[Wowfunhappy]

My feeling is that we tried. We tried for 20 years. It didn't work.

At some point, you have to throw in the towel and cut your losses—even when those losses are really, unimaginably terrible. 20 years is certainly past that point.

There's a lot of good we could do in the world with the resources we put into Afghanistan.

[barelysapient]

Completely agree.

The problem is the population never owned the country. They didn't liberate themselves. And they're at home as conquered populace.

Someday the west will learn that Democracy can't be "gifted". People have to want it. People have to fight and die for it. And then, and only then, maybe, you'll get democracy.

The only chance that women in the article will see any freedom again, is if she take up arms start shooting the people who say "you can't".

[yongjik]

> The only chance that women in the article will see any freedom again, is if she take up arms start shooting the people who say "you can't".

I wish Americans stopped viewing social change as a matter of shooting bad guys. The entire Afghanistan debacle is, in a sense, America giving people an endless supply of guns, saying "Can't you guys just shoot all the bad guys? Come on! We'll give you as much ammo as you want!"

Fat good it did anyone.

[Wowfunhappy]

I think what GP meant is that the revolution needs to be initiated by the country's people. (Which, yes, would involve a lot more than a few people grabbing their guns.)

[barelysapient]

I think if you look at the history of the worlds current democracies you'll find that most came about through armed revolution.

America, for example, was armed by the French during their revolutionary war. I'd say that result was exceptional.

France's most recent armed revolution also resulted in representative state.