In general the consensus of governments has been that intervention is almost always wrong, and exceptions have been hard to find. Part of this is simple self-preservation, once a country begins to operate as a police force within other nations, they are likely to find their own national security at risk. Part of it is principle. As tg says, what if another nation decides to put a stop to the millions of murders of unborn children in this country.

In this case the situation is somewhat muddled by the fact that the existing government was put in place after a military invasion and overthrow of the previous government.

It puts Obama in an awkward position of trying to show that Afghanistan is a truly sovereign government, while still wanting to see that the purpose of the original invasion itself has not been violated.

It’s a tough spot. I don’t envy him or any other President who finds themselves in this spot. No matter what he does, he’s going to be attacked by someone.

We would never tolerate that type of interference and likewise, we should not bother trying to change cultures that don’t affect us.

Ho do you remove illiberal ‘native forces’ who oppose ‘reform’ without ‘imposing change’?

i dont think we can and should “remove” illiberal forces, except in extreme cases (like the Nazis, which also were expansionist and a threat beyond their orders). However we can try to nfluence and undermine them by other means.

I think that military action should not be an unthinkable at all costs option, but rather one of last resort (the opposite viewof the previous Administration). There rae cases where we should make it clear what our threshold fo raction will be, regardless of cost to us or difficulty (nuclear explosion on our osil, chinese attack on taiwan, N korean assault on S Korea, etc). But if it ever actuallycame to that, it would represent a profound failure on our part to have let things degrade that far.

The only regime on earth that is truly irrational is the N Korean one.

“That is THEIR law and is according to THEIR custom. I am as appalled as any Westerner by such a law, but we can not go around imposing our values on the rest of the world. That is THEIR law and there is nothing that we can (or should) do about it….”

Sorry, but this is typical cultural relativist BS, because it’s based on a culture whose foundation does not take the oppressed underclass (i.e. women) into account.

When the underclass in question is denied any political power, it means that the ones who define the culture in question are the subjugators who wrote the law. And therefore, the oppressors/rapists are the sum total of this particular culture. The natural extension to the argument that no one should pay any mind to THEIR law is that women are voluntarily compliant with their own oppression. Maybe they want to be oppressed, and we should just leave them alone for that reason? That would appear to be the implication.

Ho do you remove illiberal ‘native forces’ who oppose ‘reform’ without ‘imposing change’?

Remember, the ‘rape law’ was proposed and enacted by people who cannot be dismissed as Taliban.

you dont believe in universal human rights?

Yes

you take a purely relative position to morality?

No, I don’t have a relative position on morality. My position is that each and every thing that we – as Westerners – see that we do not like, we can not impose it upon others. There are tons of things going on all over the planet and there is no way to put a stop to all of it. No one wants to see anyone raped, killed or maimed, but we can’t go around policing the world.

What I would like to see is a better, clearer means of funneling money and support to *Afghani* groups working to combat this kind of moral backsliding.

That MAY work. However, they can’t be seen as foreign agents either doing the bidding of an outsider. I am mostly for staying out of others’ affairs – except for when they are coming to harm us.

Real, meaningful social change cannot be imposed from the outside.

and I agree. but i dont think that the mission in afghanistan is equivalent to “imposing change”. see my comment above.

What I would like to see is a better, clearer means of funneling money and support to *Afghani* groups working to combat this kind of moral backsliding.

foreigners wielding guns in afghanistan are largelu irrelevant to how afghanistan society has progressed over the past 8 years. After all, the taliban retain control.

and yes, meaningful change comes from within. But that change cannot occur until the field is cleared of authoritarian control by equally native forces that oppose such reform. Its a romantic view that all opressed people will rise ultimately someday against their oppression, but thats only happenned perhaps twice in all of history. and in those cases, the opression was far milder than what the muslims in afghanistan and iran and saudi and gaza and darfur experience.

you dont believe in universal human rights? you take a purely relative position to morality?

Foreigners wielding guns do not usually help those from within these communities/groups who are working for the betterment of their societies.