Personally, I blame Bush.

I wonder how many have a favorable view of the opium trade there? I think I read that it accounts for a tad more than half the GDP. Something whacked like that.

I think I qualify as liberal, and I sure haven't forgotten about Afghanistan. The Taliban hasn't called it quits yet. With the drug trade I don't see the country as reliably stable anytime soon.

In 20 years, some idealistic US politician will suggest we fund the Taliban, since their religious fundamentalism makes them oppose the drug trade, so they will wipe it out.

They will have forgotten the US role in driving the Russians out.

I am very encouraged by how things are going in Afghanistan, it is exciting and hopeful. Yet there are stabilization worries. There are still many warlords with really significant power, who choose to behave and keep up appearances with our current levels of involvement. Yet they might choose to act up in future with less foreign troops around, as is their historic nature. Some of these warlords receive major foreign funding, from Iran for example...

Tubino, your post contains three main points:

1. Afghanistan isn't as successful as Ace thinks
2. Liberals haven't forgotten about it
3. America sucks

Why does #3 seem to be the norm for so many leftists these days? (No doubt, you will think I'm crazy for seeing #3 in your post. Well, OK, but that's how it comes across to me and to most other readers here, I'm sure.)

For extra credit, figure out what point you're really trying to make with #1 and then address that.

Now consider these facts:

Fact: the US military did a damn fine job in Afghanistan, and most Americans are very proud of them.

Fact: Afghanistan has been through decades of civil war. It is a mess, and it will take a long long time before it becomes a safe modern country. This is not our fault, but we're doing our best to help them.

Fact: America's has been very charitable in our efforts to help Afghanistan, and most Americans are very proud of that.

So really, what point were you actually trying to make?

Tubino, if you were merely objecting to Ace's characterization of liberals as having forgotten Afghanistan, then you could have argued that a bunch of different ways, such as by pointing out that the war against the Taliban had bipartisan support, and so on. But you didn't. Your post was just complaining about America.

Sorry, one more point, Tubino, and then I'm done ranting for tonight.

Isn't this poll good news? Well, isn't it? Well then, can't you just be happy for America for once? Is it completely impossible for you to be on the same side as us about anything ever? Even about something which was a bipartisan effort?

When I read this poll, I felt happy. I felt relieved. Didn't you feel the same thing? Because if not, then I fear your dislike of Bush has clouded your judgement beyond repair. Which is exactly what your post here conveys to me, Tubino.

Anyhow, sorry for the multiple posts. I think I've made the point I was trying to make.

Wow, tubino, you hear 88% unfavorable rating and think "the Taliban hasn't called it quits", then go off on this weird daydream where not only is the drug trade still out of control, but some US politician decides to fund the Taliban. (Although it would have to be a politician who has forgotten the events of 9/11 in 20 years. Probably a Democrat in that case.) Goddamn imaginary politicians 20 years in the future! It's all Bush's fault. I bet you that same politician drives a flying car in direct violation of Kyoto II.

MH,

Me too, then.

The obvious first comment.

Good one.

The Taliban hasn't called it quits yet.

Neither have the Nazis. Somehow, I don't think that's the measure of success.

You, know feline AIDS is the number one killer of domestic cats.

Trollbino is really Debbie Downer. Without teh funny.

I guess, in 20 years, we will have some sort of cloning technology to reincarnate these talibans into opium fighting religious warriors.

I'd be cautious about this poll though - getting that degree of consensus is very difficult. I suspect they only polled in urban areas, though I can't find the actual poll on PIPA's site to check the methodology.

Afghanistan? We can't win in Afghanistan!

What's that? Elections?

Yeah, well, DRUGS, man! It's a real problem there and Bush hasn't solved it. Now 'scuse me, I have to get to my NORML rally. I've got some friends locked up in prison for just having a joint, man. Fuckin' Bush!

In 20 years, some idealistic US politician will suggest we fund the Taliban, since their religious fundamentalism makes them oppose the drug trade, so they will wipe it out.

Bullshit. The Taliban never wiped out the opium trade in Afghanistan, they simply controlled it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban got rich off heroin smuggling ever since they took power. Their fundamentalism mainly manifested itself as repression of women and support of Islamic terrorists.

You mean, this isn't front page news in the NYT and LA Times?!

I think I qualify as liberal

Inarguably, yes. We are in accord on this, a rare fact.

I wonder how many have a favorable view of the opium trade there? I think I read that it accounts for a tad more than half the GDP. Something whacked like that.

Tubino, substitute marijuana for opium and you just described Meigs County Ohio. There has been a war on pot in Ohio for over 30 years yet your state makes High Times magazine every year.
I bet the Afghani's get control of the opium trade much quicker than the folks in your home state get control of the marijuana trade.

Tubino, I'm looking forward to your response.

You see, this is why I love being a libertarian. Legalize it! Legalize everything! Then, you know, there's no harm and no foul.

Opium is especially cool--the whole Sherlock Holmes vibe and all. Only thing better is laudanum--the whole 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' thing. . .no, no--I tell a lie--the best drug of all is surely absinthe: take a shot, feel like an impressionist painter.

What were we talking about, again?

I guess that the residents of AFGANISTAN are tired of seeing the relitives blown up by cowardly suicide bombers

"If only a poll of Americans would find the same:"

That remark is quite telling.

If the same number of Americans were polled like the PIPA study ( 2,089 ) and the numbers did not favor Bush (as most polls do not -36!! HA!) the poll would be derided by the right as "skewed" or "flawed".

Along with the good news from PIPA comes this:
Afghans do not, however, feel positively about Pakistan in general and specifically believe that, contrary to its claims, it is not pursuing the Taliban. Asked, “Do you think the Pakistan government is allowing the Taliban to operate in Pakistan, or is seriously trying to stop the Taliban from operating in Pakistan?” only 21% said they thought that Pakistan is seriously trying to stop the Taliban from operating in Pakistan, while two out of three (66%) said they believe the government is allowing the Taliban to operate in Pakistan.

Hmmm...Pakistan....A U.S. ally...

With Osama still on the lam...

Mission Accomplished my ass....

Hey, looks like we're heading for a liberal concensus to invade Pakistan! This is indeed a thrilling moment.

And if we invade Pakistan and clean out the ISI, you promise you guys won't go all wobbly when we run into the inevtitable resistance? Because you guys keep doing that, pointing out these little shitholes and how much they taste like ass and stuff and then when we do something about it you side with the Ass Guys.

Pinky swear?

you guys keep doing that, pointing out these little shitholes and how much they taste like ass and stuff and then when we do something about it you side with the Ass Guys.

I am sooo going to steal this bit.

Funny, spongeworthy!

tubino - The Taliban ran an opium syndicate par excellence. They promoted it as a blow against the West, stockpiled huge amounts, and then banned cultivation when their warehouses were full, cornering the Afghani supply. Had we not invaded, they would likely have relegalized when the warehouses were empty.

Reorienting a national economy away from its traditional base takes an awful long time no matter what that base is. People are going to want to go back to the old ways unless they have an obvious better alternative. A proper liberal critique would be offering ways to make that transition better/faster/cheaper. I don't really sense that coming from the left. That's a shame because until there is a great storehouse of left/progressive ideas that the right refuses to implement based on partisan ideology the left is going to be the minority in this country.

Tubino, in that other thread, you wrote:
The point I wanted to make was that picking one tiny data point about Afghanistan to make a larger point was kinda dumb.

What larger point do you think Ace was making that you had to argue against?

Tubino? I'm interested in having a discussion with you here...

Finally got the poll methodology. From the PIPA web site (spam checker didn't like the link, it can be found at http://www.pip*.org/OnlineReports/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Jan06/Afghanistan_Jan06_quaire.pdf, where the * should be replaced by an a):

Face-to-face interviews were conducted among a national random sample of 2,089 Afghan adults from November 27 to December 4, 2005.
The sample design was a multi-stage area probability sample conducted in 30 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. At the final stage, the sample was further stratified into male and female sub-samples to enable gender matching of respondents and interviewers. Urban and rural areas were proportionally represented in the sample.
Of the sampled cases, 4.9% resulted in non-contacts and an additional 2.7% were non-cooperative; the net response rate was 92.4%. Distributions by gender and ethnicity were reviewed and considered close to population figures; the data were not weighted.

I don't see anything obviously wrong with the poll, although there are so many ways to divvy up the sample, a larger sample size would have been better.