I, for one, think the new constitution sounds like a grand thing. Even if its authority doesn't reach beyond Kabul city, the sheer precedent of it is more important than you can imagine.
There are Afghans who remember the times before Soviet occupation turned to civil war as a cherished time of relative liberalism - for those in Kabul, the present era, in all its imperfection, might just become another such historic beacon, considering the rest of the recent historical track record.
Devising a constitution is a fiendishly difficult thing - let alone for a national council made up of representatives from a plethora of ethnic groups, warlord factions, political currents ... it doesn't in itself guarantee anything, but it's the basis all else can be built on.
Still, I have two big problems with the article - because it self-servingly crowns itself with two incorrect assumptions.
First, I've carefully only mentioned Kabul above. The article consistently talks of the achievement affecting/liberating/privileging "Afghanistan", as if the Assembly really wielded any power outside the capital. It doesn't. Outside Kabul, Afghanistan hasn't just entered the age of fine democracy and religious tolerance - it's in warlord anarchy. So the pretence of America having somehow liberated "Afghanistan" in this manner is highly misleading.
Secondly, the author illogically uses the good news on Afghanistan to take Dean to task about his internationalism. The article ridicules his opinion that "Iraq, you have to infer from the governor of Vermont's searching critiques, is a write-off so long as the United States tries to do it all alone", by referring to the example of Afghanistan - it's working there, right? Well, quite - and as Dean himself could easily point out, that's cause in Afghanistan, the United States is not doing it all alone. In Afghanistan, the US is working with the UN. And with an uncomparably more diverse international coalition than in Iraq. So that particular point works just as well if you turn it around.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Azerbaijan: "Southwestern Asia, bordering the Caspian Sea, between Iran and Russia, with a small European portion north of the Caucasus range."
Armenia: "Southwestern Asia, east of Turkey"
Georgia: "Southwestern Asia, bordering the Black Sea, between Turkey and Russia "
:wink:
Well, it's not just the Council of Europe that considers Azerbaijan to be in Europe ...
So do
the BBC,
Amnesty International,
the Canadian government,
Lonely Planet, and
Worldatlas.com.
<winks>
"Nou jij weer!"
I was taught, too many years ago in 6th grade geography, that Europe ended at the Urals, the Caspian and the Caucasus's which would put Azerbiajan in the south east corner. Has that changed?
Neither do I nor the (e.g.) UEFA.
It's just the CIA (world factbook) ...... and the Britannica:
source: britannica.com
Re: Success in the Middle East? Try telling Howard Dean
Fedral wrote:Success in the Middle East? Try telling Howard Dean[/u]
By:Bill Murchison
January 6, 2004
George Bush's anti-terrorist policy is such a smashing, crashing, slobbering, falling-down failure that ... that ... Afghan women are about to gain equal rights with men. And non-Islamic peoples in Afghanistan -- Christians included -- are gaining the right to public worship.
Afghanistan's ... him.
With these kinds of failures who needs success?
Excellent article with but one serious flaw. Murchison compares reality and Howard Dean's proclamations. That's clearly not a worthwhile comparison.
