The Wall Street Journal reports a sickening story out of Afghanistan: in a military hospital built and sustained by American taxpayers' dollars, wounded Afghan soldiers are dying of starvation and neglect, because Afghan doctors, administrators and nurses won't feed or treat them unless they're bribed.
One wonders whether the Pashto language has words for compassion and decency. And one wonders when our political leaders will finally wake up and realize that nation-building in the land of the Hindu Kush is a futile, hopeless endeavor.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Hopeless
I was all for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when they started. I read “The Case for Democracy” by Natan Sharansky, the ideological underpinning for Bush’s freedom agenda. The thesis was that all people want to be free and that the friendliest dictatorship in the long run is more dangerous to us then the most hostile democracy. I believed it.
I think we have to honestly admit that both nation-building projects have been failures, and while I admire both W and Sharansky, their thesis is false. Most people don’t want freedom. The American Founders wanted freedom. Jewish Soviet refuseniks like Sharansky wanted freedom. Some ancient Greeks and Romans wanted freedom. But that’s it. Most everyone else wants the absence of hunger and torture and some surviving children. They don’t even know what freedom is.
I think many conservatives, me included, are becoming more isolationistic after these examples. Maybe that’s a good thing. Future foreign interventions should be brief, overwhelmingly violent, and decisive.
Edited on September 4, 2011 at 3:05amJul '10
Re: Hopeless
I like the cut of Yer jib, Dr. Bean.
An overwhelming vast majority of people do not want responsibility for their Lives, because then their failed state would be solely theirs' for blame.
When asked why they followed Hitler, some responded that they were "free from freedom."
"Nation building" ain't in The Constitution, but kicking Our enemies' asses is. Bomb 'em til they surrender, then let 'em go.
Feb '11
Re: Hopeless
Why, thank you, Jimmy Carter.
I've been admiring your comments and your dress shoes here for quite a while!
Jul '11
Re: Hopeless
I had the same sickening feeling when I read that WSJ article this morning, and the same conclusion. Nothing will make that crap-hole worth our fighting for. If they can save themselves, go for it, but it's past time for us to face up to our limitations and to revisit our assumptions.
The observation that Mankind doesn't want freedom is in good company. I think Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor had it about right, and the miserable Russians who longed for the days of Stalin proved him right.
If we want freedom, let's protect our own.
Jan '11
Re: Hopeless
It isn't pleasant to come to this conclusion but absolutely necessary. I supported both interventions as well but have to be honest - it isn't working. Our soldiers have performed wonderfully but these populations are hopless savages.
The notion that 'all people crave freedom' may be the flipside of the 'people are the same the world over' pap. People & cultures are not the same, and not all people (even in the West) want freedom.
Oct '10
Re: Hopeless
I can't help but agree. However, if we pull out with nothing accomplished and they revert back to barbarism, are we going to have to keep going back, or bombing them or something, when Al Qaeda sets up a nice new home there?
I wish I knew the answer to that too.
Mar '11
Re: Hopeless
Don't be played by the WSJ for fools. First check out Max Boot.
"In the penultimate paragraph one reads this: “The hospital has seen major improvements since then. A surge of coalition military mentors is helping ensure that Afghan nurses and doctors conduct regular checkups of patients and provide routine feedings and dressing changes. There haven’t been any documented cases of starvation since February, American mentors say.”
In other words, the conclusion of the article directly contradicts its premise..... In point of fact, while the article does demonstrate the depth of corruption in Afghanistan (hardly a news flash), it also shows that, with concerted top-level action, the U.S. can rein it in. Petraeus did just that in the case of the military hospital, which is now widely cited as one of the biggest American successes in fighting corruption."
Mar '11
Re: Hopeless
Doctor Bean:
I think we have to honestly admit that both nation-building projects have been failures,
I disagree. Iraq has been a tremendous success. An Arab democracy, no matter how flawed, is a wonderful accomplishment, especially as it is in the heart of the Arab world. I think Iraq enabled the Arab Spring, and is a beacon to muslim countries. Consider: Iraq is now probably the least anti-Israel country in the muslim world.
I want the US to arrange for permanent bases in Iraq, which would be SO important in any future clash in the region. But I consider Iraq to be Bush's greatest triumph, and I am confident that History will agree.
Mar '11
Re: Hopeless
David Roy: I can't help but agree. However, if we pull out with nothing accomplished and they revert back to barbarism, are we going to have to keep going back, or bombing them or something, when Al Qaeda sets up a nice new home there?
I wish I knew the answer to that too. · Sep 4 at 8:41am
It's not isolationism if a we limit our overseas military engagements to only those situations where US vital foreign policy interests are at stake and all other choices at resolution have failed. That said, it's time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. They have a functioning country, such as they choose to function, and whatever horrors they want to commit within their own borders to their own people is their business. If they choose to export it, and if it affects our vital interests, then our retaliation should be massive and brutal. There's no reason to think that we'll ever come to any kind of accommodation with the Islamist culture, and the sooner we realize it, the better able we'll be to preserve our way of life.
Oct '10
Re: Hopeless
iWc
I disagree. Iraq has been a tremendous success. An Arab democracy, no matter how flawed, is a wonderful accomplishment, especially as it is in the heart of the Arab world. I think Iraq enabled the Arab Spring, and is a beacon to muslim countries. Consider: Iraq is now probably the least anti-Israel country in the muslim world.
I want the US to arrange for permanent bases in Iraq, which would be SO important in any future clash in the region. But I consider Iraq to be Bush's greatest triumph, and I am confident that History will agree. · Sep 4 at 8:48am
I think it has been a bit of a success, but from what I've read, it seems to be falling under the influence of Iran, which can't be good.
I believe that may have been starting to happen even under Bush, but if Iraq does go all the way with Iran, it will be Obama who ultimately lost it. Though there are those who would say that Iraq becoming an Iranian satellite after liberation was destined to happen anyway.
Jun '10
Re: Hopeless
Some of the dying that Mother Teresa took care of would continue to steal from the Sisters and from each other. It was what they'd done all their life. In their world, someone was going to starve, or not have enough clothing, but it wasn't gong to be them. That's what they learned growing up--"if you have a chance to steal, steal...somebody here is going to starve to death...make sure it's not you." It's a hard thing to unlearn.
Jul '10
Re: Hopeless
Saw Tony Shaffer, ex-intelligence officer and author of Operation Dark Heart, speak on this recently and his case against the current approach to Afghanistan seems to me a sound one. When we came in and rallied local resistance to take on the Taliban, we were heroes empowering local populist efforts and were popular and mostly successful. (Now we know that Bin Laden was being sheltered by our "ally" over the mountains.)
When we transitioned to a very visible, large scale force we became the story, and in becoming the story began to smell more like a foreign occupier than a partner against tyranny.
I would love to see Lt. Col. Shaffer as a guest contributor here. He is a remarkably articulate fellow who was privy to much of the early thinking on Afghanistan and is very good speaking off the cuff.
Feb '11
Re: Hopeless
iWc: I certainly hope you're right. But I agree with David Roy. I think Iraq will either become a client state of Iran or fragment on sectarian lines. Time will tell. I hope to be wrong. It would be a wonderful vindication of W's and Sharansky's vision.
Aug '11
Re: Hopeless
It's far too early and far too optimistic to declare Iraq a success.
As for Afghanistan, my point is that a society whose doctors and nurses let wounded soldiers die for wont of a bribe - and a society where runaway teenage brides have their noses sliced off and Christian converts are sentenced to death - is beyond moral and cultural redemption.
May '11
Re: Hopeless
Who's kidding whom? Even if the hospital were treat patients, they still wouldn't be able to help them. Doctors are created through bribes, too.
We lost sight of the purpose of going to Afghanistan. It was to punish them for supporting Al Qaeda and to destroy Al Qaeda. Nation building was a sorry addition.
Iraq was invaded to surround Iran, but we squandered that effect by allowing Iran to manipulate the Iraqi government at will.
In both countries we installed puppet governments, and they're both Islamic and especially in Afghanistan they push us around.
Jan '11
Re: Hopeless
I've come to the sad conclusion that it boils down to a matter of east vs west. The communist countries in Eastern Europe were full of people with dreams of freedom. Liberation was only a matter of time. Eastern countries - underpinned by tribalism - will take generations to turn (if ever) - so we should base our isolationism on that thesis Sorry to the women there, but that's life
Jan '11
Re: Hopeless
I am becoming more imperialistic.
Re: Hopeless
Illiniguy
It's not isolationism if a we limit our overseas military engagements to only those situations where US vital foreign policy interests are at stake and all other choices at resolution have failed. That said, it's time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. They have a functioning country, such as they choose to function, and whatever horrors they want to commit within their own borders to their own people is their business. If they choose to export it, and if it affects our vital interests, then our retaliation should be massive and brutal. There's no reason to think that we'll ever come to any kind of accommodation with the Islamist culture, and the sooner we realize it, the better able we'll be to preserve our way of life. · Sep 4 at 8:58am
That's the Senator Fullbright approach to foreign policy, and I'm increasingly inclined to agree with its application regarding Afghanistan.
Edited on September 5, 2011 at 2:05amMar '11
Re: Hopeless
Dave Carter
Illiniguy
It's not isolationism if a we limit our overseas military engagements to only those situations where US vital foreign policy interests are at stake and all other choices at resolution have failed. That said, it's time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. They have a functioning country, such as they choose to function, and whatever horrors they want to commit within their own borders to their own people is their business. If they choose to export it, and if it affects our vital interests, then our retaliation should be massive and brutal. There's no reason to think that we'll ever come to any kind of accommodation with the Islamist culture, and the sooner we realize it, the better able we'll be to preserve our way of life. · Sep 4 at 8:58am
That's the Senator Fullbright approach to foreign policy, and I'm increasingly inclined to agree with its application regarding Afghanistan. · Sep 4 at 4:49pm
Edited on Sep 04 at 05:05 pm
By NOT intervening we can also affirm what it is we stand for.