> . . . now [the US] is wrestling with the unintended
>consequences of its successful strategy of stirring
>Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like
>a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being
>criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool
>that steeped a generation in violence."

We have an unfortunate history of being somewhat short-sighted in our foriegn policies. During the Cold War, our over riding concern was to stop the spread of Communism. I believed then and believe now that this was a valid thing for us to be doing. The ways in which we went about doing it, however, are now coming back to haunt us.

Does this mean we shouldn't have done the things we did back then? In some instances, it does. But at the time, we couldn't have known what some of the consequences would be, and we couldn't see that perhaps what we were doing didn't really need to be done. We fought a war in Vietnam that probably didn't need to be fought, but we did it at the time because we were convinced it was the *right* thing to do. And although hindsight is 20/20, even hindsight can't possibly tell us what *would* have happened had we not gotten involved in Vietnam. Perhaps the whole "domino theory" really would have happened, and we actually did prevent it from happeneing by putting up a resistance? So although it seems rather obvious to me *now* that Vietnam was a bad idea, it certainly wasn't obvious to the people in power then. And even what seems "obvious" now can't possibly be proven in any reasonable way to be true.

Anyway, with respect to stirring Islamic fervor in Afghanistan in order to combat the Soviets, was that wrong? Well, look at it the way a person in power during the 80s might have looked at it:

1) We need to combat the Soviets. That was just a given at the time. Anytime the Soviets tried to expand, we tried to stop them. Communism was a threat, and we responded to that threat.

2) Appealing to a people's common religion is a good way to get them to act. Hey, it's what the Crusades were all about. If we want the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and we don't want to go to war with them directly, what's the best way to do it? Well, we get the people who are already in Afghanistan to kick the Soviets out themselves. How do we do that? We convince them, number one, that it's in their own best interest to do so. Number two, we give them a common cause to rally around (Atheist Commies will take away your beloved Islam!). Number three, we give them some guns and stuff and turn them loose.

3) Islam is basically a good religion. At the time, if anybody thought much about Islam at all, it was to make favorable comparisons to Christianity and Judaism. If you talked about "fundamentalist Islam" you were talking about Iran. And from what I understand, the Islam of the Taliban is different from the Islam of the Ayatollah, vaugely analagous to the way the Christianity of Roman Catholocism is different from the Christianity of Protestant Southern Baptists. So the thinking would be, "Well, as long as we teach them the 'right' kind of Islam, it'll be ok." If you are enemies with a hardcore Roman Catholic state, would you neccessarily find anything wrong with teaching Protestantism to people?

Following that thinking, it becomes quite easy to see why the US did what it did. We really *did* think it was in their own best interest to kick out the Communists, so what's so bad about helping them do that, especially if that jibes with what we already want anyway? Our own country was born in violence, our own history books have "violent images" in them, even glorifying the violence of the Revolution because of the noble purpose we see that it served. So why would we think it wrong to incite that sort of violence? If it serves the dual purpose of combating the Soviets (our goal) and freeing the Afghans from Soviet oppression (their goal) everyone wins.

The *real* problem, as I see it, was not what we *did*, but what we *didn't* do. By not helping out *after* the Soviets were ejected, we left the Afghans to fend for themselves and left the type of atmosphere (power vacuum, disenfranchised people, standing 'military' and lots of weapons) that most easily gives rise to tyranny. Now we're paying for it.

But then again, it seems like the US gets a bad rap for *everything* anyway. We get hammered for "interfering" in the "internal affairs" of countries like Israel/Palestine, Iraq, or Somalia. Then we get hammered for *not* interfering with the internal affairs of countries like Tibet or Rwanda. People decry our involvment in Panama, but then complain when we don't get involved in Chechnya. THEN people have the gall to complain that we're only serving our own interestes. Well DUH. Isn't that what EVERY country does? I think we have a pretty good history of trying to balance our own interests with those of the people we're involved with. We get bashed for claiming to be standing up for other country's interests. Well, did it ever occur to people that maybe their interests and our interests coincide with each other? Is it really possible to think that if allowed to do whatever they wished to us, that al Queda would then stop with their Jihad altogether? Even if they *claim* that they'd do this, do you really trust them? I find it more plausible that once they got done with the US, they'd move on to other western democracies as they saw fit. Because we're the main target doesn't mean we're the only target.

Ok, that was a bit of a diversion. But it's a rant that I needed to rant.

-- Dave