Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) asks a brave and inconvenient question: As much as the Taliban may be hated, don’t some Afghans prefer their severity over “the endless process of having to grease the palms of endless government bureaucrats”? Better an uncorrupt religious fanatic than a corrupt secular government?My head is spinning. Can you imagine the fallout if, say, Senator Kerry had asked, during the Bush Administration, "as much as Saddam may be hated, don't some Iraqis prefer his severity to the endless process of having to grease the palms of endless government bureaucrats?" It would have been at least as valid a question as the one posed by Sen. Wicker.
Let's DO remember, that unlike Saddam, the Taliban DID give al-Queda the bases they needed to plan the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States. Maybe, if President Bush had focused on Afghanistan rather than Iraq, we'd have a supportable government in Kabul by now.
It just goes to show how low some Republicans will stoop to try to oppose President Obama. Shame on you, Senator Wicker.
Posts
1 comment:
I don't know any more about this exchange than what you read, Jim, but I didn't interpret Wicker's question as an endorsement of the Taliban. The point that (I think) he was making is that, by virtue of being able to present itself to rural Afghanis as the lesser of two evils, the Taliban has been able to generate a level of grassroots support that the Karzai government hasn't. That complicates U.S. efforts to root out Taliban remnants in rural areas.
Wicker was (I think) just acknowledging, with a degree of candor that hasn't been employed often, that winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis is a complicated issue.
Post a Comment