The precedents are somewhat discouraging (Slate- On Iran)

[luckydevil]

http://www.slate.com/id/2139843/nav/tap2/

So, after more than half a century of active meddling—protecting our interests, promoting our values, encouraging democracy, fighting terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace—it's come to this. In Iraq we find ourselves unwilling regents of a society splitting into a gangland of warring militias and death squads, with our side (labeled "the government") outperforming the other side (labeled "the terrorists") in both the quantity and gruesome quality of its daily atrocities. In Iran, an irrational government that hates us with special passion is closer to getting the bomb than Iraq—the country we went to war with to keep from getting the bomb—ever was.

And in Afghanistan—site of the Iraq war prequel that actually followed the script (invade, topple brutal regime, wipe out terrorists, establish democracy, accept grateful thanks, get out)—the good guys we put in power came close, a couple weeks ago, to executing a man for the crime of converting to Christianity. Meanwhile, the bad guys (the Taliban and al-Qaida) keep a low news profile by concentrating on killing children and other Afghan civilians rather than too many American soldiers.

When the United States should use its military strength to achieve worthy goals abroad is an important question. But based on this record, it seems a bit theoretical. It's like asking whether Donald Trump should use his superpowers to cure AIDS. Or what George W. Bush should say when he wins the Nobel Prize in physics. A more pressing question is: Can't anyone here play this game?

On the "enemy of my enemy" principle, the United States all but officially backed Iraq. We overlooked Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers (many of them children), and against his own people. Many of the human rights abuses President Bush and others have invoked two decades later to justify the decision to topple and try Saddam were well publicized in the '80s. But in the '80s, we didn't care. President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld, then a drug-company executive, as his "special envoy" to tell Saddam that we didn't care.

Meanwhile, of course, Reagan was also secretly selling weapons to Iran.

The big event in Afghanistan this past half-century was the Soviet occupation of 1979, often described as the last gasp of the Cold War and as Russia's Vietnam. Recent governments had been pro-Soviet, but apparently not pro-Soviet enough. After the occupation, some of the deposed thugs and others formed militias that roamed the countryside killing people and whatnot. These were called "guerillas," because we were for them. During the 1980s, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on weapons and other support.

The war we sustained in Afghanistan destroyed the country, turned half the population into refugees, and killed perhaps a million people. In 1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan (along with everywhere else, including Russia). But disappointingly, our guerrillas, also called the "mujahideen," kept on fighting—using our weapons—against the government and among themselves. In 1996, one particularly extreme group, the Taliban, took power. It was even more disappointing when the Taliban established an Islamic state more extreme than the one in Iran and invited Osama Bin Laden to make himself at home, which he did.

So, we marched in and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're—well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.

[luckydevil]

bump this back up,

[SkinsHokieFan]

Its too late for me to dissect these arguments

However the Afghan was of the 1980s was far more complicated then this article makes it out to be. A lot of it had to do with the Pakistani's and the gov't of General Zia at the time, which is why fanatical muhajadeen eventually took power as the Taliban in 1996.

I think this article simplifies it greatly

[Sarge]

It must be a ***** to sit on your ass in a nice, cushy office and write retrospective ****

[Barney B]

Reasonable men can disagree on whether the Iraq invasion was a fool's errand; the jury of history won't return that verdict until many years have passed.

If this guy is making a case for isolationism, tell him don't bother - at this late date, all that'll likely get us is a crater where the White House used to be, courtesy of a suitcase nuke.

[Larry]

I think his point is that out track record at selecting and maintaining puppets stinks. And he is correct.

Funny thing. You can't seem to encourage international support for your ideals of democracy and capitalism by giving your designated puppet instructions in the latest, most modern torture techniques. If you want to "promote morality", you have to have some.

(Sorry. Personal hot button.)

[Thiebear]

So, after more than half a century of active meddling—protecting our interests, promoting our values, encouraging democracy, fighting terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace—it's come to this.

he conviniently starts right after WWII...

In Iraq we find ourselves unwilling regents of a society splitting into a gangland of warring militias and death squads, with our side (labeled "the government") outperforming the other side (labeled "the terrorists") in both the quantity and gruesome quality of its daily atrocities.

This is where I stopped reading: Please provide evidence that everyday we are in quality and quantity committing daily atrocities compared to those blowing up restaurants and buses?

Iraqi Police gather in the Fallujah Police Station parking lot before its grand opening ceremony, April 13, 2006. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Ramona Marie G. Peñala

http://www.defendamerica.mil/photoessays/apr2006/p041706a2.html

[Air Force Cane]

Not surprisingly for a magazine like Slate- their analysis is filled with so many holes that you could fill in the Grand Canyon with them.