Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
While I agree with much of what you've said here, I have to take issue with the above comment.

Sending aid to pay for training or arms is not a mistake if the aim of those fighting is consistent with our foreign policy. It was in the US's best interests for the Soviets to be prevented from taking control in Afghanistan, just as it was in the US's best interests to send aid to the Soviets and the British during WW2 to help them defeat the Germans. No one expected us to help pay for Soviet or British rebuilding and no one should have expected us to repay for Afghanistan's rebuilding. In fact, I would bet that many nations would have objected to our doing so because of the influence it might have garnered with the new government.

I do agree, however, that US foreign policy has frequently crossed the line into arrogance. Deposing, or helping to depose, a democratically elected government would seem to fly in the face of the very reasons this country was started. Mistakes are a bit trickier, though. What may seem a logical and rational step to take at the time can later prove to be a mistake, one which may have been unforeseeable.

I get your rationale. But US paid for reconstruction efforts in Western Europe after World War 2, even funding German reconstruction efforts. They did the same for Japan. I would think that it US's best interest is to have a economically strong ally, then what Afghanistan ended up becoming.

Anyhow, that's my personal opinion, talking to people from that part of the world, they still resent Americans for not being there after the war. Things over there run differently then they do here. People do the job for what they think is mutually beneficial, they expected that they'd get help after. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it would be something you'd need to talk to people there.