My own feelings about Afghanistan are somewhere in between yours and Morgan's. (I don't feel I know enough about it to have a strong opinion, yet I do have a feeling, which could be changed by more data, if I cared to collect it.)
I agree with Morgan that there's a big, big difference between a terrorist attack done by some people living in a country and a terrorist attack done by that country itself. In fact, the 9/11 attacks were primarily done by people who came from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. It would have made at least as much ethical sense to invade Saudi Arabia as it made to invade Afghanistan. But on the whole, I wouldn't support invading either one, because it's not the ordinary people living there who did the 9/11 attacks, or planned them, or approved of them, or knew anything whatsoever about them.
Now, to a significant extent people do get the governments they deserve, in that when pushed to the maximum they can and have successfully overthrown tyrannical governments. But the cost of doing that is high, high, high, which is why it's not often done. And in the case of Afghanistan, the women were not only largely unarmed but probably separated from one another (though I don't really know that).
Assuming it was known who planned 9/11 (does anyone *really* know it was bin Laden, or could he have just decided to take credit for it?) I would probably support a covert operation to take him out -- preferably for trial, but even an assassination would not be out of bounds in my view. Invasion of Afghanistan didn't even succeed in that objective, did it?
As for the Taliban and its oppression of women, I think that was a terrible thing. Insofar as the invasion resulted in the end of the Taliban, it did have good effects. Note that I say "insofar"; it's not clear that the Taliban, or for that matter the attitudes it cultivated, is really gone, except perhaps in Kabul. OTOH, there's something to be said from getting that particular lot of tyrants out even from one city. But no, that wasn't the reason for the invasion of that country, anymore than establishing democracy was the reason for the invasion of Iraq.
no subject
I agree with Morgan that there's a big, big difference between a terrorist attack done by some people living in a country and a terrorist attack done by that country itself. In fact, the 9/11 attacks were primarily done by people who came from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. It would have made at least as much ethical sense to invade Saudi Arabia as it made to invade Afghanistan. But on the whole, I wouldn't support invading either one, because it's not the ordinary people living there who did the 9/11 attacks, or planned them, or approved of them, or knew anything whatsoever about them.
Now, to a significant extent people do get the governments they deserve, in that when pushed to the maximum they can and have successfully overthrown tyrannical governments. But the cost of doing that is high, high, high, which is why it's not often done. And in the case of Afghanistan, the women were not only largely unarmed but probably separated from one another (though I don't really know that).
Assuming it was known who planned 9/11 (does anyone *really* know it was bin Laden, or could he have just decided to take credit for it?) I would probably support a covert operation to take him out -- preferably for trial, but even an assassination would not be out of bounds in my view. Invasion of Afghanistan didn't even succeed in that objective, did it?
As for the Taliban and its oppression of women, I think that was a terrible thing. Insofar as the invasion resulted in the end of the Taliban, it did have good effects. Note that I say "insofar"; it's not clear that the Taliban, or for that matter the attitudes it cultivated, is really gone, except perhaps in Kabul. OTOH, there's something to be said from getting that particular lot of tyrants out even from one city. But no, that wasn't the reason for the invasion of that country, anymore than establishing democracy was the reason for the invasion of Iraq.