What You May Not Know

Is Communism dead? Short answer yes, long answer no, both have exceptions.

The word itself conjures up immediate revulsion to most, as a result of our indoctrination to capitalism. But you’re probably more Communist than you might think. That’s not to say you would necessarily adhere to violent revolution, repression of political dissidents or support a dictatorship of the proletariat (or the working class as they may now be called.) But if you consider yourself any kind of a decent person, you’re probably in favor of equality, social justice, government accountability and true democracy where everyone has the ability to vote, without hindrance.

If you’re the cynical type you might be saying to yourself that’s never happened, under any Communist leadership, so you’ve convinced yourself that this blundering experiment the world called “Communism” was a colossal failure. In this sense, yes, the religion of Communism is dead. It cannot be invoked - in much the same way any party calling themselves National Socialists would be rejected ad nauseam - because it simply reminds too many people of the atrocities committed by the world Communist leaders (ie: Mao Tse-tung in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Joseph Stalin in the USSR.)

That being said, the spirit of communism is very much alive. Unfortunately, it experiences much of the same static orthodoxy as many of the worlds religious faiths. There’s been a lot of infighting and interpretation over what Karl Marx was actually saying. Truth is, it doesn’t matter what he meant to say, because Marx was as prone to error as the rest of us. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels envisioned a better world - a more equitable world, where classisms don’t exist. This was not a utopian view, because they didn’t imagine this would ever come about without great personal sacrifice. But the point again is not specifically the how, because anyone can hypothesize as to how this might all be achieved - the point is the underlying desire for a more equitable society. What Marx and Engels gave us was the skeletal structure of a society which demands more of its citizens; more in the way of sacrifice for the greater good and less focus on the individual.

Their conceptions took place through the scientific analysis of historical events. They took a somewhat mathematical approach to the events, assuming that if such and such occur, the outcome could be reasonably predicted. But these predictions took place over 100 years ago, and through the evolution of world politics, their rigid philosophies may no longer be applicable. That’s not to say their theory should be cast aside as well. It needs only to be adapted to our current situations. So, there you’ve got an incredibly concise answer to the original questions. Now to address something else.

What is the difference between Socialism and Communism? We’ve already established that formal Communism is dead, and if you disagree, then it should be killed, because that seems to be the most pragmatic thing to do at this stage. Henceforth, we shall refer to it as a common noun, or simply communism. Socialism is a phase of communism. After a revolution, it’s not enough to go from capitalism to communism overnight, this is utopian. There is a gradual phasing out of the individualism bred through capitalism and this stage is known as socialism. Cuba, for example, is a socialist society. Canada, is a social democracy. We are moving in the direction of communism, but before you revile, remember what that means: equality, accountability and democracy. That does not necessarily, nor should it have to, mean government repression.

Socialist Cuba is beset on all sides by capitalist nations, so before you go judging the island too harshly, consider its predicament. In an information age, we have enormous amounts of pressure to be ambition driven slaves of materialism - to ignore our brothers and sisters and to look out for number one. Progress is hampered in every socialist state because the richest countries in the world are capitalist.

In his book, State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin outlines the process by which a nation proceeds through feudalism to capitalism, from capitalism on to socialism, and from socialism to communism. Ignore the dogma, keep an open mind and consider the following. You may discover that your true color is red.

A Good Idea

What do the Bible, the Quran and the Communist Manifesto all have in common? They all have great ideas about how to live your life. Likewise, they’ve all been used to justify prejudice, intolerance, barbarity, subjugation and murder.

This transformation occurs when we turn a good idea into an absolute. Nietzsche describes this process beautifully in his book, The Gay Science:

I caught this insight on the way and quickly seized the rather poor words that were closest to hand to pin it down lest it fly away again. And now it has died of these arid words and shakes and flaps in them -- and I hardly know anymore when I look at it how I could ever have felt so happy when I caught this bird.

He’s comparing the process of thought with the process of expressing that thought. Once spoken or written, through chosen language, a thought adopts a particular point of view and becomes rigid. The wings of the bird are clipped and it’s held awkwardly in place, thus destroying the beauty of its fluid movement.

In the 20th century over 100 million people lost their lives in China and the Soviet Union, all in the name of Communism. Purists may argue that neither of these were an expression of true Communism, that these are examples of ego-maniacal individuals using Marxist theory for personal ends. The problem isn’t in Communism they’ll argue, the problem was the interpretation. And they’re correct, but knowing the wrong answer doesn’t imply that yours is right. This argument can be heard elsewhere in regards to the trouble with Islam, Christianity or in any situation where one claims to have found the truth.

Once an idea has been pinned down, it immediately espouses certain prejudices in the individual who absorbs it. For example, a viciously ambitious person might use Communism to justify his/her elimination of political rivals by proclaiming them to be counter-revolutionary. An alienated immigrant youth might use an interpretation of the Quran to feel socially and spiritually superior to those they decide are unbelievers. Conservative Catholic parents may pass down their religious beliefs, which in turn may engender irrational homophobic tendencies, misogyny or shame in a child. The individuals establish a kinship between their - possibly subconscious - desires (for power, for acceptance, for obedience) and what they interpret as truth to themselves. Their strict interpretations espouse prejudice in the way of: anyone who speaks freely about free market economy is a capitalist pig, and therefore counter-revolutionary, or anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe is unworthy of salvation, or anyone who has sex outside marriage will swim in a lake of fire for all eternity. The result is having taken a good idea and turned it into something counter-productive.

Why are we such purists? Wouldn’t we all be better off being ruthlessly critical to any and all sources claiming to know the “truth”? When it comes to the Earth and its billions of species, there are no equals to human ingenuity, but we are also the most infamous for getting things dead wrong.

If we’re going to progress as a species, it’s important to remember the spirit in which most of these “gospels” were formed - as a result of our adaptability, our fluid consciousness. We’re not confined to the structures of primal instincts that limit our animal counterparts, nor should we be confined to simple human absolutisms.

There are many great moral lessons within the pages of the Quran, the Bible and the Torah, and there are just as many great thoughts on political theory to be found in the annals of Communist and capitalist lore. They’re great in theory, because we read them in relation to the times and interpret them objectively -- keep them that way.

Democracy For Some

On September 17, 2007, U.S. Senator John Kerry addressed a Constitution Day forum at the University of Florida in Gainesville, which was organized by the ACCENT Speakers Bureau, an agency of the university's student government. Initially allowed to ask questions after the close of the question period, university police then removed Andrew Meyer, a 21-year-old fourth-year undergraduate mass communication student, from the forum. During the struggle to arrest Meyer, one of the officers drive stunned him with a Taser...

...According to eyewitness and police reports, the widely circulated video of the confrontation captured on Meyer's camera was not the first interaction between police and Meyer at the event that day. According to reports, Meyer was in line for access to the microphone, when it was announced by former Ambassador Dennis Jett, a University of Florida political science instructor and the forum's moderator, that one more question would be taken from the microphone on the right as seen from the stage. Meyer then grabbed the second microphone, on the left, which had been shut off, and loudly demanded he be allowed to ask a question. Meyer reportedly yelled, "Why don't you answer my questions, I have been waiting and listening to you speak in circles for the last two hours." "These officers are going to arrest me", "You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours". When an officer intervened, attempted to cut Meyer off, and attempted to escort Meyer out of the hall, Meyer then broke away and continued to shout. Kerry then intervened and requested that Meyer be allowed to ask a question. Meyer was then brought back to the microphone with police officers on either side of him.

Meyer then handed his camera to the woman who was standing in front of him in line (later identified as Clarissa Jessup) and requested that she record him. Kerry then finished answering a previous question, Meyer was then recognized by Kerry to ask a question.

After the incident, Meyer was arrested for inciting a riot and charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace and taken to Alachua County Jail. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor. Meyer spent one night in the Alachua County Jail and was released the following morning.

Meyer's attorney, Robert Griscti, stated he would seek to have the charges dismissed. Meyer later issued a public apology for his "failure to act calmly", stating that he "stepped out of line". He also insisted there was no reason for his arrest and demanded an apology from The Alachua County Police Department.

This video went viral online days after the incident. Most of the media attention and public response was towards the excessive use of force by the police. What they should be concerned with, was why there was any force used at all. The United States is a "democracy," isn't it? Isn't it the right of citizens to ask difficult questions of their appointed leaders? Shouldn't our leaders be accountable for everything they do? Why was this issue ignored? Because democracy in the West is a sham.

Democracy means equality, it means government accountability, it means the rule of the majority. We are currently being ruled by a plutocracy - the wealthy; those with enough money and clout to influence policy decisions, laws, election outcomes, etc, etc. Those of you who might claim to be fine with their level of democratic involvement in our countries are either: i) one of the privileged few on the top of the pyramid, or ii) wage-slaves, ignorant of the fact that you are being denied fundamental rights as a citizen. You have been duped into believing you are free - and indeed you are free, so long as you don't use that freedom to ask any difficult questions of your elected leaders.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.
I should know; I was an EHM.

An excerpt from John Perkins' first version of the book, Conscience of an Economic Hit Man, written in 1982. Confessions is the story of his life, first as an employee of Chas. T. Main for 10 years, until he could no longer live with his conscience. After MAIN, he founded his own independent energy company which he then sold in the 1980s, to pursue work among non-profit organizations in Ecuador and other parts of Latin America, which he continues to this day.

The book is well written and whether or not everything in the book is authentic is somewhat besides the point. The issues he touches on are real, and they are certainly cause for consideration. At one point he ponders about the existence of an actual conspiracy in corporate America, or if it's a coincidence; simply men and women "drawn together in a loose association by common beliefs and shared self-interest, rather than an exclusive group meeting in clandestine hideaways with focused and sinister intent." He compares the plutocrats to the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South:

The plantation autocrats had grown up with servants and slaves, had been educated to believe that it was their right and even their duty to take care of the "heathens" and to convert them to the owner's religion and way of life. Even if slavery repulsed them philosophically, they could, like Thomas Jefferson, justify it as a necessity, the collapse of which would result in social and economic chaos. The leaders of the modern oligarchies, what I now thought of as the corporatocracy, seemed to fit the same mold.

He goes even further with the analogy, creating a brilliant commentary on the contemporary Western philosophy of materialism and lack of spiritual and emotional fulfillment.

I had become a professional soldier. Admitting that fact opened the door for a better understanding of the process by which crimes are committed and empires are built. I could now comprehend why so many people have committed atrocious acts - how, for example, good, family-loving Iranians could work for the shah's brutal secret police, how good Germans could follow the orders of Hitler, how good American men and women could bomb Panama City.

As an EHM, I never drew a penny directly from the NSA or any other government agency; MAIN paid my salary. I was a private citizen, employed by a private corporation. Understanding this helped me see more clearly the emerging role of the corporate executive-as-EHM. A whole new class of soldier was emerging on the world scene, and these people were becoming desensitized to their own actions. I wrote:

Today, men and women are going into Thailand, the Philippines, Botswana, Bolivia, and every other country where they hope to find people desperate for work. They go to these places with the express purpose of exploiting wretched people - people whose children are severely malnourished, even starving, people who live in shanty towns and have lost all hope of a better life, people who have ceased to even dream of another day. These men and women leave their plush offices in Manhattan or San Francisco or Chicago, streak across continents and oceans in luxurious jetliners, check into first-class hotels, dine at the finest restaurants the country has to offer. Then they go searching for desperate people.

Today, we still have slave traders. They no longer find it necessary to march into the forests of Africa looking for prime specimens who will bring top dollar on the auction blocks in Charleston, Cartagena, and Havana. They simply recruit desperate people and build a factory to produce jackets, blue jeans, tennis shoes, automobile parts, computer components, and thousands of other items they can sell in the markets of their choosing. Or they may elect not even to own the factories themselves; instead they hire a local businessman to do all their dirty work for them.

These men and women think of themselves as upright. They return to their homes with photographs of quaint sites and ancient ruins, to show their children. They attend seminars where they pat each other on the back and exchange tidbits of advice about dealing with the eccentricities of customs in far-off lands. Their bosses hire lawyers who assure them that what they are doing is perfectly legal. They have a cadre of psychotherapists and other human resources experts at their disposal to convince them that they are helping those desperate people.

The old-fashioned slave trader told himself that he was dealing with a species that was not entirely human, that he was offering them the opportunity to become Christianized. He also understood that slaves were fundamental to the survival of his own society, that they were the foundation of his economy. The modern slave trader assures herself (or himself) that the desperate people are better off earning one dollar a day than no dollars at all, and that they are receiving the opportunity to become integrated into the larger world community. She also understands that these desperate people are fundamental to the survival of her company, that they are the foundation for her own lifestyle. She never stops to think about the larger implications of what she, her lifestyle, and the economic system behind them are doing to the world - or of how they may ultimately impact her children's future.

John's critique on Western foreign policy from 1963 forward seems practically self-evident, and only becomes truer with every passing day.

While We're On The Subject

For the moment, much of the world’s media attention has been focused on the war in Afghanistan(1,2), but what about the kingdom? If the UN’s - and specifically the United States’ - commitment to peace and stability in the country is genuine, the international spotlight needs to turn on Saudi Arabia.

On September 20th, 2001, George W. Bush gave a speech to Congress and an international television audience about the upcoming “war on terror”(3). He asserted that “enemies of freedom” had attacked the country and that the war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it doesn’t end there. Afghanistan was singled out in his address because the Taliban had been harbouring international terrorist organizations, most notably the leadership of al Qaeda. Would-be terrorists came from all over the world to train at Khalden, Darunta and al Farouq(4,5) for anywhere from several weeks to several months. Allegedly for this reason, Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum:

“Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.”

Operation Enduring Freedom began on October 7th, 2001(6), just over two weeks after Bush delivered his speech. Never mind the obviously inadequate amount of time given to comply; this seems like yet another instance of “what we say goes” and moreover the “do as we say, not as we do” philosophy of United States foreign policy.

Why then, if the enemy is “[any] radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them,” is the international community and the United States government, not putting more pressure on the kingdom of Saud? It is well known that the government of Saudi Arabia, as well as organizations within the country, have been supporting international terrorism since before the events of 9/11(7,8,9). Are the human rights injustices happening in Saudi Arabia(10-16) not just as worthy of our attention as the ones happening in Afghanistan? Is it perhaps because this nation of self-declaring champion of human rights adherents - and simultaneously the largest consumers of oil - can’t afford to strain an already tenuous relationship with the world’s largest exporters of oil(17)?

The government of Saudi Arabia is just as, if not more repressive than the Taliban regime has been in Afghanistan. Bush stated such atrocities under the Taliban as: women not being able to attend school, the possibility of being arrested simply for owning a television, men whose beards are not long enough may be jailed, religion can be practiced only as the leaders dictate, etc. While these abuses are backward and need to be reversed, what goes on inside Saudi Arabia is like a throwback to the late 1600s in America. As reported by the director of Human Rights Watch in the Middle East(18), “Saudi courts are sanctioning a literal witch hunt by the religious police … The crime of ‘witchcraft’ is being used against all sorts of behaviour, with the cruel threat of state-sanctioned executions.(19)” Corporal and capital punishment are fairly commonplace in Saudi Arabia, and have happened for a variety of reasons(20-25), including amputations and floggings for robbery, sexual deviance and public drunkenness; or worse, public beheadings for rape, murder and drug trafficking. These punishments are justified by strict interpretations of Shari’a (Islamic) law(26). Women in Saudi Arabia are able to attend school, and literacy rates for women are approximately 70% according to the CIA world fact book(27). However, women are discriminated against in other ways:

“Saudi officials continue to require women to obtain permission from male guardians to conduct their most basic affairs, like traveling or receiving medical care, despite government assertions that no such requirements exist…(28)”

Migrant workers in the kingdom (male and female) have an even more dismal existence; they suffer through long, unpaid hours, denied benefits, no permanent residency permits, employer intimidation, sexual harassment, abuse and forced confinement(29). The list of offences goes on and on.

It’s hard to ignore the blatant hypocrisy in the general level of complacency with regards to Saudi Arabia. This is to say nothing about the United States’ own substantial list of human rights abuses(30,31), as well as the many, many other nations with appalling human rights records. Either all of it is acceptable, or none of it is. When it comes to basic human rights, it should be black and white. And I can already hear the cynics crying that there are always shades of gray, but it speaks volumes about the degree of our civilisation when we find ourselves arguing whether or not murder in the name of materialism and economic progress is acceptable, because that’s what we’re really discussing. So while our attention is focused on the future of Afghanistan and whether or not we should continue the war, we should also look to the West, to the kingdom of Saud, and inwards, at our own complacency in worldwide human rights violations.

--
References:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZLVqhsLgIw
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/03/training-afghan-army-kabul
3. http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_camps_in_Afghanistan
5. http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_mar05.pdf
6. http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/endfreed.htm
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2336949.stm
8. http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32499.pdf
9. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2801017.ece
10. http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Shea%20--%20Human%20Rights%20Abuses.pdf
11. http://www.securitymanagement.com/archive/library/gao05852_islamicextremism1005.pdf
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
13. http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/saudi-arabia/page.do?id=1011230
14. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/04/saudi-arabia-counterterrorism-efforts-violate-rights
15. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/13/saudi-arabia-enact-protections-domestic-workers
16. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/08/saudi-arabia-free-political-prisoners
17. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Leah_Whitson
19. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/24/saudi-arabia-witchcraft-and-sorcery-cases-rise
20. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE23/048/2008/en/3b90b952-bbe8-11dd-a0a0-599e4c28c8aa/mde230482008eng.pdf
21. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/29/justice-die
22. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/saudi-arabia-executions-target-foreign-nationals-20081014
23. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/man-beheaded-and-crucified-saudi-arabia-20090601
24. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/juveniles-among-five-men-beheaded-saudi-arabia-20090512
25. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557628/Saudis-prepare-to-behead-teenage-maid.html
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
27. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
28. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/saudi-arabia-women-s-rights-promises-broken
29. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11999/section/8
30. http://www.aladin.wrlc.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library?e=q-01000-00---off-0torture--00-1--0-10-0---0---0prompt-10-TX%2cKEY%2cWR%2cDT--4--America%2csponsored+torture%2c%2c-----0-1l--11-en-50---20-home-[America]%3aTX++%26+[sponsored+torture]%3aKEY+--01-3-1-00-0-0-11-0-0utfZz-8-00&a=q&r=1&hs=1&fqa=0&fqv=America,torture,,&fqf=TX,KEY,WR,DT
31. http://www.aladin.wrlc.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library?c=torture&a=q

President Obama on The Way Forward in Afghanistan

Obama outlines his new objectives for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in an address at West Point Military Academy last night. This includes his exit strategies for both wars, the time lines for each, as well as troop allotment in both countries in the near future.


(read the full text)
It seems the Bush administration made one final contribution to the American people and the world at large - they gave us the gift of jaded cynicism. Obama appears to be a very good person; his intentions seem genuine. Or at least he's a very persuasive speaker. Unfortunately, most of us listen to him now the same way an emancipated abduction and rape victim might listen to the defense of their former captor. But should we be so guarded?

Obama, particularly with his speech last night, illustrated beautifully the differences between his administration and the former one. He outlines smart, measurable, attainable goals and most importantly a realistic time line for each, in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. He acknowledges what many people have come to accept - that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan(1), he acknowledged that the Karzai government and its elections in Afghanistan have been wrought with fraud and corruption(2, 3), and he also addressed the naysayers almost haughty comparisons of the current conflicts to the Vietnam era.

Let's be clear: Obama is not perfect, and he is even perhaps a little naive*. America is by no means a truly righteous, democratic nation, but it was founded on those principles, in a revolution against many of the tyrannical policies of empire they employ today. Obama is trying to restore those principles (albeit within a corporatist, oligarchic structure) so that America can progress as a world leader of positive change. It's unfair that so many people liken him to Bush, since this mess was handed to him. It's unfair that so many people have turncoat against him, because he hasn't done more for America. Our expectations for the change we wanted to see were far too high, in much too short a time frame.

Those of us who might argue for a rapid withdrawal of troops aren't thinking rationally. The war should come to an end, but only if we leave the country well enough equipped to handle future insurgencies on its own. The re-emergence of the Taliban in Kandahar(4) is, at least in part, an effect of fighting a two-front war in the region. As he states, "when I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war."(5) If we leave now, Afghanistan will return to its pre-9/11 Taliban rule.

It also seems important to recognize the differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

This argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

This is not the same Cold War-era rhetoric used to justify American intervention in the Vietnamese civil war. This is not capitalist versus communist, or even particularly an imperialist endeavor. Granted, the Afghan government has since been marred with corruption, but what is best for the Afghan people and indeed for the world, is not to leave the country as a haven for pan-Islamic Jihadists and international terrorism. We must continue to put pressure on the Karzai government as well as our own, to ensure that the values we are exporting are righteous, and our motives transparent. This can and should be done in a culturally sensitive manner, while still maintaining solidarity with true democratic principles and the observation of basic human rights.

It's not about winning a war to save face; and this applies to all of the developed nations. It's about stabilizing a country, correcting past mistakes, and aspiring to re-establish ourselves as a model for human decency, democracy and positive national progression.

* It's possible that I'm the naive one. The more reflection and research I do on the position taken in this article, the more I realize the likelihood that it's wrong, and even morally reprehensible.

The situation in Afghanistan - the re-emergence of the Taliban particularly - may be an effect of fighting a war on two fronts, but it probably has more to do with the fact that a protracted war has been waging in their country for 8 years. Support for the Taliban may be due to national illiteracy, intimidation, bribery, etc, but what about national pride and self-determination? As well-intentioned as we outsiders may be, we've taken it upon ourselves to reform their country in our image, with complete disregard for that nation's right to control its own destiny.

Perhaps the proper thing to do is to set a better example in our own countries, for those civilians in Afghanistan who have had enough. For those who want democracy, but on their own terms. Perhaps instead of occupying their country, we should provide guidance through international awareness and political pressure.

First and foremost, if we're sincere in our solidarity with the civilians of Afghanistan, we need to leave their country. The Taliban may again rise to power, but what's worse? Subjugation under the Taliban rule, or subjugation under the corporatocracy? Second, we need to stop participating in terrorism and its financing (ie: the opium trade) and crack down on countries which participate in such activities (ie: Saudi Arabia) Finally, we need to recognize our own inflated ego; outside the developed countries, there are no lesser people, only countries and ideas in different stages of development. We were there too, once. And just because we have advanced past that point, doesn't give us the right to force them to catch up. A nation needs to progress and evolve on its own momentum. We saw this in the American revolution, with the Bolshevik's in Russia, the Paris Commune in the late 1800s, Simon Bolivar in his struggle to liberate Latin America, the July 26 Movement in Cuba, the rebellions in Canada in 1837, the Iranian revolution in 1979, Indian independence from British rule in 1947, Angolan independence from the Portuguese in 1975, and on and on. History has many examples - the change in Afghanistan must come from within.

__
References:

1. http://www.france24.com/en/node/4936250
2. http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Afghaniscam.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/afghanistan-karzai-uk-us
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302950.html
5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/02/barack-obama-full-speech-text