's mined. Y'know, whenever we get one of these conservative "but you hafta look at the situation in this light, from this angle, and downplay these facts" articles, you just feel kinda bad. Well, until they toss in a quote from Glenn Reynolds: then, the apologism turns into a circle jerk.

Pass!

[Dr Fear]

Good ol' Mark Steyn; always trying to spin something golden from the dross he's mined. Y'know, whenever we get one of these conservative "but you hafta look at the situation in this light, from this angle, and downplay these facts" articles, you just feel kinda bad.
Funny, that doesn't describe the article at all. In fact, it's much more applicable to Partlett's comment: Well, it might look like things are going well, but take a look at it this way: what we really want is a dictator that we can do business with. Conservative view: expanding democratic movements is objectively good. The Left: uh, but what if it gets like, you know, out of hand??

[extarbags]

Good ol' Mark Steyn; always trying to spin something golden from the dross he's mined. Y'know, whenever we get one of these conservative "but you hafta look at the situation in this light, from this angle, and downplay these facts" articles, you just feel kinda bad.
Funny, that doesn't describe the article at all. In fact, it's much more applicable to Partlett's comment: Well, it might look like things are going well, but take a look at it this way: what we really want is a dictator that we can do business with. Conservative view: expanding democratic movements is objectively good. The Left: uh, but what if it gets like, you know, out of hand??

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. The problem is that this might lead to too much democracy in the Middle East!

[Tim Partlett]

It's traditionally the conservatives that worry about change, that's why there uh.. conservative.

And no, I didn't say I wanted to deal with dictators, I said that there are worse things than dictators like Saddam and you can easily get that by going in, tearing up the old system, and not having a very good plan of what to replace it with. Ironically fuzzy ideals about doing something good (democratising) without any real idea of how to do it (hopefulness) is something I normally associate with the stereotypes of the "left" or "liberal pussies" rather than conservatives.

[Dr Fear]

Ironically fuzzy ideals about doing something good (democratising) without any real idea of how to do it (hopefulness) is something I normally associate with the stereotypes of the "left" or "liberal pussies" rather than conservatives.
Exactly, which is why the conservative answer was to have an actual idea (invade Iraq and Afghanistan and hold elections).

[Duality]

He's right.

Its not no idea, its just not much of one!

[extarbags]

Ironically fuzzy ideals about doing something good (democratising) without any real idea of how to do it (hopefulness) is something I normally associate with the stereotypes of the "left" or "liberal pussies" rather than conservatives.
Exactly, which is why the conservative answer was to have an actual idea (invade Iraq and Afghanistan and hold elections).

Whoa! Invade and hold elections! That's some serious thought put into this plan. I mean, I never could have come up with something that detailed, especially not in three minutes while sitting on the toilet. I guess that's why they're in charge and I'm not!

[MikeSofaer]

I think it's important in the realm of massive military undertakings to distinguish between an idea and a plan. We should have had a plan. Really really. Would have been good.

Extarbags, I don't think "too much democracy" will be the problem you think it will be. I actually heard someone (Sharansky, I think) give a talk on this issue. He said that the sentiment that Muslims shouldn't democratize because it will lead to official international fundamentalist aggression is a basically racist one. It's also defeatist. As long as elections keep happening a Muslim government will act essentially in the interest of the populace, which does not include getting plastered by America.

Basically, I don't fear a democratic Muslim government as long as it stays democratic.

[extarbags]

Extarbags, I don't think "too much democracy" will be the problem you think it will be. I actually heard someone (Sharansky, I think) give a talk on this issue. He said that the sentiment that Muslims shouldn't democratize because it will lead to official international fundamentalist aggression is a basically racist one. It's also defeatist. As long as elections keep happening a Muslim government will act essentially in the interest of the populace, which does not include getting plastered by America.

Sarcasm Inspector, here to work on your sarcasm detector.

[MikeSofaer]

Oops, sorry. Guess I get carried away sometimes.

[extarbags]

s'ok

[Daniel Morris]

He said that the sentiment that Muslims shouldn't democratize because it will lead to official international fundamentalist aggression is a basically racist one.

I'd delete the "basically."

And while the sentiment may have been voiced here sarcastically, the same sentiment is voiced sincerely on a near-daily basis in op-eds the world over.

[extarbags]

He said that the sentiment that Muslims shouldn't democratize because it will lead to official international fundamentalist aggression is a basically racist one.

I'd delete the "basically."

And while the sentiment may have been voiced here sarcastically, the same sentiment is voiced sincerely on a near-daily basis in op-eds the world over.

Still, it's not exactly what I'd call a pillar of belief for the anti-Bush crowd, as the good Doctor seems to think.

[Jason McCullough]

* An anarchic Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban and a President who governs the capital only.
* An Iraq that's a magnet for terrorists from the entire region.
* A bungled mess of dead Iraqi civilians and torture victims that's inflamed the entire region.
* But Iraq did have an election, so who knows, they might avoid a civil war.

Victory!

[Dr Fear]

* An anarchic Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban and a President who governs the capital only.
* An Iraq that's a magnet for terrorists from the entire region.
* A bungled mess of dead Iraqi civilians and torture victims that's inflamed the entire region.
* But Iraq did have an election, so who knows, they might avoid a civil war.

Wrong on all points. Heck, your point 3 is objectively disproven by the very events the Steyn article is referring to, unless you meant the words in bold in a different way than I think you did. But whatever. Keep that post count up!

It's just funny to watch all the reflexive Bush-bashing and alternate-theory spinning when anyone tries to give Bush any credit for anything. People clearly *want* Bush to fail, in a way they'd be ashamed to even whisper to themselves alone in their bathrooms if the president were Gore or Kerry and the region in question were, say, central Africa. It's really amazing. The stuff that kills me is stuff like this:


The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn’t really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph’s chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago.

http://instapundit.com/archives/015545.php

Ah well. Keep griping. And thanks for the chat!

[Qwijybo]

Exactly, which is why the conservative answer was to have an actual idea (invade Iraq and Afghanistan and hold elections).

Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that.
So if you replace "monitors" in his quote with "troops" and remove the Carter/UN bit, it will work like that? I just don't see how "invade and hold an election and watch democracy sweep over the area" is a well-developed plan. Well-intentioned and possibly successfull, but not well-developed. Basically, I don't have a problem with having my views proved wrong if the Iraq does end up being the catalyst by which the Mideast is transformed - I just think its a bit too early to tell how it will all turn out.

[Midnight Son]

Ah believe that Dubya will only be vindicated when and if da RAPTURE takes place. :P

[Jason McCullough]

My ass they're wrong.

Fear, do you think the US approval rating in the region has gone up or done?

[Nick Walter]

My ass they're wrong.

Fear, do you think the US approval rating in the region has gone up or done?

Can you provide citations? I haven't heard any horror stories about Afghanistan lately so I'm not sure where you are getting your reports of anarchy.

In terms of the U.S. approval rating, I'm sure it's down. But Dr Fear isn't arguing that we went in to crown ourselves in a popularity contest, we went in to force democratic reform. Apparently it's working. The questions of whether it works in the long term, whether it was worth the cost, and whether democratic reforms really improve the lives of locals are all still up in the air.

[Midnight Son]

Uh no, we went into Iraq because they had WMDs! (Well, no they didn't.)

So then we went in because of Saddam's ties to Al Queda and 9/11. (Ooops, they didn't exist.)

THEN, we went in to save the people of Iraq from despotism! Too bad we had to kill over 100,000 of them, but hey, now they are enjoying democracy. (While hiding from the mad bombers and gunmen of the insurrection.)

(And the real reason we invaded Iraq: Halliburton needed the money.)

[Tim Partlett]

Well to give Bush his dues he did succeed in invading a third world nation that had been left defenceless by decades of sanctions with the most advanced and powerful army on the planet. I mean it is possible he could have failed that if he was utterly incompetent, but he didn't. He did succeed in running an election that was surprisingly successful in terms of turn-out, but alarmingly unrepresentative with nearly zero Sunnis voting. That was actually a little more than I was expecting. He's biggest successes seem to have been diplomatic, though, encouraging reform in the allied states of Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I've been moderately impressed by that.

However it is much too early to start celebrating. Considering the mess that Afghanistan is still in, even years after the invasion and after successful elections, it doesn't give the world much hope for Iraq. I hope for their sakes that it works out.

[Jason McCullough]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Afghanistan


Afghan Army Increases to 20,000 Troops - AP via Yahoo! News (Feb 27, 2005)
- Afghans Accuse U.S. of Secret Spraying to Kill Poppies - at The New York Times (reg. req'd) (Feb 27, 2005)
- Pakistan Starts Counting Its Afghan Refugees - Reuters via Yahoo! News (Feb 26, 2005)
- At least 580 dead in bitter Afghan winter, more feared dead in remote areas - AFP via Yahoo! News (Feb 26, 2005)
- U.S. Prepared for Rise of Taliban Attacks in Spring - Reuters via Yahoo! News (Feb 26, 2005)
- U.S. Military Braced for Taliban Attacks - AP via Yahoo! News (Feb 26, 2005)
- Taliban rebels kill 9 Afghan soldiers - at CBC (Feb 25, 2005)
- Battle losses in Iraq, Afghanistan total 570 million dollars: army - AFP via Yahoo! News (Feb 25, 2005)
- U.S. Flies in Relief to Snowbound Afghan Villages - Reuters via Yahoo! News (Feb 25, 2005)
- Afghan Combat Leaves 19 Dead; GI Wounded - AP via Yahoo! News (Feb 25, 2005)
- Nine police, 10 Taliban killed in southern Afghanistan - AFP via Yahoo! News (Feb 25, 2005)
- Troop Cuts in Afghanistan Concern General - AP via Yahoo! News (Feb 25, 2005)
- Afghans killed in Taleban ambush - at BBC (Feb 25, 2005)

Elsewhere I've read how basically treatement of women has regressed a hundred years, and how going outside at night in Kabul is suicide, but I can't find sources for that. Like Iraq, we don't have the troops to keep things under control, so it's anarchy ahoy.

* Iraq as a magnet terrorists all over the region: thought this was pretty much consensus now.

Care to explain how democratic reform helps if everyone hates us? Might as well paint a smily face on a bomb.

As to "the entire region in flames" scenario, the problem with Steyn's little thesis is the only people who actually said that were happen were cranks, not The Left. God knows it's entirely possible a radicalized squad could overthrow Saudi Arabia, but doesn't seem to have happened yet. I would say, however, that the likelihood has increased.

[Toddy]

"Incomparable Mark Steyn" is right. This latest column of his is nothing more than a slightly more erudite version of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner -- too much, too soon.

Also, that opening paragraph where he brags about the accuracy of his 2002 column is ridiculous, due to his advocacy about Iraq being the "West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity." How the hell could anyone sane write that line? Iraq's the worst example in the Middle East of what a terrible job the post-WWI potentates did drawing a map for the region. You've got three distinct racial groups, all battling for control. Even now, the Kurds in the north want a breakaway republic, the Sunnis are chafing under the new dominance of the Shiites, and the Shiites are asserting their power via numbers for the first time in decades.

How on Earth could this be seen as the best place for the West to try and impose a democratic government? Even if you succeed in cobbling together a nation, you'll almost certainly wind up with Yugoslavia II.

Arab nations with more homogeneous populations would have been much better launching points for instituting democratic change. Jordan, for instance, would have been the best bet, because it's small and almost as Western in its outlook as Lebanon. Then Syria. Because of the make-up of its population, Iraq would be well down the list. Both it and Lebanon are obvious tinderboxes, because of the clash of race and religion in both countries.

[Uncle Larry]

- Afghans Accuse U.S. of Secret Spraying to Kill Poppies - at The New York Times (reg. req'd) (Feb 27, 2005)
I hope there's something really sinister in this article to justify its inclusion, unless you read that as "puppies." :P



Elsewhere I've read how basically treatement of women has regressed a hundred years

100 years...before the Taliban invasion? I'm not saying your other concerns aren't valid or anything, but this is really shitty filler material here, Jason.

[Dr Fear]

I wasn't going to post again, but I saw Brett Todd's name. Which made me accidentally read McCullough's hilarious post, in which a US humanitarian relief operation due to the weather is considered evidence of anarchy. That made my day. In the finest anti-empiricist tradition, McCullough also fails to consider that far from being caused by Montana-based NSA weather machines, the "brutal Afghan winter" might have been going to happen anyway and the fact that 580 people died might not just be Bush's fault. Not to mention that it's just possible that (a) a country like Afghanistan might suffer winter-related deaths every year, and (b) the fact that there are US troops available to provide relief may have, you know, actually reduced some casualties. Unless you're one of those people quoted above who think everyone who dies to make Bush look bad is a worthwhile death.

You also have "Afghan Army Increases to 20,000 troops" and then "Troops cuts in Afghanistan concern general", so those either cancel each other out or, like the rest of your "sources," don't prove anything about "anarchy" in Afghanistan at all. That was pretty poor - you're a better Googler than that!


Elsewhere I've read how basically treatement of women has regressed a hundred years, and how going outside at night in Kabul is suicide, but I can't find sources for that

You aren't going to use the comments section of Daily Kos? Those aren't sources?

You'd have to have a pretty freaky depraved imagination to come up with a treatment of women that is 100 years more regressive than the Taliban, so I don't know how you can even type that with a straight face.

If you're buying into the "everything is a mess and there is going to be civil war" theory that the press has tried so hard to sell, you're going to keep ending up with no explanation for things like the elections, which of course no sane person thought were possible because of the brutal Afghan winter and the poppies and snowbound villages and some really worried general.

Also: Brett - I hate to correct such a noted Middle East expert as yourself, but Shiites and Sunnis are not "distinct racial groups." Leafs and Canadiens fans are a different story. Stick to what you know, man.

[Jason McCullough]

I admit, I don't have a definitive argument that Afghanistan's a mess. But I keep seeing these reports of rapes in the streets and Karzhai having zero authority outside of Kabul, so I dunno.


You'd have to have a pretty freaky depraved imagination to come up with a treatment of women that is 100 years more regressive than the Taliban.

Under the Taliban, women could apparently go out at night without getting raped and killed. Not anymore.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, and does that list of news clips sound like things are going good to you? Refugees, gun battles, a resurgent taliban....

[Desslock]

Is McCullough actually arguing that women were better off in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban, or is that a typo and is he lumping in some anti-Iraq stuff into a discussion of Afghanistan?

[Desslock]

You'd have to have a pretty freaky depraved imagination to come up with a treatment of women that is 100 years more regressive than the Taliban.

Under the Taliban, women could apparently go out at night without getting raped and killed. Not anymore.

No, under the Taliban, women couldn't go out at all - during the day or night - without a male chaparone.

Most Afghan women were prohibited by the Taliban from working, from going to school, from moving anywhere outside their homes without an immediate male family member as chaperone, restricted from visiting doctors, hospitals or clinics (there were "male-only" hospitals - male doctors are prohibited from seeing any unaccompanied women. Women doctors have been largely prohibited from working at all).

Women who were administrators, nurses, and teachers (fired from their jobs because of their gender) sold everything they own to feed their children and were forced to beg on the streets because they were prohibited from earning a living. Those caught on the street without a close male relative as a chaperone or caught revealing an ankle, face, or wrist, risked being beaten on the spot by fervent religious police who wandered the city brandishing metal cables in search of dress code violators.

Girls over eight couldn't go to school. Younger children attended classes limited to teachings of the Koran. Naturally there was no voting, and women were prohibited from participating in society in any way.

The fact that there's violence against women now just shows the depth of resentment towards granting women rights and no longer treating them like slaves. Blaming the Bush adminstration for that is as crazy as blaming the Lincoln adminstration for post-Civil War lynchings in the South. And unlike the post-Civil War administration of Andrew Johnson, the new Afghani government is actually actively working to reform the society and grant rights to the historically disadvantaged -- 25% of government reps are female, for instance.

[Jason McCullough]

So using the same logic, the violence in Iraq isn't Bush's fault either for not putting enough boots on the ground?

[Dr Fear]

Oh, and does that list of news clips sound like things are going good to you? Refugees, gun battles, a resurgent taliban....
The problem with making all of your arguments solely via Google is that you run into a problem when you're forced to think. The idea that you could draw a conclusion of "a resurgent Taliban" based on the news links you posted is ludicrous to the point that I'm starting to wonder if you're really arguing or just trying to waste my time, since you appear to have an awful lot of it. I'm not sure what conclusions I could draw from doing a Google search and posting a list of all the murders that happened this month in Baltimore, Maryland, but I'll bet you could come up with a really good theory. So don't disappoint me.


I admit, I don't have a definitive argument that Afghanistan's a mess. But I keep seeing these reports of rapes in the streets and Karzhai having zero authority outside of Kabul, so I dunno.
Yes, you donno. You're not really interested in understanding the story -- you've already formed an opinion for what I can only assume (forgive me if I'm wrong) are political reasons, and can't imagine that perhaps events that are being reported by people with the overt agendas quoted in by the Daily Telegraph correspondent might not be as they first appear from all "these reports." Imagine if there were a reporter, say for the Washington Times, who was quoted as saying she wasn't going to report any bad news from Iraq because "we've got to help the Bush Administration" -- you'd put that quote in a .sig file and dismiss any and all news stories that hadn't already been vetted by the Democratic Underground conspiracy watch. Remember that despicable (probably not to you) NYT arts piece where the reporter just casually insinuated that a pro-US Iraqi blogger was a CIA agent? If you can read that stuff and not flinch, you're not interested in the story -- you're just enjoying the echo chamber.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, fun as it was, because as Desslock pointed out, you don't even know the facts from which you purport to be arguing. That list of AP headlines was a classic, though, so thanks for adding that to "the literature" as they say. The posturing would be amusing up to a point if it weren't about something so serious. I heard Daniel Schorr on NPR today say something like "you can't discount the possibility" that the American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan may have led directly to the recent developments in Lebanon and Egypt and Syria. To his credit, he listed no real caveats, although the very fact that he sounded almost grudging in his acknowledgment shows you just deep the animosity goes. Like Tim Partlett said, it's too early to declare victory, but what I can't understand is why so many people seem completely emotionally invested in defeat.

[Dr Fear]

So using the same logic, the violence in Iraq isn't Bush's fault either for not putting enough boots on the ground?
The violence in Iraq is the fault of people blowing up civilians with car bombs. By your logic, your illogical posts are the fault of all those people who fail to properly correct you when you start spouting nonsense.

I know I was not going to post again, but I just couldn't help it.

[extarbags]

So using the same logic, the violence in Iraq isn't Bush's fault either for not putting enough boots on the ground?
The violence in Iraq is the fault of people blowing up civilians with car bombs.

Just like how 9/11 was a result of a bunch of people deciding to hijack planes and kill people? It must be nice to not have to worry about the root causes of things.

[Jason McCullough]

If the Taliban isn't resurgent, where do all the resurgent Taliban stories come from? If things are going so well, how come crime has skyrocketed?

No, I'm not picking this up from the Telegraph or Guardian, I don't read them.


heard Daniel Schorr on NPR today say something like "you can't discount the possibility" that the American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan may have led directly to the recent developments in Lebanon and Egypt and Syria. To his credit, he listed no real caveats, although the very fact that he sounded almost grudging in his acknowledgment shows you just deep the animosity goes

Yeah, it is silly of him to talk about the argument with obvious distaste at having to put up with a content free argument.

Step 1: Invade Iraq.
Step 2: ......
Step 3: Everything we want happens! Freedom everywhere!

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, and that reporter talking about how the pro-Bush Iraqi blogger was a CIA agent? No, she isn't a CIA agent; there's no evidence of that.

However, when the Pentagon is quite openly going on about the foreign propaganda organizations isn't running, and there's a cash convoy going from domestic political groups to certain Iraqi factions (Chalabi comes to mind), you've got to wonder, no?

[Nick Walter]

If the Taliban isn't resurgent, where do all the resurgent Taliban stories come from? If things are going so well, how come crime has skyrocketed?


Doesn't this happen after any sudden and drastic change of government? The breakdown of central government would naturally lead to a breakdown of civil order and an upswing in crime until things can be brought back under control. I remember reading that various fomer soviet republics and Russia itself all had problems with this.

In Civ terms, the government change requires a period of anarchy :D It seems inevitable to me, though I'm not enough of a historian to point immediately to any examples of it in history.

I guess the bottom line is that I never bought into the naive idea that the Army could waltz into a country, change the government at gunpoint, and immediately tranquility and wellbeing would result. So saying that things are a little hairy in Afghanistan or Iraq with upswings in crime and so forth isn't really a compelling argument against the effectiveness of regime change. I'd want to see evidence that the new government was nonrepresentative (rigged elections) or doomed by open warfare before I'd really consider a regime change a failure.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, maybe. But it's been years, and it just seems to slough along without measurably improving.

[Nick Walter]

Well, maybe. But it's been years, and it just seems to slough along without measurably improving.

Don't get me wrong, if 3 years from now there's been no measurable improvement then I'll agree that it's a failed regime change. I just still am mentally allocating some grace period for the new government.

[Toddy]

Also: Brett - I hate to correct such a noted Middle East expert as yourself, but Shiites and Sunnis are not "distinct racial groups." Leafs and Canadiens fans are a different story. Stick to what you know, man.

Oh yes. I'm an absolute fool! Thank you so much for setting me straight. To think that all this time I believed that the Iraqi Shiite population consisted of transplanted Danes with a love of tanning beds!

Brett

[Tim Partlett]

The fact that there's violence against women now just shows the depth of resentment towards granting women rights and no longer treating them like slaves. Blaming the Bush adminstration for that is as crazy as blaming the Lincoln adminstration for post-Civil War lynchings in the South. And unlike the post-Civil War administration of Andrew Johnson, the new Afghani government is actually actively working to reform the society and grant rights to the historically disadvantaged -- 25% of government reps are female, for instance.

The violence against women in Afghan society is the result of complete lawlessness, something which Bush could do something about if he hadn't been expending resources chasing mythical WMDs in Iraq. The violence against women in Afghanistan didn't start the moment they were granted rights by the new American backed government, in fact it was just as bad under the Mujahadeens after the Russians were kicked out. The violence against women in Afghanistan was actually so bad that the Taleban and their strict laws were initially welcomed, because they put an end to it.

The problem with the Afghan government, and what makes me worry about Iraq, is that while it is has all the trappings of a democratic government, it has little control over what goes on in the country. Afghanistan has been ruled mostly by regional warlords since the invasion, some of whom have had their own small tank corps. There have been attempts to reign these feudal lords in, but they aren't even the main problem. The government has little impact outside of a small area inside central Kabul, and outside the Taleban and other terrorist groups have been resurgent.

The reason violence against women, poppy production, terrorist activity and general criminality is at such high levels in Afghanistan is easily pinned down to one cause: George Bush's policies.

[Tim Partlett]

Yes, you donno. You're not really interested in understanding the story -- you've already formed an opinion for what I can only assume (forgive me if I'm wrong) are political reasons, and can't imagine that perhaps events that are being reported by people with the overt agendas quoted in by the Daily Telegraph correspondent might not be as they first appear from all "these reports." Imagine if there were a reporter, say for the Washington Times, who was quoted as saying she wasn't going to report any bad news from Iraq because "we've got to help the Bush Administration" -- you'd put that quote in a .sig file and dismiss any and all news stories that hadn't already been vetted by the Democratic Underground conspiracy watch. Remember that despicable (probably not to you) NYT arts piece where the reporter just casually insinuated that a pro-US Iraqi blogger was a CIA agent? If you can read that stuff and not flinch, you're not interested in the story -- you're just enjoying the echo chamber.

Assuming that there is an anti-war agenda in the press based on one Telegraph reporter saying that some unnamed press correspondent said something that would be shocking if actually true is a big mistake. The Telegraph is hyper pro-war in Iraq, probably moreso than Fox News, and has repeatedly been shown to fudge facts even when presenting actual data. When some guy says that some reporter he met said something, but doesn't have the guts to name them, it makes me think that he's just writing what he thinks they think but don't say, or is writing what people like you want to hear because that sells papers.