Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

A Woman Among Warlords

Last night, Afghan activist politician Malalai Joya approached the increasingly grim topic of U.S.-occupied Afghanistan, roundly criticizing all the major players.

Speaking to a packed house at Capitol Hill’s First Baptist Church, Joya critiqued everything from the foreign presence in her native land to the fundamentalist warlords.

“Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries,” Joya told the largely receptive audience. She  followed up her  denouncement of the American-led occupation with a scathing attack against her reactionary critics, both the radical right and the status quo government.

Then she even savaged the do-gooders from international Non-Governmental Organizations.

“Most of the NGOs in Afghanistan are corrupt,” Joya said. “They build schools with cheap materials, you come back a year later and you can even recognize [the place]. But the mainstream media never even report it.”

Joya

Photo Dan Miller

Joya was elected to represent Farah Province in the Afghan national assembly at the ripe old age of twenty-eight. She gained international recognition by publicly denouncing the warlords and drug smugglers that riddle Hamid Karzai’s government.

Such honesty won her few friends. In 2007, two years after the beginning of her term, Joya’s colleagues in the assembly suspended her from duty. To date, four attempts have been made on her life. A burly bodyguard stayed by her side for most of the night.

Organized by Peace Action Washington, the event drew a crowd whose politics were well to the left of center (a passing mention of Dennis Kucinich was warmly applauded). Seeking autographs, they eagerly thronged Joya after her talk, clutching copies of her memoir A Woman Among Warlords, despite her appeals to “forget me, support my people.”

Joya’s next stop will be in Bellingham at Western Washington university, noon.




  • Giffy

    I can’t say I’m a big fan of invading countries, but I don’t think she would like the result if she got her wish. US withdrawal would mean civil war and probably a Taliban government.

    And this: “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries” is just plain wrong. There are plenty of historical examples where it has come that way (and of course plenty where it has not).

  • Giffy

    I can’t say I’m a big fan of invading countries, but I don’t think she would like the result if she got her wish. US withdrawal would mean civil war and probably a Taliban government.

    And this: “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries” is just plain wrong. There are plenty of historical examples where it has come that way (and of course plenty where it has not).

  • Giffy

    I can’t say I’m a big fan of invading countries, but I don’t think she would like the result if she got her wish. US withdrawal would mean civil war and probably a Taliban government.

    And this: “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries” is just plain wrong. There are plenty of historical examples where it has come that way (and of course plenty where it has not).

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @1,

    You just made a claim on today’s PubliCola “Comment of the Day” Giffy.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @1,

    You just made a claim on today’s PubliCola “Comment of the Day” Giffy.

  • taninecz

    @Giffy,

    Not sure if you were at the talk or not, but having been there myself it seemed she was pressing more for self determination, as well as an end to attrocities and corruption being committed by all sides (NGO, U.S., NATO, Fundamentalist, etc). Her argument seemed to be that for subalterns in her country, U.S. rule is just as corrupt and disasterous as Taliban rule, if not more so. In this sense, I can understand her desire to see Afghanistan find its own way, even if this is through civil war. After all, our own country was allowed this process with minimal (and very French) intervention. Granted, our neighbor at the time did not have nukes…

    I am not proposing this route as feasible or wise, but Joya also warned that the U.S. would eventually learn the same lesson that so many empires before us have taken home from Central Asia. It would seem Afghanistan is heading towards self determination whether we like it or not (was this not the goal in the first place?)

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    There are no easy answers. But if I could play sec. of state, here’s what I’d do.

    Pour the money into civic projects—schools, roads, biz investment etc. And provide military units to protect the folks carrying out those efforts.

    This forces the Taliban to go on the attack … come out of the hills and take on the do-gooders … who are helping the community.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    There are no easy answers. But if I could play sec. of state, here’s what I’d do.

    Pour the money into civic projects—schools, roads, biz investment etc. And provide military units to protect the folks carrying out those efforts.

    This forces the Taliban to go on the attack … come out of the hills and take on the do-gooders … who are helping the community.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    There are no easy answers. But if I could play sec. of state, here’s what I’d do.

    Pour the money into civic projects—schools, roads, biz investment etc. And provide military units to protect the folks carrying out those efforts.

    This forces the Taliban to go on the attack … come out of the hills and take on the do-gooders … who are helping the community.

  • Giffy

    @3, Sure self determination is the goal, the question is how to get there. I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to. Hell if it were just about our interests I would say pull out and let them go at it. People seem to think the problem with the US is that we want to occupy other countries, when the real problem is that we don’t, and certainly not for long periods of time. We start things we don’t finish.

    The comparison to the US is also problematic. Most civil wars(especially modern ones in this era of total war) don’t turn out that way, especially when its not like other countries will stay out if we leave. Also, I think it was Frantz Fanon that pointed out that when conflicts persist as long as the one in Afghanistan(and really the whole region) have they become very very difficult to resolve except though full on genocide and ethnic cleansing(in some ways WW2 was an example of this). Outside intervention is often the least horrific way.

    Her argument seemed to be that for subalterns in her country, U.S. rule is just as corrupt and disasterous as Taliban rule, if not more so.

    I think that is empirically false. While the US is not perfect and things are far from ideal, on most metrics the country is doing better than when the Taliban was in charge. Hell the very fact that she could run for office, be elected, and travel freely is a good example of that.

    My main problem with people like her and others on the ‘peace’ left is that they talk a good game, end corruption, live in harmony, tolerance, and end to war, self determination and the like, but they have little in terms of a good plan to get it. They are confusing ends with means.

  • Giffy

    @3, Sure self determination is the goal, the question is how to get there. I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to. Hell if it were just about our interests I would say pull out and let them go at it. People seem to think the problem with the US is that we want to occupy other countries, when the real problem is that we don’t, and certainly not for long periods of time. We start things we don’t finish.

    The comparison to the US is also problematic. Most civil wars(especially modern ones in this era of total war) don’t turn out that way, especially when its not like other countries will stay out if we leave. Also, I think it was Frantz Fanon that pointed out that when conflicts persist as long as the one in Afghanistan(and really the whole region) have they become very very difficult to resolve except though full on genocide and ethnic cleansing(in some ways WW2 was an example of this). Outside intervention is often the least horrific way.

    Her argument seemed to be that for subalterns in her country, U.S. rule is just as corrupt and disasterous as Taliban rule, if not more so.

    I think that is empirically false. While the US is not perfect and things are far from ideal, on most metrics the country is doing better than when the Taliban was in charge. Hell the very fact that she could run for office, be elected, and travel freely is a good example of that.

    My main problem with people like her and others on the ‘peace’ left is that they talk a good game, end corruption, live in harmony, tolerance, and end to war, self determination and the like, but they have little in terms of a good plan to get it. They are confusing ends with means.

  • Giffy

    @3, Sure self determination is the goal, the question is how to get there. I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to. Hell if it were just about our interests I would say pull out and let them go at it. People seem to think the problem with the US is that we want to occupy other countries, when the real problem is that we don’t, and certainly not for long periods of time. We start things we don’t finish.

    The comparison to the US is also problematic. Most civil wars(especially modern ones in this era of total war) don’t turn out that way, especially when its not like other countries will stay out if we leave. Also, I think it was Frantz Fanon that pointed out that when conflicts persist as long as the one in Afghanistan(and really the whole region) have they become very very difficult to resolve except though full on genocide and ethnic cleansing(in some ways WW2 was an example of this). Outside intervention is often the least horrific way.

    Her argument seemed to be that for subalterns in her country, U.S. rule is just as corrupt and disasterous as Taliban rule, if not more so.

    I think that is empirically false. While the US is not perfect and things are far from ideal, on most metrics the country is doing better than when the Taliban was in charge. Hell the very fact that she could run for office, be elected, and travel freely is a good example of that.

    My main problem with people like her and others on the ‘peace’ left is that they talk a good game, end corruption, live in harmony, tolerance, and end to war, self determination and the like, but they have little in terms of a good plan to get it. They are confusing ends with means.

  • Giffy

    @4 I think that’s what we are trying to do, albeit with a major dose of bombing the fuck out of hiding areas and camps. The problem is a major lack of resources and the always present corruption of local officials and the like.

    I would love it if we could make Afghanistan a major global project of rebuilding and investment. Good will for the US and a better life for Afghans. Plus it would maybe make people fear us less, and want us to help more.

  • Giffy

    @4 I think that’s what we are trying to do, albeit with a major dose of bombing the fuck out of hiding areas and camps. The problem is a major lack of resources and the always present corruption of local officials and the like.

    I would love it if we could make Afghanistan a major global project of rebuilding and investment. Good will for the US and a better life for Afghans. Plus it would maybe make people fear us less, and want us to help more.

  • Giffy

    @4 I think that’s what we are trying to do, albeit with a major dose of bombing the fuck out of hiding areas and camps. The problem is a major lack of resources and the always present corruption of local officials and the like.

    I would love it if we could make Afghanistan a major global project of rebuilding and investment. Good will for the US and a better life for Afghans. Plus it would maybe make people fear us less, and want us to help more.

  • taninecz

    @4
    I completely agree. It’s time the army move away from their “blow up stuff, kill people” mentality. This clearly isn’t their/our only responsibility now.

    @5
    I would certainly agree that pragmatically, pulling out (hah!) is a relatively unrealistic option. I would also agree that a fair amount of new data shows human rights/quality of life indexes are higher now than under the Taliban. That said, I found it fascinating that she (Joya) does not feel this way. She is, after all, from Afghanistan. We, I will assume, are white dudes. The fact that she was so insistent on this point deserves more investigation. Much of what she spoke of during the event was “media brainwashing” concerning civil war/unrest in Afghanistan. Alternatively, she spoke at length about the continuation of atrocities and abuse. She seemed to put this “misrepresentation” on the same level as WMD scammology is Iraq; merely a pretense for the U.S. war machine to continue business as usual.

    I view her as a good source of empirical data; a first person source. While I don’t necessarily agree with her on all points, it’s usually good to question ones assumptions. In this case, it may be worth the time to consider that Afghanistan might not turn into any more of a hellscape if we left.

  • taninecz

    @4
    I completely agree. It’s time the army move away from their “blow up stuff, kill people” mentality. This clearly isn’t their/our only responsibility now.

    @5
    I would certainly agree that pragmatically, pulling out (hah!) is a relatively unrealistic option. I would also agree that a fair amount of new data shows human rights/quality of life indexes are higher now than under the Taliban. That said, I found it fascinating that she (Joya) does not feel this way. She is, after all, from Afghanistan. We, I will assume, are white dudes. The fact that she was so insistent on this point deserves more investigation. Much of what she spoke of during the event was “media brainwashing” concerning civil war/unrest in Afghanistan. Alternatively, she spoke at length about the continuation of atrocities and abuse. She seemed to put this “misrepresentation” on the same level as WMD scammology is Iraq; merely a pretense for the U.S. war machine to continue business as usual.

    I view her as a good source of empirical data; a first person source. While I don’t necessarily agree with her on all points, it’s usually good to question ones assumptions. In this case, it may be worth the time to consider that Afghanistan might not turn into any more of a hellscape if we left.

  • taninecz

    @4
    I completely agree. It’s time the army move away from their “blow up stuff, kill people” mentality. This clearly isn’t their/our only responsibility now.

    @5
    I would certainly agree that pragmatically, pulling out (hah!) is a relatively unrealistic option. I would also agree that a fair amount of new data shows human rights/quality of life indexes are higher now than under the Taliban. That said, I found it fascinating that she (Joya) does not feel this way. She is, after all, from Afghanistan. We, I will assume, are white dudes. The fact that she was so insistent on this point deserves more investigation. Much of what she spoke of during the event was “media brainwashing” concerning civil war/unrest in Afghanistan. Alternatively, she spoke at length about the continuation of atrocities and abuse. She seemed to put this “misrepresentation” on the same level as WMD scammology is Iraq; merely a pretense for the U.S. war machine to continue business as usual.

    I view her as a good source of empirical data; a first person source. While I don’t necessarily agree with her on all points, it’s usually good to question ones assumptions. In this case, it may be worth the time to consider that Afghanistan might not turn into any more of a hellscape if we left.

  • taninecz

    Concerning Civil War, the comparison was more one for considering self determination in a new light. Obviously, warfare/information technology/civic and social structures between 19th century America and 21st century Afghanistan are not readily similar in really any way.

    This was more a point juxtaposing American’s refusal of being told what to do (our history of revolution, war, expansion) and our propensity to tell others what to do, forgetting the consequences.

    Maybe I am just a sucker for ironic political meta narratives.

  • taninecz

    Concerning Civil War, the comparison was more one for considering self determination in a new light. Obviously, warfare/information technology/civic and social structures between 19th century America and 21st century Afghanistan are not readily similar in really any way.

    This was more a point juxtaposing American’s refusal of being told what to do (our history of revolution, war, expansion) and our propensity to tell others what to do, forgetting the consequences.

    Maybe I am just a sucker for ironic political meta narratives.

  • taninecz

    Concerning Civil War, the comparison was more one for considering self determination in a new light. Obviously, warfare/information technology/civic and social structures between 19th century America and 21st century Afghanistan are not readily similar in really any way.

    This was more a point juxtaposing American’s refusal of being told what to do (our history of revolution, war, expansion) and our propensity to tell others what to do, forgetting the consequences.

    Maybe I am just a sucker for ironic political meta narratives.

  • sgiffy

    @7, Yeah, but I can find people from Afghanistan that think the exact opposite of what she does. Hell I can find people on all sides of any issue that have personal experience with it. Thats why we look to more objective metrics that measure things on a broader and more unbiased level than individual perspectives.

    And yes abuses and atrocities continue. If our standard is perfection then every country is a shithole, every plan a failure, and everyone a bastard. The question is, are things better know then before and is what the US is doing contributing to a better life for the people in the country. Everything else is ideology or opinion.

    @8 I am also not sure we refused to be told what to do as much as there was not power projection as their is today nor, I would add, did anyone give that much of a shit what happened in the US. We were not that important in the 1800′s and a confederate or union win would not have affected much the few things we did matter in.

    I would add that if, I was think is the case, the majority of Afghans want our help, isn’t that self determination? Why should the liberal impulse to offer assistance to those that need it stop at our border?

  • sgiffy

    @7, Yeah, but I can find people from Afghanistan that think the exact opposite of what she does. Hell I can find people on all sides of any issue that have personal experience with it. Thats why we look to more objective metrics that measure things on a broader and more unbiased level than individual perspectives.

    And yes abuses and atrocities continue. If our standard is perfection then every country is a shithole, every plan a failure, and everyone a bastard. The question is, are things better know then before and is what the US is doing contributing to a better life for the people in the country. Everything else is ideology or opinion.

    @8 I am also not sure we refused to be told what to do as much as there was not power projection as their is today nor, I would add, did anyone give that much of a shit what happened in the US. We were not that important in the 1800′s and a confederate or union win would not have affected much the few things we did matter in.

    I would add that if, I was think is the case, the majority of Afghans want our help, isn’t that self determination? Why should the liberal impulse to offer assistance to those that need it stop at our border?

  • sgiffy

    @7, Yeah, but I can find people from Afghanistan that think the exact opposite of what she does. Hell I can find people on all sides of any issue that have personal experience with it. Thats why we look to more objective metrics that measure things on a broader and more unbiased level than individual perspectives.

    And yes abuses and atrocities continue. If our standard is perfection then every country is a shithole, every plan a failure, and everyone a bastard. The question is, are things better know then before and is what the US is doing contributing to a better life for the people in the country. Everything else is ideology or opinion.

    @8 I am also not sure we refused to be told what to do as much as there was not power projection as their is today nor, I would add, did anyone give that much of a shit what happened in the US. We were not that important in the 1800′s and a confederate or union win would not have affected much the few things we did matter in.

    I would add that if, I was think is the case, the majority of Afghans want our help, isn’t that self determination? Why should the liberal impulse to offer assistance to those that need it stop at our border?

  • Michael G

    I was at the talk last night. Quite a well done event on Peace Action Washington’s part, and it was well attended. Certainly, the perspective of someone who has a stake in the country matters a great deal, and especially of someone whose life story is so inspiring.

    However, I walked out of the church feeling deeply troubled, and I am still trying to figure out how to articulate my concerns. I noticed that she made a few wisecracks about Bush, which is just about the easiest applause line at these anti-war events. She made a wisecrack about Obama’s Nobel. She quickly rattled off a list of grievances about Iraq, Gaza, and Iran. She made a veiled threat about what may happen to the US following an extended occupation. With these and other examples, the talk drew heavily upon the long-standing rhetoric of the anti-war movement. In fact, I feel that with the exception of the details from her personal life, any anti-war activist could have given the talk.

    What exactly this means, I’m not sure. I would just like to know if anyone noticed the same things that I did and has any thoughts on the matter.

    At any rate, I have a lot of mixed feelings of my own about what the best course of action is. I feel that it would be irresponsible to abandon what is one of the poorest countries in the world, both from the perspective of the needs of the people and due to the world security hazards that this action would pose. However, I also think that somehow we have to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the Karzai government, which has proven itself corrupt.

  • Michael G

    I was at the talk last night. Quite a well done event on Peace Action Washington’s part, and it was well attended. Certainly, the perspective of someone who has a stake in the country matters a great deal, and especially of someone whose life story is so inspiring.

    However, I walked out of the church feeling deeply troubled, and I am still trying to figure out how to articulate my concerns. I noticed that she made a few wisecracks about Bush, which is just about the easiest applause line at these anti-war events. She made a wisecrack about Obama’s Nobel. She quickly rattled off a list of grievances about Iraq, Gaza, and Iran. She made a veiled threat about what may happen to the US following an extended occupation. With these and other examples, the talk drew heavily upon the long-standing rhetoric of the anti-war movement. In fact, I feel that with the exception of the details from her personal life, any anti-war activist could have given the talk.

    What exactly this means, I’m not sure. I would just like to know if anyone noticed the same things that I did and has any thoughts on the matter.

    At any rate, I have a lot of mixed feelings of my own about what the best course of action is. I feel that it would be irresponsible to abandon what is one of the poorest countries in the world, both from the perspective of the needs of the people and due to the world security hazards that this action would pose. However, I also think that somehow we have to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the Karzai government, which has proven itself corrupt.

  • Michael G

    I was at the talk last night. Quite a well done event on Peace Action Washington’s part, and it was well attended. Certainly, the perspective of someone who has a stake in the country matters a great deal, and especially of someone whose life story is so inspiring.

    However, I walked out of the church feeling deeply troubled, and I am still trying to figure out how to articulate my concerns. I noticed that she made a few wisecracks about Bush, which is just about the easiest applause line at these anti-war events. She made a wisecrack about Obama’s Nobel. She quickly rattled off a list of grievances about Iraq, Gaza, and Iran. She made a veiled threat about what may happen to the US following an extended occupation. With these and other examples, the talk drew heavily upon the long-standing rhetoric of the anti-war movement. In fact, I feel that with the exception of the details from her personal life, any anti-war activist could have given the talk.

    What exactly this means, I’m not sure. I would just like to know if anyone noticed the same things that I did and has any thoughts on the matter.

    At any rate, I have a lot of mixed feelings of my own about what the best course of action is. I feel that it would be irresponsible to abandon what is one of the poorest countries in the world, both from the perspective of the needs of the people and due to the world security hazards that this action would pose. However, I also think that somehow we have to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the Karzai government, which has proven itself corrupt.

  • sarah68

    @5, Giggy: “I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to.”

    We need to. Why do we need to? What is our right to be there? You can’t quite say anymore that it’s to take care of bin Laden. As far as the Afghan people needing us, the Taliban itself does charity stuff with people, and it buys their poppies, thus providing them, essentially, governmental services and a living.

    Iraq and Afghanistan are equally bad but differently bad (and both worse than Vietnam). Our being there will not bring “peace”; we will not “win” (win what?). What Joya says is interesting but not terribly enlightening. She’s one person; I haven’t read that the entire peoples of Afghanistan (or Iraq) have been polled as to whether we’re “needed” there or not. We are a huge nation that’s committed itself to two huge moneyholes at a time when our people need our help right here, including the poor benighted wounded soldiers who are coming back maimed from these moneyholes.

  • sarah68

    @5, Giggy: “I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to.”

    We need to. Why do we need to? What is our right to be there? You can’t quite say anymore that it’s to take care of bin Laden. As far as the Afghan people needing us, the Taliban itself does charity stuff with people, and it buys their poppies, thus providing them, essentially, governmental services and a living.

    Iraq and Afghanistan are equally bad but differently bad (and both worse than Vietnam). Our being there will not bring “peace”; we will not “win” (win what?). What Joya says is interesting but not terribly enlightening. She’s one person; I haven’t read that the entire peoples of Afghanistan (or Iraq) have been polled as to whether we’re “needed” there or not. We are a huge nation that’s committed itself to two huge moneyholes at a time when our people need our help right here, including the poor benighted wounded soldiers who are coming back maimed from these moneyholes.

  • sarah68

    Sorry, Giffy.

  • sarah68

    @5, Giggy: “I don’t think the US has any interest in being in Afghanistan any longer than we need to.”

    We need to. Why do we need to? What is our right to be there? You can’t quite say anymore that it’s to take care of bin Laden. As far as the Afghan people needing us, the Taliban itself does charity stuff with people, and it buys their poppies, thus providing them, essentially, governmental services and a living.

    Iraq and Afghanistan are equally bad but differently bad (and both worse than Vietnam). Our being there will not bring “peace”; we will not “win” (win what?). What Joya says is interesting but not terribly enlightening. She’s one person; I haven’t read that the entire peoples of Afghanistan (or Iraq) have been polled as to whether we’re “needed” there or not. We are a huge nation that’s committed itself to two huge moneyholes at a time when our people need our help right here, including the poor benighted wounded soldiers who are coming back maimed from these moneyholes.

  • sarah68

    Sorry, Giffy.

  • sgiffy

    @11 We stayed in Japan after we ended that threat. How many there would have preferred we had just toppled the emperor then went home? Like it or not we took out their government, we have a responsibility to stabilize the country.

    And we can talk about Iraq and Afghanistan being worse than Vietnam when we multiply the dead by about 20.

    As for how much it costs, that’s a fair point. Personally I would probably not have started either war and was opposed to them from the get go, but now, at least with Afghanistan, I think leaving because we would rather spend the money on the in grou would be immoral.

  • sgiffy

    @11 We stayed in Japan after we ended that threat. How many there would have preferred we had just toppled the emperor then went home? Like it or not we took out their government, we have a responsibility to stabilize the country.

    And we can talk about Iraq and Afghanistan being worse than Vietnam when we multiply the dead by about 20.

    As for how much it costs, that’s a fair point. Personally I would probably not have started either war and was opposed to them from the get go, but now, at least with Afghanistan, I think leaving because we would rather spend the money on the in grou would be immoral.

  • sgiffy

    @11 We stayed in Japan after we ended that threat. How many there would have preferred we had just toppled the emperor then went home? Like it or not we took out their government, we have a responsibility to stabilize the country.

    And we can talk about Iraq and Afghanistan being worse than Vietnam when we multiply the dead by about 20.

    As for how much it costs, that’s a fair point. Personally I would probably not have started either war and was opposed to them from the get go, but now, at least with Afghanistan, I think leaving because we would rather spend the money on the in grou would be immoral.

  • asdf

    “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries,” Joya told the largely receptive audience.

    ***

    Right. War never solves anything, except for all the times it has solved things.

  • asdf

    “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries,” Joya told the largely receptive audience.

    ***

    Right. War never solves anything, except for all the times it has solved things.

  • asdf

    “Peace doesn’t come by the barrel of a gun or the occupation of foreign countries,” Joya told the largely receptive audience.

    ***

    Right. War never solves anything, except for all the times it has solved things.

  • taninecz

    @Giffy,

    Not sure if you were at the talk or not, but having been there myself it seemed she was pressing more for self determination, as well as an end to attrocities and corruption being committed by all sides (NGO, U.S., NATO, Fundamentalist, etc). Her argument seemed to be that for subalterns in her country, U.S. rule is just as corrupt and disasterous as Taliban rule, if not more so. In this sense, I can understand her desire to see Afghanistan find its own way, even if this is through civil war. After all, our own country was allowed this process with minimal (and very French) intervention. Granted, our neighbor at the time did not have nukes…

    I am not proposing this route as feasible or wise, but Joya also warned that the U.S. would eventually learn the same lesson that so many empires before us have taken home from Central Asia. It would seem Afghanistan is heading towards self determination whether we like it or not (was this not the goal in the first place?)