BobG said:
Helping Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient is about the only good thing Western countries could do for Afghanistan. (Not that Afghanistan's economy should the primary reason for the US military to throw out the Taliban - the military should be used to further US strategic objectives; not some other country's economic objectives.)
One need not attach
any altruistic motive to the US's actions in Afghanistan*. While the potential outcome of the US's actions (if successful, of course) for ordinary Afghans is awesomely awesome, it isn't
any reason - much less the primary one - for the US to still be there. It is nothing more than a recognition that it is in our long-term national security interest to see our conquered enemies become stable and prosperous. A stable, prosperous Afghanistan means no Taliban, no al Qaeda and a populace that has a good enough standard of living that they are too busy enjoying life to be hateful and look for people to blame for their poor quality of life. This isn't a new or unique idea:
When nationalism ruled the conduct of nations, the losers in war were typically punished, with the inevitable result being hatred and the desire for revenge. Wilson tried to change that way of thinking, and his limited success helped pave the way for Hitler's rise and WWII. But things
did change after WWII and that change, IMO, had a lot to do with why there was no WWIII. Instead of punishing Germany, we rebuilt her and installed a friendly, democratic government and the world is a much better place because of it. But again, this was not done out of altruism: we did it for peace with Germany and through that, defense against the USSR in Europe. Still, the outcome for ordinary
West Germans was unequivocably positive, as compared to what their Eastern counterparts got from the USSR. That's the difference between a true puppet (East Germany->USSR) and an ally (West Germany->USA).
*I am not one who believes that there are many actions that are fully altruistic: most actions contain benefit for the person doing them, even if that benefit is just to feel good about what they are doing. Still, some actions have
limited benefit for those doing them and those actions are somewhat altruistic. That can even include war: I did once forward an idea I had for the West or just the US to pick a different roque government somewhere in the world every five years to be transformed into a democracy. IMO, that's just an assertive twist on the of the passive position we currently hold that has resulted in us entering perhaps a half dozen mostly altruistic wars over the past 20 years.
