[Spliff]

via Think Progress

The US edition of Newsweek featured a story about celebrity photographer, Annie Leibowitz. Frankly, this doesn't surprise me although I would think that people would find the war in Afghanistan more interesting than Annie Leibowitz. Is this a case of Newsweek assuming that Americans are less sophisticated than foreign readers of Newsweek?

[ink]

It's the liberal media's fault.

Oh, wait...

[Nicko]

Far from assuming, I'm sure Newsweek has mountains of data and survey results that prove Americans are less sophisticated than foreign readers. Can you blame them? Journalists have children to feed too.

[Kevin]

Or maybe they pander to what people want in those areas.

Europe, Asia, etc like the America bashing. So Newsweek gives them what they want.

It's really simple. Has nothing to do with sophistication I assure you.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or maybe they pander to what people want in those areas.

Europe, Asia, etc like the America bashing. So Newsweek gives them what they want.

It's really simple. Has nothing to do with sophistication I assure you.

Why do you assume a cover article about Losing Afghanistan is related to "America bashing"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why do you assume a cover article about Losing Afghanistan is related to "America bashing"?

Knowing that much of the rest of the world was content with a Lost Afghanistan prior to our actions there and that several other countries are helping Americans win that fight, I suppose you're right. It should not be construed as "America Bashing" so much as "Progress Bashing".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Knowing that much of the rest of the world was content with a Lost Afghanistan prior to our actions there and that several other countries are helping Americans win that fight, I suppose you're right. It should not be construed as "America Bashing" so much as "Progress Bashing".

What is wrong with "much of the rest of the world [being] content with a Lost Afghanistan? The United States was among those countries "content with a Lost Afghanistan" until the attacks of 9/11. Heck, if Osama bin Laden had been living in his native Yemen under the protection of the government their Afghanistan would still be Lost as we never would have given them any interest otherwise. You do know the US was the country that abandoned support for Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union. Support which helped keep the extreme elements of Islamic fundamentalism contained. Those same extreme elements that would eventually become the Taliban and would become friendly with and supportive of Al Qaeda.

So, please don't make out the US to be better than the rest of the world for our current involvement with Afghanistan. We only care because of the attacks of 9/11, otherwise we would have no interest in the place just like the rest of the world.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Knowing that much of the rest of the world was content with a Lost Afghanistan prior to our actions there and that several other countries are helping Americans win that fight, I suppose you're right. It should not be construed as "America Bashing" so much as "Progress Bashing".

Define "progress". It always bugs me when one side defines itself as having a monopoly on "progress" without defining exactly what it is they're trying to progress towards, or why it would be desirable to do that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The United States was among those countries "content with a Lost Afghanistan" until the attacks of 9/11. Heck, if Osama bin Laden had been living in his native Yemen under the protection of the government their Afghanistan would still be Lost as we never would have given them any interest otherwise.

Even better, there is very considerable evidence to say that if the Taliban had been willing to immediately give up and/or renounce Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, the US would never have invaded the country.

Pretending to take some sort of moral high ground on Afghanistan sickens me. The US was there for one reason, and one reason only - revenge. Whether that reason was sufficient is for individual debate - I tend to think it was - but please don't try to foist some "we were the only ones to help teh lost" on us.

greg

[Nicko]

Well surprise surprise, here we have some excellent examples of how misinformed some (err most?) Americans are. Afghanistan is not Iraq. NATO is running the show in Afghanistan, so it is much more a world issue than Iraq is, which could otherwise be called “America’s Democracy Sandbox Adventure”.

The point stands, Newsweek knows their audience.


I couldn't say it any better than Clinton:

"We do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq," he added, referring to the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq."

oh..how true.

[itai195]

I'm not sure it's so much about sophistication of readers as it is about selling magazines. Newsweek isn't a terribly sophisticated rag either way. Apparently they think non-American readers will actually buy it for news coverage.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Well surprise surprise, here we have some excellent examples of how misinformed some (err most?) Americans are.

Yeah, buddy, regardless of whatever point you might have, your little tirades about how stupid we are don't help much. Continue the cycle of polarization and see what this country delivers to the world next.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What is wrong with "much of the rest of the world [being] content with a Lost Afghanistan? The United States has donated more humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in the past 50 years than any other host of countries combined.

fixed.

So, please don't make out the US to be better than the rest of the world for our current involvement with Afghanistan. We only care because of the attacks of 9/11, otherwise we would have no interest in the place just like the rest of the world.

I disagree, but at no point in my first post in this thread did I indicate any type of US superiority.

I guess I just don't buy into the whole "denigrating your own country is like, so fashionable" mentality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Define "progress". It always bugs me when one side defines itself as having a monopoly on "progress" without defining exactly what it is they're trying to progress towards, or why it would be desirable to do that.

I guess you'd have to decide what Afghanistan was progressing towards prior to 9/11 to gauge what you consider "progress" now. There are ideological differences on what progress is. I submit the "Calling all progressives thread" from long ago as evidence of what it probably is not.

IMHO, progress is...

- repaired vital roads, including the Kabul-Kandahar highway and 1,300 km of secondary roads;
- provided 25 million school textbooks;
- built/reconstructed 203 schools;
- rehabilitated 140 health clinics;
- vaccinated 4.26 million children against measles and polio;
- repaired electrical power plants, including initial rehabilitation of the Kandahar-Kajaki Dam;
- initiated the construction process on the Pyanj Bridge linking Afghanistan to Tajikistan;
- repaired and reopened the Salang Tunnel, linking the country’s central and northern provinces;
- supported registration of 1.4. million Afghans for national elections;
- completed 7,000 small-scale irrigation projects;
- provided training for over 6,000 soldiers. Thousands more have been trained for the police and border patrol. As part of this process, members of militias are being disarmed, demobilized and assisted as they return to productive roles in Afghan society.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What is wrong with "much of the rest of the world [being] content with a Lost Afghanistan? The United States gave Afghanistan billions of dollars so they could effectively fight off the Soviets.

Fixed is fixed.

Edit: and for those keeping score at home, this policy was illegally instituted by a Democrat, though the then Republican president didn't seem to care that foreign policy was being run by a congressman in cahoots with the CIA. How does that fit into everybody's preconceived notions?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or maybe they pander to what people want in those areas.

Europe, Asia, etc like the America bashing. So Newsweek gives them what they want.

It's really simple. Has nothing to do with sophistication I assure you.

You are correct Kevin, it has nothing to do with sophistication. People don't like to hear bad news about themselves. Even if it is the truth.

[D. S. Troyer]

Boobies...more boobies!

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

You are correct Kevin, it has nothing to do with sophistication. People don't like to hear bad news about themselves. Even if it is the truth.

Politics aside, this is probably the most correct analysis.

Nicko, I'd venture to say that making arbitrary claims with no evidence is a bit shoddy on your part. If you want to put forward a normative claim like that, at least have proofs to back it up, otherwise nobody will seriously consider you.

[porieux]

...

[ink]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why do you assume a cover article about Losing Afghanistan is related to "America bashing"?

Because in Kevin's mind, we're winning in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Anyone who says anything to the contrary is an America basher.

[Kerrigan]

Well for 4-5 years we were succeeding in Afghanistan, but was this ever proclaimed on Newsweek's cover?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Nicko, I'd venture to say that making arbitrary claims with no evidence is a bit shoddy on your part. If you want to put forward a normative claim like that, at least have proofs to back it up, otherwise nobody will seriously consider you.

Note that Nicko has not responded to a criticism about his total lack of supporting evidence.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Well for 4-5 years we were succeeding in Afghanistan, but was this ever proclaimed on Newsweek's cover?

It should have been. I have no idea whether it was or not.

I still hope we win in Afghanistan.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Note that Nicko has not responded to a criticism about his total lack of supporting evidence.

Lack of supporting evidence for what? The US pouring funds into Afghanistan to provide the muhajadeen with a means to oust the evil communist Russians? I thought that was rather common knowledge. Over and done with. Move along folks?

greg

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or maybe they pander to what people want in those areas.

Europe, Asia, etc like the America bashing. So Newsweek gives them what they want.

It's really simple. Has nothing to do with sophistication I assure you.

I thought Afghanistan was under NATO control?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IMHO, progress is...

- repaired vital roads, including the Kabul-Kandahar highway and 1,300 km of secondary roads;
- provided 25 million school textbooks;
- built/reconstructed 203 schools;
- rehabilitated 140 health clinics;
- vaccinated 4.26 million children against measles and polio;
- repaired electrical power plants, including initial rehabilitation of the Kandahar-Kajaki Dam;
- initiated the construction process on the Pyanj Bridge linking Afghanistan to Tajikistan;
- repaired and reopened the Salang Tunnel, linking the country’s central and northern provinces;
- supported registration of 1.4. million Afghans for national elections;
- completed 7,000 small-scale irrigation projects;
- provided training for over 6,000 soldiers. Thousands more have been trained for the police and border patrol. As part of this process, members of militias are being disarmed, demobilized and assisted as they return to productive roles in Afghan society.

Well, the economy is certainly thriving like never before!

Afghanistan used to supply about 80% of the world's opium/heroin base.

It is now at around 90%.