I don't essentially disagree with that Ben but it is true that America did side with the mujahedeen against the "atheistic" USSR in Afghanistan so even when the Taliban were committing gross human rights violations it was the Europeans/UN who did the most protesting.
(BTW GZ it was the mujahedeen plus the Americans, with their support, who defeated the USSR in Afghanistan)
I've held the position, for some time, that Bush has been much more successful in his WOT (al Qaeda) than he lets on because it provides him with another justification to persevere in Iraq.
His success has come about by encouraging world wide policing, by many nations particularly in Europe and Asia and by his war in Afghanistan, where without question, al Qaeda was routed and now it appears he has been instrumental, by his perseverance, in repeating a dose of the same medicine to AQI in the Iraq insurgency war.
I note you take the Bush, Rudd, Howard line about al Qaeda still being a great threat. My own view is that Bush has hit it so hard in those two countries that the threat is significantly diminished and can probably now be handled to a large extent by rigorous nation by nation policing, backed up by international sharing of intelligence.
The best reason for staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future is to help with “nation building”, by providing security, until the US contribution is no longer required
Iraq is looking better generally but it is still early days.
Here is an interesting article on Iraq from the NY Post:
