We do indeed have an absolute moral obligation to those who helped with the project of building a liberal democracy, vain though it may have been. We have put them at mortal risk. We made promises that couldn't be kept there. Keep it, and bring them here.
I agree about bringing those people on whose backs we've helped to pain target, but I incline towards the opinion of David French at The Dispatch, who maintains that the idea that we have lost the military conflict and need to retreat to save our troops is simply a fiction. The better course, therefore, is to maintain a small military presence there, which is all that's needed to keep the country from falling into the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Also, I can't imagine why one would think that the Taliban would abide by any "concessions" we extract. It would be the height of irresponsibility and disingenuousness to assume that they would.
Thanks, Michael Walzer. I fear you're right about the aftermath of this unconditional withdrawal. Many voices, including the Washington Post and Foreign Policy, have been raised to defend a small US force being left to deter the Taliban's inevitable ruthlessness toward Afghans who carved out some kind of civil society after the US invasion. Even though no serious person thinks the US invaded Afghanistan to "save" women, my radical academic colleagues have consistently set up that straw person as a basis for the inevitable denunciation of US imperialism. Now my colleagues will get their wish. But there's little doubt that once the US is gone, the punishments will resume. And, having tired of the whole subject, most Americans won't know or care.
We do indeed have an absolute moral obligation to those who helped with the project of building a liberal democracy, vain though it may have been. We have put them at mortal risk. We made promises that couldn't be kept there. Keep it, and bring them here.
I agree about bringing those people on whose backs we've helped to pain target, but I incline towards the opinion of David French at The Dispatch, who maintains that the idea that we have lost the military conflict and need to retreat to save our troops is simply a fiction. The better course, therefore, is to maintain a small military presence there, which is all that's needed to keep the country from falling into the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Also, I can't imagine why one would think that the Taliban would abide by any "concessions" we extract. It would be the height of irresponsibility and disingenuousness to assume that they would.
Thanks, Michael Walzer. I fear you're right about the aftermath of this unconditional withdrawal. Many voices, including the Washington Post and Foreign Policy, have been raised to defend a small US force being left to deter the Taliban's inevitable ruthlessness toward Afghans who carved out some kind of civil society after the US invasion. Even though no serious person thinks the US invaded Afghanistan to "save" women, my radical academic colleagues have consistently set up that straw person as a basis for the inevitable denunciation of US imperialism. Now my colleagues will get their wish. But there's little doubt that once the US is gone, the punishments will resume. And, having tired of the whole subject, most Americans won't know or care.