I think this is a great article written by Zakaria and bought to our attention by STEVENLMEYER.
One quote from the article says much about the harm we do when we interfere -: Many local despots would prefer to enlist the American armed forces to defeat their enemies. In return those rulers have done little to advance genuine reform, state building or political openness.
I would like to add that the cruel religious Islamic fanatics that rule some countries also like to blame the misery that they cause to their people on the West, so diverting the people’s attention away from themselves and delaying the inevitable reform that will take place driven by the people themselves, if only the West would butt out and let it happen.
The more cruel and inhuman these priests are the more likely the people will turn against them and things will change for the better.
By racing in when the human abuses happen, ironically the West becomes the enemy instead of the priests and these things don’t change at the societal cutural level where they need to change.
HENCE- bearing out the truth of your quote, Stevenlmeyer
The road to hell IS paved with good intentions

CONTINUED..... If we could have watched all the humans abuses,the great battles and conflicts of history on Television for thousands and thousands of years as they were happening and sent our armies to intervene we would have totally changed the history of nations and the world. This is a mind boggling concept and yet this is what we seek to do today.

Sorry not to have responded before now.

Examinator,

You were puzzled, I think, about my phrase "to date, no consensus has been reached".

Which shows I didn't express myself clearly.

I didn't mean one's viewpoint was directed by consensus. I meant that this question is one that both interests but completely flummoxes me...and that, from the diverse views expressed by others, it seems I am not the only one to be able to make a definitive statement upon it.

Baygon,
I am particularly indebted to you for the link to sightandsign and have subsequently signed up for weekly newsletters.

And even after reading each person's response here I am still no nearer to a personal answer to the question posed by this thread.

Let's take another look at Afghanistan where a huge intervention is under way.

USA Today has a story titled:

"OBAMA OPENS DOOR TO MORE MODERATE TALIBAN"

See:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-07-taliban_N.htm

What is a more "moderate" Taliban?

I'm guessing it's a Taliban that promises it will not allow territory under its control to be used as a base for attacking the United States. What they do to Afghans, especially Afghan women, in their territory does not enter into the equation.

This is a bit like telling "moderate Nazis" we'll leave you alone provided you do not attack us. What you do to Jews, Gypsies and others you consider undesirable within your territory is your business.

This is harsh realpolitiek but what options does Obama have?

If I were an American I might reason along the following lines:

--Our troops are putting themselves in harm's way in Afghanistan. Some are dying there. More are getting maimed both physically and psychologically.

--We're getting nothing but international brickbats for our activities there.

--Most of our NATO "allies" show little inclination to help out in any meaningful way.

--Most of the Muslim world, one quarter of humanity, has made it plain they want us out of there

-- It's costing tens of billions of dollars we can better use at home.

--If the price of an exit is that Afghan women once again come under Taliban rule so be it.

Realistically what would the interventionists here have Obama do?

I know what I would have him do. First I'd high tail it out of there. Then I'd give every American junkie however many drugs he or she needs for personal use at no charge. The cost would be trifling and it would cut off the Taliban's financial balls. It would also solve another problem closer to home.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7886372.stm

I am minded by this discussion of the passage from Matthew 7 verse 3; Judging Islam by our own standards, but failing at home to obey even the most basic human rights. Those Human Rights are set out in plain English in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Every day the people who hold down the worst jobs in Australia, fail to apply those basic rights, despite the efforts of a futile and impotent Parliament to make them law.

The Covenant is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion.( Article 18) Judges and Magistrates make us worship them as representatives of the State rather than of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, as the representative of Almighty God, and have been making asses of themselves, by refusing juries, simply because a dumb Parliament says they can.

The Covenant is supposed to abolish discrimination, ( Article 1 Verse 1) but the Judges and Magistrates discriminate every day. They give a crim a choice, jury or no jury, and give a civil litigant no choice at all. Its my way of the highway.

The Covenant abolishes slavery. ( Article 8) but the Australian Governments have an army of slaves, who obey their masters without any free will at all. When the Victorian Government and Queensland introduced a computer as a Judge, in their Perins court, they only did what was honest. It was cheaper to have a computer, than a proper court.

The automatons who sit on great salaries on Australian benches are no better than Islamic automatons, sitting bound hand and foot by Sharia law. Neither Australian automatons not Islamic ones apply the principles of the Covenant.

Article 25 says all citizens shall have the right and opportunity without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2, and without unreasonable restrictions: to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives. The automatons on the Bench, apply s 78 Judiciary Act 1903, and say you can have any representative you like, so long as it is a lawyer. Bah humbug, clean up our own backyard first

The situation in Pakistan continues to develop. Here is an article in the German magazine, Spiegel, on what the imposition of sharia law in parts of Pakistan means:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,609575,00.html

Quotes:

"After the sun has set … small groups of men furtively enter the house of Khalil Mullah. The visitors are Taliban spies, and they have come to report to Khalil … about who has broken the laws of Allah … They will report who has been seen dancing exuberantly, had his beard shaved, committed adultery or expressed sympathy for the government in Islamabad -- in short, who is a traitor.

"Khalil Mullah begins his daily radio show … at about 8 p.m. The residents of the .. plateau listen to Khalil's religious broadcast to hear the names he reads at the end. …he announces the names of those required to appear before the Taliban's Sharia count -- and of those who have already been sentenced.

"The bodies … can be found the next morning on the market square …The corpses are hanging by their legs, their heads cut off and placed onto the soles of their feet…A note under each body reads: "The same penalty will await those who dare to remove or bury these spies and traitors."

Here we have a gang of thugs imposing their will on an unwilling populace. We know the populace is unwilling because by an overwhelming margin they voted the religious parties out of office.

--What, if anything, other than accept some refugees would "human rights activists" have the Australian Government do.

--Why have "human rights activists" never "adopted" the plight of the unfortunate Swat residents anyway?

I have my own theory about why activists have never demonstrated much interest in the plight of the Swat residents but I am interested to see what other posters have to say.