[Carry_Okie]

A government that, while generally sovereign, can be asked by us to deal with what we see as a problem in a manner that we find satisfactory, and that will be pushed aside so that we fix the problem ourselves on their territory otherwise, is a puppet government, and a policy that creates such governments with force or a threat of force is imperialist policy that I advocate.

We then disagree on terms. I hardly consider such a government to be a puppet. A policy such as I described is, as far as I am concerned, applicable with ANY government. Would you call France, or Britain puppet governments? How about Russia? Do you really believe them so capable as to prevent our conducting a sanction on their soil? Websters defines "puppet" as, "a person whose actions are controlled by another." By no means am I saying that my proposed policy controls the government of Afganistan, nor should it.

Quod erat demonstratum? ;-)

[annalex]

I don't want to argue about terms, but a situation when we have to ask the government of France to round up some French citizens not because they violate a French law, but because we think they might plan to hurt us, is implausible. The same situation with Afghanistan is very likely. There is another difference, that with the French we have a cultural compatibility, so no matter how hostile to us they might become, chances are we can talk it over. With the Taliban govenrment there is virtually nothing we can talk over. Our relationship with the post-war (and, I expect, post-occupation) Afghani government will be primarily based on our continuing military threat to them and their obligation to root out terrorists on our behalf. So, call it what you want, but it will be a government primarily concerned with serving our interests under a threat of force: a classic asymmetrical imperialist relationship.