“Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.””

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5

That said, US policy is far from perfect. I really hope the Pakistani military doesn’t use the drones to gain more support (not that I at all agree with the drones myself): http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/08/20098910857878664.html

“From Colonial Air Attacks to Drones in Pakistan” http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2009_summer/08_satia.html

NPQ’s latest issue has a lot of good stuff. Check it out!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/world/asia/14airstrike.html?_r=1&ref=world

I read Graham Greene,s “Quiet American” a while ago but Andrew Bacevich has reviewed it again as it is as pertinent as ever.

“Pyle’s job is to devise this Third Way. As he undertakes this task, Pyle draws inspiration from a journalist named York Harding, a sort of proto–Thomas Friedman who parachutes into various trouble spots and then in best-selling books serves up glib recipes for advancing the cause of liberty. In Pyle’s estimation, the challenge he faces does not appear all that difficult. York Harding provides the answer: “you only had to find a leader and keep him safe from the old colonial powers.”

“Impregnably armored by his good intentions and his ignorance,” Pyle embodies all that Fowler (and Greene) can’t stand about Americans: too much money, too much confidence, and too little self-awareness. Cruising the streets of Saigon in oversized Buicks, air conditioning everything in sight (to Fowler’s dismay, even the U.S. legation’s lavatories), passing out cigarettes as if they exist in infinite supply, and quoting York Harding, zealots like Pyle proceed on the assumption that American know-how backed by American values can make short work of even the most perplexing difficulties. Born and raised a Unitarian, Pyle takes God’s existence as a given, his faith reinforcing his conviction that America’s purposes necessarily reflect God’s will……..
…….When not conspiring to steal Fowler’s girl, Pyle is conspiring to devise the Third Way, his efforts to find the right leader centering on a shadowy figure known as General Thé. As with the U.S. officials who in our own day fell under the spell of Ahmed Chalabi, Pyle has persuaded himself that General Thé’s aims and America’s aims align neatly. As was the case with Chalabi, this turns out to be a massive misjudgment.Positioning General Thé as the anointed successor to the French requires first demonstrating the powerlessness of the colonial regime. This effort finds expression in a campaign of terror orchestrated by Thé, using plastic explosives covertly provided by Pyle, but to be blamed on the Communists. Pyle purports to believe that the campaign will concentrate on military targets. In fact, Thé organizes a savage attack on civilians in the center of Saigon, which Fowler and Pyle witness.

Momentarily taken aback by the bloody consequences of his handiwork—his shoes are spattered with human remains—Pyle quickly recovers and assures Fowler that the victims of the bombing had “died for democracy.” Their deaths were a “pity,” he tells Fowler, “but you can’t always hit your target. Anyway they died in the right cause.” Pyle’s own sense of righteousness survives the incident intact. He knows he meant well. That knowledge obviates any need to take responsibility or to make amends. In his own mind, he remains blameless.

Fowler’s own determination to avoid taking sides does not survive this episode. In his innocence, Pyle has become like “a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm,” even as he contaminates everything he touches. The ease with which Pyle rationalizes and then dismisses the results of his own recklessness persuades Fowler that detachment has become untenable. So the observer becomes a participant. ”

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/full-Bacevich.html

“It is very telling that the WSJ editorial-with no apparent shame-fails to mention the U.S. drone attacks last month that may have killed more than 80 people in Pakistan, including as many as 70 people in a U.S. bombing of a funeral procession in a tribal area. The WSJ editors defend the attacks, saying they are killing “high value targets,” saying of those killed by U.S. drone strikes, “Is the world better off with these people dead? We think so.” But the fact is that some statistics from the Pakistani government suggested that of the 700+ people killed in these U.S. drone strikes since 2006, 14 were “high value targets” or “al Qaeda” leaders and the vast majority were civilians. In this case, the real question is: “What does it say about the U.S. that its government authorizes the killing of these civilians?”"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/13-9

A recurring theme in Brendon’s account is the remarkable level of ignorance and incompetence with which the British empire was administered. Although there were obviously some very able individuals involved, Britain’s colonial endeavors seem to have attracted an equal or greater number of arrogant, corrupt, and racist buffoons. The bungling that accompanied the U.S. occupation of Iraq looks rather typical by comparison.
8. Great Powers defend perceived interests with any means at their disposal.

Great powers like to portray themselves as “civilized” societies with superior moral and ethical standards, but realists know better. Like other empires, Britain used its technological superiority without restraint, whether in the form of naval power, the Maxim gun, airplanes, high explosive, or poison gas., and the British showed scant regard for the effects of this superior technology on their “uncivilized” targets. Today, the United States uses Predators and Reapers and smart bombs. Plus ca change …”

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/13/ten_lessons_on_empire

“We’d also say that the Obama Administration — which, to its credit, has stepped up the use of Predators — should make public the kind of information we’ve seen. We understand there will always be issues concerning sources and methods. But critics of the drone attacks, especially Pakistani critics, have become increasingly vocal in their opposition. They deserve to know about the terrorist calamities they’ve been spared thanks to these unmanned flights over their territory.

We’re delighted to see that Pakistan’s military is finally taking the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda after ill-conceived truces that were a source of the country’s recent instability. When Pakistan’s government can exercise sovereignty over all its territory, there will be no need for Predator strikes. In the meantime, unmanned bombs away.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124743959026229517.html#mod=djemITP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3268368

People under attack welcome the drones, killing right guys(what ever that means) and helping Pakistan Army in its internal stuggle?

Here is Hamid Mir in Jang
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jul2009-daily/09-07-2009/editorial/col2.gif

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/08/us-drone-strikes-kill-at-least-35-in-south-waziristan/

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/03/us-drone-strike-kills-at-least-17-in-south-waziristan/

So what if this Wizzard of OZ can say “Pakistan” alright.

I have felt this in at least half the comments I’ve made (namely that the comments are “provisional” in a sense), but you’ve had the courage to say it! I’m charmed…

Of course its foreign intervention when america invaded afghanistan. Just as it was foreign intervention when the ISI did the same or when Russia and Iran and India propped up the northern alliance against the taliban.
Bhutan is not the best analogy. As far as I know, the bhutanese ruling class does not have vast transnational ambitions. The jihadist faction of the Pak army (and that was the faction that was in charge till recent events led to some readjustments) does have very definite ambitions beyond their current borders. Left to themselves, they will not just creat utopia in Afghanistan.
But I will also add that these are not well formulated thoughts in my own mind. I am trying to figure this out while we argue. I may end up on your side of the argument.

So the assumptions are
1) American Goal is to stabalize Afghanistan and leave!
2) What america does in Afghanistan to stabalize it is not foreign intervention!

I am not talking about whether propaganda is used or not. obviously it is. But beyond the propaganda, there IS a real war on. And the US is not the most interested party (though it is the one with the best bombs). Afghanistan has fallen apart. Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran, all are fighting over who controls it. That war will go on, with or without American bombs (it was very much on BEFORE american bombs landed).
Local chamchas are not just chamchas of the US. There are lots of Pakistani and Indian and Iranian andRussian spoons in there. And they all bring less development money and less discrimination in target selection than the US. If i were an afghan, I would greatly prefer the American spoons in this struggle. I am not saying every afghan will agree with me. ..but if you tell me that they all hate America and want the taliban and the ISI and RAW to sort out their state free of American intervention then you have not met the same Afgans as I have..And yes, a lot of them would prefer to see ALL foreign intervention cease right now, but I am not describing my dream of Afghanistan, I am describing the situation that actually exists. In the actually existing situation an afghanistan without foreign intervention MAY develop if the Americans can stabilize a central govt and then leave. It will NOT happen anytime soon in any other scenario.