i don't think there are many things that could make me endorse some sort of rigid theocracy, which is not the kind of thing anarchist atheists such as myself endorse. but theocracy can look pretty good in comparison to kleptocracy, especially a kleptocracy propped up by a foreign government, which we are doing all over the region, or the world. i would like to know the amount of the personal fortunes of karzai and zardari and how they came by them. at any rate, the taliban looks better every day when our dudes are simply stripping their countries and depositing the gdp somewhere.

surely the obama admin is regretting that they didn't dump karzai after he won the election fraudulently. and one might point out that we seem to be stuck with these leaders. maybe we are, sort of. but the gap between what we do and what we say we do is astonishing. we seem to love or at least recognize a capitalist, someone always in the business of maximizing his own wealth. but if we do this often enough all over, than that is what we're actually bringing to the poor oppressed people of the world: total exploitation for the sake of greed. like i say, this would make even a perfectly rational person entertain the idea of leaders who at least appear to be incorruptible because they're religious fanatics.

Comments

[Xtabentun]

i watched a really interesting interview with david kilcullen on c-span last night, and he made the same point. a lot of the taliban's appeal to people is the fact that they're able to provide justice where the government cannot. say you've been victimized or offended and you seek restitution through the afghan legal system. it'll take nearly a year for the case to reach a court, and the resolution comes down in favor of the party willing to pay more in bribes to the judges. the taliban, however, hold court immediately, the judgment takes 30 minutes, and punishment is meted out swiftly.

ok, there's a perfectly rational reason behind that. this isn't an argument for why the isaf should withdraw -- the taliban returning to power would be disastrous -- but it's an observation. we can't treat the taliban's appeal as totally irrational and that there's nothing we can do, no compromises to make, to reduce that appeal. there's a lot we can do, and if we don't start really trying, then the taliban will return and that means more war later on down the line.

[maç oyna]

This has to be done in a state authorized way, meaning a way that marco rubio and charlie crist can understand, or at least be able to either brag about or rag on during their campaigns.