Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Ok, I'll buy that... but we still need some idea of an outcome that is both acceptable and achievable.
. . .
So if "stable, pro-western government" is not achievable, what would be both acceptable and achievable? Personally, I could live without "pro-western": neutral would be fine, or even rhetorically anti-western, as long as the rhetoric isn't translated to action against the west or (more to the point) refuge for those who take action against the west.

Of course that's probably not achievable either... I never claimed to have The Answer, just trying to get a better handle on The Question!
I think your solutions are right on track and either is probably achievable. The problem I think lies not so much with the American people but with those dipwads in the Congress who must preen and profile on one issue or another and make pseudo-moralistic noises about "the rights of women" or "democracy is a requirement."

I can agree that the treatment of women is an issue but it also is none of our business in the sense that they must do as we do. Not to mention that we also could improve on that score a bit...

Democracy is good, wouldn't change it -- but it does make things difficult in setting and following clear and rational policies.