The People or the Government?

In this case... democracy's a real b****. For governments that have been elected by the people, for the people, and of the people, to quote the cliche, the people bear more direct responsibility for the actions of their rulers.

In totalitarian governments, the people are oppressed, and lack self-determination, and therefore are not to blame.

I'll be the first to admit this presents an extremely nasty, difficult decision for policy-makers. I'll also admit that there's not a good answer to the problem of accountability.

But that's your answer .

 

I would feel better if we can at least take out the Devil known as bin Laden and the main decision-makers and generals of the Taliban faction.

 

This is the thing that bugs me with this war insofar as it relates to sin. A government is a representative and agent of the people it rules. This is less true with junta-type regimes (I won't say totalitarian because there are some governments of this type that have a good deal of legitimacy), but especially true in a democratic republic such as ours which is literally based on this contract-theory approach. Therefore, the things the government does, it does in my name and with my consent. So when they decide to bomb a city or embargo a country or assassinate people, I am implicated in those sins.

But, here's the real b****: this representation and consent is not simply a sum of the citizens. It is corporate (in the sense of being part of a body). By this I mean an individual cannot withdraw his consent. If I denounce America's bombings, for instance, I am still culpable as a citizen. And American citizenship is not something they let you surrender easily either. I'd essentially have to commit some personal sin against the nation to lose it. Because the consent is corporate, its withdrawal would also have to be corporate. And since the mass seems unapologetic, I'm forced to stay on the boat with them and also be unapologetic.

I don't know to what extent this also applies to Afghanis. Really, I'm not too concerned about it. I am much more concerned with my own sins than those of others. If popular conception of the legitimacy of the Taliban is accurate, I'd say they are less culpable, being more victim than citizen. But, I have a nagging suspicion that the Taliban is more legitimate than it is given credit for.

 

I'm not sure where I come out on this one, HayesStreet. It's interesting because one of my business partners has been arguing for some time now that every govt is a product of the citizens it rules over, democracy or not. Essentially, if a people don't like a govt they find a way to overthrow it by sheer numbers alone. I'm not sure I'm ready to apply that absolute to people in third world nations, but I do see some logic in it....particularly in light of the fact that we're hearing more and more that the civilians of Afghanistan actually do support the Taliban.

 

<b>haven</b>: "In totalitarian governments, the people are oppressed, and lack self-determination, and therefore are not to blame. I'll be the first to admit this presents an extremely nasty, difficult decision for policy-makers. I'll also admit that there's not a good answer to the problem of accountability."

<b>RR</b>: Can't wait to see how the Afghan citizenry answer the $60,000 question: Where's Osama? Then we'll see how innocent and oppressed they are.

 

RichRocket, are you saying that the majority of the Afghans know where Osama is?

 

Part of the reason for the "civilian support" is probably that the Taliban has authorized the arrest & killing of anyone who displays any support of the US, the Northern Alliance, or any other entity outside of the taliban.

And don't forget the millions who are trying to flee the country and thus are no longer in the cities.

 

<b>RM95</b>: No, I'm not saying that but their general demeanor will tell us exactly how oppressed they have been. If I had been oppressed by an oppressive regime, I would welcome an invading army who wished to rid me of that regime. Wouldn't you? In the end somebody must know somebody who knows something. The guy is not a ghost.... yet!!!

<b>shanna</b>: What about the vaunted Afghan fighting spirit that we hear about? Isn't the Taliban fairly dispersed to the wind now? I have to wonder how effectively they can oppress the Afghan people while they are in hiding.

 

<B>I have to wonder how effectively they can oppress the Afghan people while they are in hiding.</B>

My guess is that it is mostly the women that are oppressed (since the men are the ones doing the oppressing) and the children that are starving the most. To be honest, I don't really know, but that would be my guess.

I would think the Afghan "fighters" are probably already in the Taliban army and treated well by the Taliban.

 

Just because the oppressors for the last 2 years have been in hiding for the last 2 weeks doesn't magically make the effects of that oppression disappear. Afghanistan will be a sh!tty country for years because of the Taliban, this isn't something that will take one night to cure.

 

<b>shanna</b>: Anybody know the figures? Seems like I heard some figure like 30-50,000 Taliban military. Afghanistan is a nation of some 15 Million, I believe. That leaves a lot of room for testosterone-inspired Afghan men (who don't support Osama) to do their thing!!

I'm not sure that all Afghan men support the Taliban "position" on women. The oppression is over the whole of the Afghan people-- not just the women, isn't it? Yes, they have it the worst though!

<b>RM95</b>: Oppression implies resistance. You don't have to oppress the cooperative. Two weeks or two month: it doesn't matter. If they Afghanis want something different for themselves and their children, now is the time to make it happen. No one else has offered them relief until now.

 

I don't think that's so obvious. They could hate the Taliban but be even more afraid of Americans. At least with the Taliban, they know what they have. With an American occupation, you don't yet know what you'll get.

 

If our international reputation can be confused with The Taliban, we have more problems abroad than we ever imagined. We do keep the world safer and we do look out for and promote our self-interest as well. Do we have to be self-sacrificing to be appreciated? Maybe so.

 

Just something to think about:

An American occupation force is extremely unlikely in Afghanistan. The Turks have offered troops, and together with the Northern Alliance would constitute the vast majority of the "occupation" force. They will be much more palatable to everyone (especially the Afghans themselves) than non-muslim Americans.

I'd envision a maximum of 30,000-40,000 US combat troops there to support missions against the Taliban (hunting them down, that sort of thing), and probably much less than that. We are not going to put a half million men in there, as there is absolutely no reason to do so. This is not Iraq, it's not even Vietnam.

 

The world over, I'd say you were in a tiny, tiny minority of people who think the Americans keep the world safer. You should at least know that much of the world does not think so highly of our country. We won't be confused with the Taliban, but we can still be polarly opposite and just as evil. Here's some good points about the Taliban the Afghanis might like that you can't say about the US:

1. They're Muslim.
2. They're Afghani.
3. They defended Afghanistan from a Soviet attempt to colonize the country.

Treeman, a Muslim occupying force would be preferable for all parties. But, can the Afghan people know and trust that the Americans are willing and want to do that? This country is powerful enough to occupy the country if it was a mind to. How can they possibly trust us when we are powerful, infidel, degenerate, imperialist and aggressive? Plus, we make our humanitarian aid and bombs the same color!

 

<b>JuanValdez</b>: "The world over, I'd say you were in a tiny, tiny minority of people who think the Americans keep the world safer.

<b>RR</b>: Time and time again, we have sent troops to the Middle East on behalf of Muslims. I doubt it is a "tiny minority" who appreciate the U.S.-- I certainly hope not.

<b>JV</b>: "You should at least know that much of the world does not think so highly of our country. We won't be confused with the Taliban, but we can still be polarly opposite and just as evil."

<b>RR</b>: Most of it brainwashing. I do think that the US foreign policy is tinged with arrogance. Perhaps from now on it will be different.

<b>JV</b>: "Here's some good points about the Taliban the Afghanis might like that you can't say about the US:

1. They're Muslim.
2. They're Afghani.
3. They defended Afghanistan from a Soviet attempt to colonize the country.

<b>RR</b>: How many Muslims in the U.S? How many Muslims in the Northern Alliance? It is my understanding that much of The Taliban is NOT Afghani. Isn't that one of the theories as to why they are so brutal with the population under their regime? The groups contributing to the Northern Alliance defended Afghanistan as well. Why are they on the outside? The Taliban's power play was swift and sure. I'm glad to read Treeman's report of the willingness of Turkey to take over the lead here. That makes sense for both the U.S. and for Afghanistan.

 

On points 1 and 2 of your response: I was speaking of the perception of other nations of our country. Even if we do help lots of people, including Middle Eastern countries, and even if people are brainwashed into hating us (both points I would argue), they still hate and fear us. It doesn't matter if mistrust of Americans is ill-founded; I'm just saying it exists. And that might be an explanation for why Afghanis might support a Taliban regime they don't particularly like. People tend to rally around their government anyhow when under attack. Look at how most Americans went from complaining to flag-waving because of the WTC bombing.

3rd point: We have Muslims in this country. But the culture is not Muslim and it is, in aggregate, a bit fearful of Islam, imo (even before the bombing). We as a society certainly don't know much at all about the religion. As an occupying force, we couldn't be described as 'just like them' by Afghanis.

As for the Taliban mostly not being Afghani, I don't know anything about that. You may be right. The Northern Alliance is, apparently, mostly made up of a minority group, which hurts their legitimacy. The Americans, though, don't even come from the right continent.

 

They'll know it when they see Turks and no Americans in the cities. Our troops will for the most part not venture into the cities, rather set up their own little "city" to stage out of. When the Afghanis see that we really aren't occupying their lands, and when they see Turks there to fight off the Taliban, they will fell much better about the whole thing.

On another point, the Taliban is majority Afghani, but a large minority are Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian, Yemeni, Algerian, Iraqi etc. The Northern Alliance regards them as a foreign invader, and as they were created by the Pakistanis that is a fairly accurate view. Popular support for their movement in Afghanistan is largely artificial / forced.