Isn't apostasy in fact criminalized in Afghanistan? Not only is there the danger of Afgani hillbillies with AK's. You can also be imprisioned for giving up islam. IIRC.

Weren't we straightening them out for religious fanaticism not too long ago? I'm confused.

I'm sure it's a matter of degree of fanaticism.

Sorting them out? Redhouse, how do you think bombs and guns helped that out?

Right orathaic,

I mean isn't so sad that americans introduced violent weapons to such a peaceful country? For shame.

So Dirge, in your imagination, did introducing american weapons but not american culture (education, tv, cinema etc.) help in any way to change their society?

I mean, you might be able to claim that violent weapons have been used to create a lasting peace (though you did break the previous peace, so it's a pretty tough call) or you might claim that the regime needing changing (not only because it was mean to women, but also because it allowed terrorists train and attack you - that's a vaguely justifiable excuse to invade) BUT i don't see how you can claim that the international coalition went and changed any fanatics (except maybe from being alive and threatening to dead and martyred...)

Wait, i'm presuming that you're being sarcastic. I mean you couldn't possibly be referring to the violent weapons that the CIA supplied to the Taliban so they could fight the USSR, right?

I don't think the main US purpose being there was to change their culture. Mostly we needed to stop the harboring of Qaida.

Yes the US has committed many crimes and mistakes over the years. But it is best to look at it in realistic context. It is not black and white. The White, Privileged West is not necessarily the source of _all_ evil.

One of the biggest failures, was William Clinton's failure (a man I otherwise admire) to respond adequately to the bombings of US embassies. In typical Democratic fashion he made a token response and then just hoped the problem would go away. But it didn't.

I'm sure you are right, the net number of "fanatics" has probably not dwindled. But Al Qaeda's reach and scope is diminished for the time being. I'm not sure what the answer is. If McCain had his way, we would stay their forever.

Since when are atheists not respected in court? I'm an atheist but I really hate how many atheists consider themselves a persecuted minority.

- "I'm sure you are right, the net number of "fanatics" has probably not dwindled. But Al Qaeda's reach and scope is diminished for the time being."

I think you'll find that Al Qaeda has become a brand, the media find it useful to talk about 'Al Qaeda' linked militants whenever a new Islamic insurgency appears. Across a huge number of African/European/Asia/Pacific states. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_countries_of_activity_of_Al-Qaeda.png )

Now these are not a single contiguous grouping, but the US helped solidify the brand (and it's not fair to blame the US for causing this people to join terror groups, but they did make the brand something of an international phenomenon)

It is entirely possible that a variety of militant Islamists would be fighting all over the world and not linked to Al Qaeda, just as we find today, but the western media would be ignoring them as we wouldn't have a simple narrative to talk about them. BUT a simple narrative is useful for recruiting, the question is, how does this simple narrative influence actual 'terror groups' - if that's even a fair term.

It's complex and you seem to know a lot about it orathaic.

My main gripe is that on the liberal side we find it so easy to find fault with any military action on the part of the US, yet, fail to provide working alternatives. And in this vacuum of direction, liberal US politicians typically resort to (1) sitting on hands, Carter, Clinton; or (2) exaggerated hawkishness to "prove" their patriotism (or testicles), Johnson, some might say Obama, although personally I find Obama to more middle of the road in the military sphere making him equally hated by left and right.

There is a lot of culture change going on throughout the developing world and especially the middle east and there are a lot of factors most of which I am not familiar with. Regardless sitting on our hands is not the answer.

If you want to look for a major gripe, i'd point out that the British invaded Afghanistan in 1838, 1878 and 1919 and in the end they failed and the Empire collapsed. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, finally started to withdraw troops in 1988, and then the USSR collapsed... so then in 2001 the US decided that invading and occupying Afghanistan was a good idea... (is it far to compare invading Afghanistan with 'starting a land war in Asia' - or the winter invasions of Russia which beat Napoleon, Napoleon and Hitler...

'Regardless sitting on our hands is not the answer.' - sure, and the US has a history of setting up 'American' schools, something to actually educate (in the same way Muslims setup madrasas - according to wikipedia 'Today, 20,000 Madrassas educate over 1.5 million students per year.' - Contrasted with about 14 AIS schools (see: http://www.aissfoundation.org/ )

You can, infact sit around not invading people, or work with local powers, so getting involved in African wars with the support of the African Union (which sends in peace-keeping troops on occasion) getting involved in Syria if the Arab league was willing to provide 50% of the troops - i'd say Asian conflicts would require Chinese support, and European ones the EU allies, but always building support of regional powers when possible.

In that sense, at least the war in Afghanistan did have support from numerous international powers.

That all sounds pretty good. Although I'm not sure American educational curriculum will necessarily be welcomed everywhere with open arms. And, killing people in African wars with humanitarian intentions is simply repeating all the mistakes that you have already outlined. Having a humanitarian objective will not make you beloved in Africa when collateral damage starts happening. But, I'm sure you're on the right track.

Bill Clinton is working with some NGO's that are doing some of the development work you were alluding to.