Taliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan

ABC News (AP) ^ | April 7, 2003 | KATHY GANNON

[sarasota]

How do you keep the battle going against the corruption of the Taliban. I can already hear the Afganies: Why did you leave us? Just like you did in Iraq. Will it take 12 years to get you to come back and "save" us? And so on.

[TigerTale]

The transnational pipeline has always been the best hope for a modern, industrialized Afghanistan. It would also be a big boost to some former Soviet republics. I hope we are putting influence and resources behind this effort.

[Dr. Frank fan]

From this, I read that: 1. You are willing to tolerate the existence of the Taliban; and 2. You are willing to wait for a state to attack the US prior to taking preventative action. Did I read your statement wrong?

Half wrong. I am willing to tolerate the existence of the (remnants of, or revived...) Taliban; that's true. I don't see a need to kill everyone who joins an organization calling itself "the Taliban" from now on into the indefinite future.

That doesn't mean I oppose preventative action. Quite the contrary, I am all for pre-emption. If there's any sniff that "the Taliban" are harboring armies preparing to attack us I say bomb 'em. You'll probably say that the two go hand in hand, that you can't have Taliban without the terrorist training and supporting. That may be correct. In which case, bomb 'em till they learn their lesson once and for all.

Are we clear, then?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Prove it. Draw another.

My conclusion is: one is either with us, or with the terrorists. Harboring and supporting terrorism is the same thing as being a terrorist. And we reserve the right to take action against regimes which do so, in the name of our national defense.

In other words, I support the Bush doctrine.

[marron]

If we don't want another war in Afghanistan 10 years from now, we absolutely have to push ahead on building a professional army, and this army has to be closely tied to us. And, we have to push ahead on development projects, quickly, to rebuild the infrastructure. Infrastructure projects are critical for two reasons; one, they are necessary to set the stage for a normal economy to take root, and secondly they are a short term source of employment for people who otherwise have only their guns and their poppies to feed them.

The $13 million mentioned in the article is not nothing, but it is miniscule compared to the billions we are planning to spend in Iraq, which is in far better shape. Iraq already has all of the infrastructure of a modern economy. After decades of chaos, Afghanistan is barely out of the stone age.

An argument could easily be made that it is not our responsibility to rebuild the country, but our own self interest requires that we not permit it to sink back into the no-man's-land that it has been prior to our most recent arrival. We can either help the Afghans build a liveable country, or we can cede it to our enemies. There isn't really a third choice.

[bassmaner]

All we (the USA) can do is lead these people to the water. We can't make 'em drink...

Unfortunately, we don't have that option. Allowing the Taliban to regroup will provide an impetus for al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to regroup as well; an option totally unacceptable in a post 9/11 world. They have to be smashed to the last scumbag, even if it involves invading Pakistan to do so.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Maringa]

That's correct that we didn't go in there to establish a new government, but to extract the terrorists. However our un-biased media will try to portray similarities to the new Iraqui government....Sigh....

[Michael2001]

Might it be a good idea to spend our anti-terror money closer to home, by controlling our borders and finding out where all the visa-jumpers are hanging out?

Bump. See my thoughts on this here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725160/posts