« Israel is trying to blow up the ME again. | Main | Confirmation - straight from the Red Heifer's mouth »

07 November 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Syed Rahman

Thank you Brigadier FB Ali for giving us an independent and forthright analysis of the new great game unleashed by USA, sucking in India to a dirty and dangerous role in the region, who are without the economic or political strength to do so in the region. In the bargain USA will all but lose a faithful ally Pakistan. A new alliance will be a foregone conclusion consisting of Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. It makes the world a far more dangerous area unless sense prevails and there is mutual and sensible agreement for all to have their share of the pie, to the riches Central Asia. Who wins at the end is a matter for all the powers in the region to decide, particularly USA, Russia and China.

Keith Harbaugh

"Without all the pseudo-academic crap about citations
I personally know that the Taliban offered to shop bin Laden to the US."

Is it possible for you to tell us when that occurred?
Under whose administration was this offer made?

"A lack of imagination and flexibility on our part prevented the deal."
Wait a minute.
If the offer was made during the Clinton administration,
there was another little factor that surely would have opposed, and likely prevented, such a deal,
namely, the de facto co-president Hillary Clinton.
Would she have okayed a deal
which did not change the way the Taliban treated women?
Would the Taliban have accepted a deal
which did mandate such change?
Both seemed implacable in their views,
and to have the ability to veto
a "bin Laden for recognition and aid" deal.

But beyond Hillary,
there was (and is) the overall power of the feminist movement in the U.S.
As evidence of the power of the feminist movement,
and its interest in (actually, obsession with) Afghan women,
see Senate Resolution 68, passed on 1999-05-05 with unanimous consent!:

S.Res.68 - A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the treatment of women and girls by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The relevant part of that resolution (emphasis added) is:

the U.S. should refuse to recognize any such government [in Afghanistan]
which is not taking actions to achieve specified goals in Afghanistan,
the effective participation of women in all civil, economic, and social life,
the right of women to work,
the right of women and girls to an education without discrimination, and
equal access of women and girls to health facilities.

I am firmly convinced the obsession of American feminists with Afghanistan
is the immediate cause of our long-term involvement there.
Now precisely why American feminists are so obsessed with Afghanistan,
that is another question, and a good one.
How much harm are they willing to do to the U.S.
for the questionable goal of achieving feminist goals in Afghanistan?



"Is it possible for you to tell us when that occurred?" Within a year before 9/11. I don't think feminism had anything to do with it. We had been subsidizing the Taliban suppression of opium production. The refusal was all about bureaucratic inertia and ass covering in case something went wrong. Tell me, Keith, what would we have done with them? Article .45? pl.

FB Ali

It is not just the feminists. The US government has always claimed to know and do what's best for the Afghans.

It appears no one in the USA (barring a few people here and there, including our host) have a clue about what the past history and present situation of the people of Afghanistan is.

Then there is the US establishment, which uses this claptrap about defending women's rights etc as a means of keeping everyone happy while it pursues its own agenda there.

Is it such a surprise that Afghanistan has been such a total mess for the last 50 years or so?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad