Centerfield

The problem with this train of thought is that you're assuming Karzai would have been able to draw in fighters the way Bin Laden did to fight the Soviets. The reason Bin Laden was successful was that he turned it into a religious crusade that drew in Muslims from across the region. Karzai would have been fighting for freedom for Afghanis, and would not have mustered nearly the number of men.

Also, frankly, I don't believe the CIA seriously thought Bin Laden would win in Afghanistan. They just wanted to bleed the Soviet military as much as possible.

Not that I'm a big fan of CIA tactics, they've made more than their share of mistakes. But I think suggesting they should have had this kind of foresight in the midst of the Cold War is expecting a bit too much.

I have to agree. But shouldn't we also have learned that we will also be bled by military interventions in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

We need a new tactic and it's called diplomacy with the heavy hand of giving, not force.

Democracy has never been successful at gun point. I think better actions on the world stage will give the US more power that force can.

And then there's Blackwater. Perhaps Karzai could hired them. I kind of agree with Weekend Pundit. As for Democrats "giving and diplomacy" to convert extremists, now there' a great idea. In any case. Democrats are more concerned at the moment in hurting our intelligence assets for political points.

This from a blog that rarely supports Bush.

WeekendPundit wrote:
The reason Bin Laden was successful was that he turned it into a religious crusade that drew in Muslims from across the region.

(note, it wasn't just bin Laden; it was a series of little groups).

Something to that. But while it DID bring in people from all over the region, I question if their numbers were higher than if a substantial fraction of the population of Afghanistan had been brought in by a popular rebellion. The Afghan population back then was 15.5M.

But I think suggesting they should have had this kind of foresight in the midst of the Cold War is expecting a bit too much.

I'm not expecting foresight, but rather for us to practice what we preach. Democracy promotion as a policy dates back to Jefferson helping Bolivar. It's always helped us when we've engaged in it, by creating better-run, friendly nations. I mean, if we've already decided to topple a government, shouldn't we work to replace it with a democratic government?

BSI wrote:
Democracy has never been successful at gun point.

Germans, Italians, Austrians, Japanese, and Panamanians (twice) would surprised to hear that.

You aren't alone in that, though. There's a scholarly book on the subject, with stats and all, Democracy at the Point of Bayonets, by Mark Peceny, that makes that same mistake.

Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan and even Panama were not dominated by tribal factions and torn by religious differences. I know it sounds politically incorrect to say it, but can democracy even work successfully in the Arab world? Given the stronger countries in the region -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan -- are not really democratic, it's a fair question.

I do agree on a key point, tho -- the U.S. is still too willing to turn a blind eye on the faults of our "friends." This may have been neccessary during the Cold War, but today it's seriously hurting us. Notably, our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that help fund and train our enemies.

It might be more accurate to look at Saudi Arabia as less than monolithic. There are those who are our friends, which mostly describes the ruling family and elites. And then there are the Wahabist religious fundamentalists, who are helping fund and train terrorists. They not only are not our friends, they are not really the friends of the Saudi ruling class either. Rather, they were bought off by giving them money and power in the religious realm, in exchange for letting the rulers have secular power and money. It may have been a mistake, but it's one that isn't going to be unravelled easily.

Meanwhile, until and unless we make major changes in our energy situation, it isn't clear that we have any good alternatives. And "major" doesn't mean throwing money at ethanol; that's just a little tweak at the margins. If we built enough nuclear power plants to supply 80%+ of our electrical power, while converting 90%+ of our transportation to electrical power, then we might be able to experiment with directed cultural change in the Middle East.

Otherwise, we're asking for economic disaster. Now we might argue that it would be worth the cost. But let's not kid ourselves about what that cost would be.

Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan and even Panama were not dominated by tribal factions and torn by religious differences.

Er, you might want to re-think the "tribal factions" bit. Especially in regard to Italy.