[zmanji]

Afghanistan has been a perpetual warzone for decades now and every attempt after each war to rebuild important civil instituions (courts, taxes, police) has been poorly done. In the brief period where there were institutions and stability things were better. If from the article, “During the time of the Taliban we did not have such encounters. Everyone kept to his lane.”.

[javajosh]

I'm trying to think of what the good people of Afghanistan can do to create good regions of Afghanistan. It seems clear that good people need to band together, get some serious firepower, and create a safe haven where the One Rule (no destruction) is strictly enforced.

It's a fascinating problem because it's almost like dealing with a zombie apocalypse. Too bad that it's real.

[Androsynth]

> It seems clear that good people need to band together, get some serious firepower, and create a safe haven where the One Rule (no destruction) is strictly enforced.

This almost exactly describes what the Taliban did. Except in their moral system, the One Rule is different than in your moral system.

[javajosh]

>This almost exactly describes what the Taliban did. Except in their moral system, the One Rule is different than in your moral system.

Read The Kite Runner for a gripping insight into what the Taliban was. There was no rule, only naked force in the name of religious fundamentalism. Enforcement was (and is) arbitrary and brutal.

The One Rule is totally, completely compatible with Islam. However, it is incompatible with any any belief, religious or otherwise that values anything above non-destruction. The big problem in the Muslim world is, in my view, that they are confused on this point. Enforcing a prohibition of the expression of blasphemy instead of enforcing a prohibition of violence and destruction is a critical mistake, and the entire nation pays the price in perpetuity.

If the universe has anything approaching a built-in moral standard, it's this, and it's implied strongly by the second law of thermodynamics. It's far easier to destroy than to create, and so any culture that doesn't give creation asymmetrical importance is going to relegate it's followers to a life of squalor and violence.

And I don't want that for anyone.

[brazzy]

That is a staggeringly childish view of how stable, safe societies work.

[jhuckestein]

I think I get your point, but you need to re-phrase the zombie apocalypse part.

Afghanistan is a country that has been fractured by civil war or the fight against invaders for all of its living memory and is struggling to find unity.

A zombie apocalypse on the other hand is a fictional event in which a horde of brainless demons tries to kill all humans.

[javajosh]

I'm sorry that I've offended your sensibilities, but there is a strong parallel with the chaos in Afghanistan (or Somalia for that matter) and a zombie apocalypse. Two parallels in particular stick out: there is no strong central authority, and there is the constant threat of violence. For zombies, the violence is directed toward "eating brains" or something equally ridiculous, for Afghans the violence vector is directed toward "anyone who disagrees with me or who I or my tribe doesn't like", and seems particularly informed by Islamism and hatred of the West.

Further, the problem of 'infection' is very similar. Even if you create a "safe zone" it's not necessarily safe. Consider the recent rash of killings when our Afghan "allies" have turned on US servicemen, killing them in cold blood in so-called "Green on Blue" attacks. (About 100 servicemen have been murdered in this way in the last 3 years).