Karzai legalizes rape of women

[SMadsen]

Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html)

Even though this is from yesterday, I first heard about it this morning and seriously thought it was an aprilsfool. The idea that a man can now legally rape his wife four times a week is utterly disgusting and is quite contrary, I believe, to what we're fighting for in Afghanistan. It's one thing to appease the Shias, which is 10% of the population, but it's another thing to appease the Taliban. Or is it one and same?

[Michael]

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html)

Even though this is from yesterday, I first heard about it this morning and seriously thought it was an aprilsfool. The idea that a man can now legally rape his wife four times a week is utterly disgusting and is quite contrary, I believe, to what we're fighting for in Afghanistan. It's one thing to appease the Shias, which is 10% of the population, but it's another thing to appease the Taliban. Or is it one and same?

Yikes - this is ugly! And yes, this is ostensibly what one of NATO's goals is to prevent here.

As for Taliban = Shia (extremists), I think that's correct.

Sunni extremists are the "Wahabbis" of Saudi Arabia.

[Greendruid]

My advice stands. We should all get the fuck out of there. You cannot force a renaissance on a people if they're not ready or willing to accept it.

[Americano]

Yikes - this is ugly! And yes, this is ostensibly what one of NATO's goals is to prevent here.

As for Taliban = Shia (extremists), I think that's correct.

Actually Taliban are mostly Pashtuns, who are Sunni and hate Shia.

Sunni extremists are the "Wahabbis" of Saudi Arabia.

[Americano]

My advice stands. We should all get the fuck out of there. You cannot force a renaissance on a people if they're not ready or willing to accept it.


Agreed. And now we're involving Pakistan, who can only be pushed just so far without open rebellion.

[Greendruid]

Addendum to my earlier post - the only other option to bringing about a renaissance on an unwilling populace is conquest, or at the very least, direct conflict with those who oppose it. We really don't want to go there. Even if we did, would we start with Afghanistan?

[Michael]

Actually Taliban are mostly Pashtuns, who are Sunni and hate Shia.
Yes, Taliban are Pushtins/Pashtuns, who are Sunni. I stand corrected.

I can't believe I made that silly mistake. :o

[Michael]

My advice stands. We should all get the fuck out of there. You cannot force a renaissance on a people if they're not ready or willing to accept it.
I'm not quite ready to go there yet. I supported the original 2002 operation and I've generally been in support of the Afghanistan NATO operation ever since. I admit that it is getting increasingly difficult to continue defending the manner, process and goals of this operation as the situation deteriorates in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is a huge geopolitical crisis point here that is way bigger and potentially more important than the long simmering Israeli-Palestine issue. This one has the potential to be a real powderkeg in a very delicate part of the world where Turkey, India and Russia are considered to be the most 'stable' local players! :eek:

The problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are in many ways closely connected (though the issues are very different in each country). The West needs to address the issue here. Walking away potentially entails greater problems/dangers to world peace than staying. Pakistan is nuclear. That makes things different - and very complicated.

Thus, I'm hesitant to offer strong support to increasing the military mission in Afghanistan and I'm equally hesitant to walk away and leave Afghanistan to the fate of the Taliban - unless something serious can be worked out with Pakistan on this issue.

Bottom line is that I'm an international realist. I will only support the mission if I believe that the mission's goal is reasonable and achievable with the instruments available. State-building does seem like a reasonable and achievable goal in Afghanistan. 40,000 western troops (and the USAF) probably aren't the best policy instruments here. Or rather, they are a necessary but insufficient condition to achieve this policy.

I definitely don't see sufficient political leadership coming from the Western countries on this issue. Everyone is passing the buck and that bodes ill for success in Afghanistan. The west needs to show some dynamic leadership and a political plan beyond "kill Taliban, build schools/hospitals/wells and everyone lives happily ever after". That just won't cut it.

Or to put it another way, that was the plan in 2002 and it is now 2009 and the situation in Afghanistan is worse than 2002. If the plan didn't succeed the first time, it is time for a new plan.

[Americano]

Yes, Taliban are Pushtins/Pashtuns, who are Sunni. I stand corrected.

I can't believe I made that silly mistake. :o

I know you knew better from past discussions.

[Donkey]

Yes, Taliban are Pushtins/Pashtuns, who are Sunni. I stand corrected.

I can't believe I made that silly mistake. :o
At least you didn't make it repeatedly while running for POTUS. ;)

I have seriously mixed strategic/moral feelings about our presence in Afghanistan, so I can't really comment on whether or not we should stay. I do think that more needs to be done economically and politically (poppy farmers... just sayin'), but legalization of rape to appease the fringe doesn't seem like a great idea.

[Americano]

At least you didn't make it repeatedly while running for POTUS. ;)

I have seriously mixed strategic/moral feelings about our presence in Afghanistan, so I can't really comment on whether or not we should stay. I do think that more needs to be done economically and politically (poppy farmers... just sayin'), but legalization of rape to appease the fringe doesn't seem like a great idea.

They're not really the fringe, more the majority.

[Michael]

I do think that more needs to be done economically and politically (poppy farmers... just sayin'), but legalization of rape to appease the fringe doesn't seem like a great idea.
I think you're pointing at the two key issues to the whole game here.

1. Poppy production has supplied the single largest component of Afghan GDP for the last three or four decades. It is the number one agricultural product of Afghanistan and pretty much the ONLY export product Afghanistan produces. Direct US policy action to eliminate this is the primary reason that the success of 2002 has turned into into the quagmire of 2009. I will assert that one cannot have a coherent or meaningful Afghan policy without a coherent and meaningful approach to the poppy production issue.

Attacking poppy-production just guarentees that the average civilian population of Afghanistan will turn to the Taliban to protect their poppy fields (and their livelihood). This is exactly what has occured over the last six years.

2. The 'legalization of rape' thing is a naked appeal for political support from the most extremist fringes of the rural-Afghan clan leaders - and indeed, the Taliban (as they love this kind of policy). This is a sign of weakness not only of Karzai (that's been obvious for a long time now), but also of the democratic and legal institutions of Afghanistan. I don't believe that democracy is a viable or functional political system for situations like Afghanistan - it just tends to legitimize corruption and get worse over time.

Expecting a liberal democratic system with rules and rights to function in Afghanistan at this time is is just plain absurd. One does not 'grow' a democracy by just copying someone else's constitution and then holding an election and expecting it run itself all smoothly. Democracy just doesn't grow that way. It has to grow from the ground up. There is no substitute for this. There are things one can do to foster the development of democracy, but one can't create a democracy from scratch. Elections can be bought by the highest bidder (and usually are) - or the one with the most guns (and the willingness to use them!).

Anyway, I'm not sure what the best approach might be, I'm just laying out what I see as the two largest and most significant problems at hand in Afghanistan. The West is not in a position to be playing 'grand imperialist' here - a few hundred thousand troops and we can impose our will on Afghanistan - but nothing less than that will suffice if military force is our only tool. Since the Russians tried and failed that route, and western democracies are entirely unsuited to that kind of policy, that's a dead end.

The west needs to clearly articulate a comprehensive plan for Afghanistan. That plan must address poppy-production as much as the Taliban. Just going in there and killing all the Taliban doesn't work. That was what "we" did back in 2002.

[Michael]

They're not really the fringe, more the majority.
No, I don't think they are a majority. There is some evidence to suggest that Afghanistan contains a significantly large minority of seculars and a significantly large minority of Islam 'fundamentalists'. There is no majority of anything in Afghanistan (except chaos and poppies).

[Dominick]

With just a tinge of cynicism one could say that this is in fact a triumph for democracy. It's not different from the importance of fringe groups in Holland (ChristenUnie), Italy (although the fascists are now indistinguishable from Berlusconi since they merged), Israel (Liebermann is already setting the new tone) or indeed the PNAC group in the former US administration.

Let's not forget that groups such as the Taliban or Hezbollah are not just terrorist organizations (if they are that at all). They are also social organizations that have an immense impact on everyday life. And some of that impact is unquestionably positive for the population (not this of course). Nevertheless, you will find support for these measures even among Afghan women.

As such, one cannot, by any means, 'eradicate the Taliban'. It literally means eradicating a substantial part of the population. Of course, selling the 'War on the Afghan People' is a bit trickier than selling the 'War on Terror'. In a very real sense, for a big chunk of Aghanistan -those borders are typically meaningless- the Taliban is the State in all the meanings of the word, including the meaning 'the community of people'.


If one increases the cynicism level a bit more, then the question arises : so what ? When has any Western nation ever put a government in place in a colonialist/imperialist setting that had the interests of the general population in mind ? Mobutu ? the Shah ? Pinochet ? And a thousand more.

Who are we anwyay to tell anyone what their state should look like?

[Americano]

No, I don't think they are a majority. There is some evidence to suggest that Afghanistan contains a significantly large minority of seculars and a significantly large minority of Islam 'fundamentalists'. There is no majority of anything in Afghanistan (except chaos and poppies).

"In modern Afghanistan, Pashtuns are the dominant people and have been ruling since the fall of the Mughal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_dynasty) and Safavid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty) dynasties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Afghanistan

Pashtuns are also Afghanistan's largest ethnic group. As Afghanistan is 99% Sunni, anything resembling Sharia Law is going to be widely accepted.

[Michael]

"In modern Afghanistan, Pashtuns are the dominant people and have been ruling since the fall of the Mughal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_dynasty) and Safavid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty) dynasties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Afghanistan

Pashtuns are also Afghanistan's largest ethnic group. As Afghanistan is 99% Sunni, anything resembling Sharia Law is going to be widely accepted.

I didn't mean to suggest that Afghanistan was multi-ethnic, only that had stark political divisions - that religious extremists like the Taliban were only a minority, likewise with the 'secular' traditions of Kabul - this is only a minority. There is no political majority in Afghanistan. That's part of the reason it is in turmoil.

[Abruptum]

This made me rage in my chicken fries.

[Donkey]

This made me rage in my chicken fries.
Is that a kiwi phrase?

[The Sister]

Who are we anwyay to tell anyone what their state should look like?

And not to put to fine a point on this....it isn't so long ago (about 10 years) in our cultures that women charging their husbands with marial rape was laughed out of court - if indeed it ever made it to court with policemen laughing their asses off.

Only in the past few years did the police actually press charges in domestic violence if the woman was too afraid to do so.

[Dominick]

And not to put to fine a point on this....it isn't so long ago (about 10 years) in our cultures that women charging their husbands with marial rape was laughed out of court - if indeed it ever made it to court with policemen laughing their asses off.

Only in the past few years did the police actually press charges in domestic violence if the woman was too afraid to do so.
Indeed. Especially the European Catholic Church has an extremely bad track record here, directly or through political influence. But this aspect of society is so widespread geographically and historically that it's not fundamentalist Islam that is the issue here, nor Islam in general, nor religion in general, but patriarchical societies of every form.

[Greendruid]

And not to put to fine a point on this....it isn't so long ago (about 10 years) in our cultures that women charging their husbands with marial rape was laughed out of court - if indeed it ever made it to court with policemen laughing their asses off.

Only in the past few years did the police actually press charges in domestic violence if the woman was too afraid to do so.

1983 in Canada to be exact Sister. That was the year that marital rape was defined in the Canadian Criminal Code anyway. Before that, no definition to even hang a case on. You should see my 19 year old students' faces when they learn that statistic. Considering that 3/4 of them are young women I'm equally shocked to find out they didn't bother knowing this history.

[Americano]

1983 in Canada to be exact Sister. That was the year that marital rape was defined in the Canadian Criminal Code anyway. Before that, no definition to even hang a case on. You should see my 19 year old students' faces when they learn that statistic. Considering that 3/4 of them are young women I'm equally shocked to find out they didn't bother knowing this history.

1978 in the US.

In Australia, "Only one in five police officers Down Under believe that a woman should report being raped by her husband, says a new survey. The study, which shows that crime is often trivialized, found that nuns, ministers, doctors and police often know a woman has been raped by her partner but did nothing.
Each of the 21 victims interviewed for the study said her partner would not consider it rape, despite some suffering drugging and near-suffocation.
Only six of the 30 police interviewed said they would recommend a woman report partner rape, despite 28 calling it a serious crime."


http://www.topnews.in/most-aussie-cops-don-t-consider-marital-rape-crime-252785

[SMadsen]

There's an update to the Afghanistan 'rape law'. Karzai and the government was apparantly "unaware" of the ramifications of the law.

Karzai told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that he and others were unaware of the provision in the legislation, which he said "has so many articles." Karzai signed the measure into law last month.

Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law," Karzai said.

Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/16/afghanistan.law.karzai/index.html)

Hmmmm.

[Sucre]

And not to put to fine a point on this....it isn't so long ago (about 10 years) in our cultures that women charging their husbands with marial rape was laughed out of court - if indeed it ever made it to court with policemen laughing their asses off.

Only in the past few years did the police actually press charges in domestic violence if the woman was too afraid to do so.
(I was congratulated on my 100th post, this means this is my 101st post.)

I happy you remind of this fact, The Sister. I was going to jump in this thread and state that I am neither surprised nor shocked by the Afghan law, what can you expect of a patriarchal society in which women are a mere property of men to carry their children, of god I can't write this, I am a woman ...

It is not so long ago, and, to be very honest it is still this way now. Simply the word Rape is very shoking to Western hears because it implies a high degree of physical violence. The real question is what degree of "violence" is necessary within marriage for "forced sex" within marriage to become "rape" ? I am quite sure that "forced sex" happens everywhere and all over the world. This may sound cynical, but one of the advantages of a marriage for men is that they have available sex all the time without having to chase for it. Indeed, they have a legal right to it as divorce may be pronounced on the ground of refusal of sexual intercourse.

An archaic society - to our standards - like Afghanistan is simply more straightforward about these things and will accept a higher degree of violence.

The Afghan law is just but one symptom of the entire society. Of course I do not agree with the law, but the fact is that most men in Afghanistan will not "rape" their wife, they will "force" her to have sex against her will and she will not complain because she is a poor ignorant thing completely reliant on the good will of her husband : he feeds her, she provides sex. It is therefore much more important to have the Afghans implement compulsory educational programmes for women so that they learn that they are human beings too and that even forced sex is not OK and why.

[Americano]

(I was congratulated on my 100th post, this means this is my 101st post.)

I happy you remind of this fact, The Sister. I was going to jump in this thread and state that I am neither surprised nor shocked by the Afghan law, what can you expect of a patriarchal society in which women are a mere property of men to carry their children, of god I can't write this, I am a woman ...

It is not so long ago, and, to be very honest it is still this way now. Simply the word Rape is very shoking to Western hears because it implies a high degree of physical violence. The real question is what degree of "violence" is necessary within marriage for "forced sex" within marriage to become "rape" ? I am quite sure that "forced sex" happens everywhere and all over the world. This may sound cynical, but one of the advantages of a marriage for men is that they have available sex all the time without having to chase for it. Indeed, they have a legal right to it as divorce may be pronounced on the ground of refusal of sexual intercourse.

An archaic society - to our standards - like Afghanistan is simply more straightforward about these things and will accept a higher degree of violence.

The Afghan law is just but one symptom of the entire society. Of course I do not agree with the law, but the fact is that most men in Afghanistan will not "rape" their wife, they will "force" her to have sex against her will and she will not complain because she is a poor ignorant thing completely reliant on the good will of her husband : he feeds her, she provides sex. It is therefore much more important to have the Afghans implement compulsory educational programmes for women so that they learn that they are human beings too and that even forced sex is not OK and why.

I don't think compulsory educational programs for woman's rights are anything that particular society desires. Would you force it on them in spite of their resistance?

[Dominick]

I'm not so sure that Afghan women are all that ignorant. The other day there was a demonstration against this law by a large group of women, exclusively women. And these were women in full burqa dress. Slaves that receive no education at all are also quite aware that 'something is wrong'.

Incidentally, the women in that demonstration were waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found a basis against this law. The people in the counterdemonstration, exclusively men, were also waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found justification for this law.

[Americano]

I'm not so sure that Afghan women are all that ignorant. The other day there was a demonstration against this law by a large group of women, exclusively women. And these were women in full burqa dress. Slaves that receive no education at all are also quite aware that 'something is wrong'.

Incidentally, the women in that demonstration were waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found a basis against this law. The people in the counterdemonstration, exclusively men, were also waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found justification for this law.

Fits nicely into religious doctrine for purposes of control - the 'wise' men will make the decision?

[Sucre]

I don't think compulsory educational programs for woman's rights are anything that particular society desires. Would you force it on them in spite of their resistance?
Well, I mean, they were obliged to change the aforementionned law... Besides, school is already compulsory isn't it ?

They certainly do not desire to have eduated woman : in fact the aspect of the law which shoked me most was not the allowance for "rape" but the fact that women were obliged to have the agreement of their husband to leave their home. It makes a slave and a prisoner out of them.

[Americano]

Well, I mean, they were obliged to change the aforementionned law... Besides, school is already compulsory isn't it ?

They certainly do not desire to have eduated woman : in fact the aspect of the law which shoked me most was not the allowance for "rape" but the fact that women were obliged to have the agreement of their husband to leave their home. It makes a slave and a prisoner out of them.

It hasn't been all that long in the US since women didn't leave their homes without a family male escort. Or vote. Or own property. Some of the Christian fundamentalist followers still adhere to the male being superior to the female.

On rights of Afghanistan women:

http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/

[Sucre]

I'm not so sure that Afghan women are all that ignorant. The other day there was a demonstration against this law by a large group of women, exclusively women. And these were women in full burqa dress. Slaves that receive no education at all are also quite aware that 'something is wrong'.

Incidentally, the women in that demonstration were waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found a basis against this law. The people in the counterdemonstration, exclusively men, were also waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found justification for this law.
Yes, I fully agree that slaves with no education may be aware of right and wrong and will have a wiseness of their own. In this case, it is their body it is about. Besides, there have always been strong women regardless of the oppression of society. I meant education in term of the same kind men would get. An education that would allow women to participate in men's society.

(Side note : It's amusing in a way these two demonstrations, the men saying they are entitled to sex, women denying that ... maybe the wife in one demonstration and the husband in the counterdemonstration ... )

[Michael]

I'm not so sure that Afghan women are all that ignorant. The other day there was a demonstration against this law by a large group of women, exclusively women. And these were women in full burqa dress. Slaves that receive no education at all are also quite aware that 'something is wrong'.

Incidentally, the women in that demonstration were waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found a basis against this law. The people in the counterdemonstration, exclusively men, were also waving the Qu'ran in which they claimed to have found justification for this law.
And all this overlooks the fact that some twenty years ago, Afghanistan had some of the most liberal attitudes towards women found anywhere in the Middle East. Afghanistan was rather well known for having women doctors...

Clearly we are witnessing a major political upheaval here. I don't consider this confict to be religious, but political.

[Sucre]

It hasn't been all that long in the US since women didn't leave their homes without a family male escort.
This is true. Also women had to wear a hat and not show a hair when they left home, which reminds of the veil. However I am quite certain that the US Constitution did not favour this kind of situation ? It was a custom but not a written law.

I found this provision in the Afghan law particularly appaling because the State fixes into law the emprisonement of women.

[Americano]

This is true. Also women had to wear a hat and not show a hair when they left home, which reminds of the veil. However I am quite certain that the US Constitution did not favour this kind of situation ? It was a custom but not a written law.

I found this provision in the Afghan law particularly appaling because the State fixes into law the emprisonement of women.

Other than formality I don't see any difference between practiced customs and laws. The US has no longer enforced 'blue' laws on the books for everything one can imagine, including jail sentences for spitting on a sidewalk. And from what I hear the 'glass ceiling' is still in place for most women regarding private sector salaries.

We (US and NATO) have made a mess of Afghanistan and IMO all our attempts at forcing civil rights on them do is force the general public deeper into their own culture out of a sense of resistance.

[Michael]

Other than formality I don't see any difference between practiced customs and laws. The US has no longer enforced 'blue' laws on the books for everything one can imagine, including jail sentences for spitting on a sidewalk. And from what I hear the 'glass ceiling' is still in place for most women regarding private sector salaries.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree that there is no substantial difference 'in reality' between custom and laws - both can be equally and brutally oppressive, or may be tacitly ignored, depending on situations - but the effects are the same.

We (US and NATO) have made a mess of Afghanistan and IMO all our attempts at forcing civil rights on them do is force the general public deeper into their own culture out of a sense of resistance.
Yes, I agree with this line of thinking (to some extent).

I will certainly agree that we (US and NATO) have bitten off more than we can chew here - there are two separate elements to the operation here and we are trying to do both similtaneously when just one of them is more than enough challenge alone.

That is to say, on the one hand we are there to 'defeat/remove' the Taliban from the government of Afghanistan in order to permit the Afghani people to
establish their own (non-Taliban) state government in its place. That is goal number one for which NATO invoked Article Five back on 9/12. This I believe fits the terms of "just war" and "legal war".

On the other hand, US and NATO forces are also engaged in trying to establish a secular-based-liberal-democratic-representative system (a clone of our own) upon the Afghani people (which in reality means installing a corrupt US military-sponsored puppet dictatorship). This policy does not fit the definition of "just war" - this falls under "imperialist war" policy.

These two goals are not one and the same. Pursuing the second has clearly damaged our ability to achieve the first. I might go so far as to say that US passion for the second is what is really driving the dynamic here and it is those actions in respect of this that has deeply endangered the whole mission. This is all about burning poppy-fields and installing Karzai as 'US-puppet' that prevents any possible improvement in the Afghan problem.

Karzai is part of the problem. This is the "Shah of Iran" game all over again and the US definitely (obviously) hasn't learned the lession yet.

I despair of the Afghan problem. I've spent a LOT of time trying to think this one through and all I can see is trouble down every avenue here.

[Americano]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree that there is no substantial difference 'in reality' between custom and laws - both can be equally and brutally oppressive, or may be tacitly ignored, depending on situations - but the effects are the same.


Yes, I agree with this line of thinking (to some extent).

I will certainly agree that we (US and NATO) have bitten off more than we can chew here - there are two separate elements to the operation here and we are trying to do both similtaneously when just one of them is more than enough challenge alone.

That is to say, on the one hand we are there to 'defeat/remove' the Taliban from the government of Afghanistan in order to permit the Afghani people to
establish their own (non-Taliban) state government in its place. That is goal number one for which NATO invoked Article Five back on 9/12. This I believe fits the terms of "just war" and "legal war".

On the other hand, US and NATO forces are also engaged in trying to establish a secular-based-liberal-democratic-representative system (a clone of our own) upon the Afghani people (which in reality means installing a corrupt US military-sponsored puppet dictatorship). This policy does not fit the definition of "just war" - this falls under "imperialist war" policy.

These two goals are not one and the same. Pursuing the second has clearly damaged our ability to achieve the first. I might go so far as to say that US passion for the second is what is really driving the dynamic here and it is those actions in respect of this that has deeply endangered the whole mission. This is all about burning poppy-fields and installing Karzai as 'US-puppet' that prevents any possible improvement in the Afghan problem.

Karzai is part of the problem. This is the "Shah of Iran" game all over again and the US definitely (obviously) hasn't learned the lession yet.

I despair of the Afghan problem. I've spent a LOT of time trying to think this one through and all I can see is trouble down every avenue here.

US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan is one of the more frustrating subjects I've discussed since the Vietnam war. You are correct in that the US (and NATO) have developed another Shah of Iran scenario and the hole continues getting deeper. The thin rationalization of 'capturing' Bin Laden has long disappeared, if Pakistan doesn't turn into a civil war it'll be remarkable and we just keep repeating the same occupation mistakes over and over and over again. The Pushtan will not be bought off for a few dollars as was the case of Sunni resistance in Iraq. It'll take genocide to ever beat that resistance.