I see a problem with proclaiming humanitarian rights as the, and not a, reason to be in Afghanistan, because of the way in which our humanitarian involvement has been defined for this country. Eleanor Roosevelt defined U.S. criteria for war on international humanitarian issues within commitment to U.N. collective security. She wrote that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape our destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind. All described a universal commitment to natural rights, and all Presidents should answer for deviations from that principle. Those principles do not fit because Afghanistan becomes, as George Orwell said in “Animal Farm”, more equal than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda.
However, accomplishing Afghan stability means thwarting efforts to turn a nuclear Pakistan into a feral state. Such a country would then fuel the ambitions of Islamic regimes determined to wage a War of Terror regionally and internationally.
Afghan stability also encourages the actions of African, Oriental and Asian Islamic countries which bring victory in the Global War on Terror. Their actions can frustrate plans, break alliances, and fracture Islamic jihadist organizations into ever less effective units. Without cities, countries or armies bin Laden, and successor sociopath prophets live out unnaturally shortened lives as pariahs.
THAT, sir, is pure bullshit.
If Eleanor Roosevelt liked it, its probably a really, really bad idea. Ditto for JFK. Even Saint Ronnie can be wrong sometimes.
Afghanistan has never been stable by any definition we understand. Its a tribal society and their people lack both the ability and inclination to govern themselves outside of that frame work. If you want stability in Afghanistan, you’re going to need a sociopath to run it, because he’s going to have to crush a lot of people to make the central government work. Iraq works (sort of) because we had Saddam to prepare the way.