Richard Just lays into it here. I'm a bit confused by what he's saying. What Just manages to do here is to make me feel bad that we aren't going to be able to do as much human rights promotion, but I was already sad about that. But it strikes me that the goals of foreign policy liberalism--democracy promotion, nationbuilding, human rights--are good goals, but ones that cannot be achieved without the bedrock of stability, which doesn't exist in Afghanistan. I think it's fairly clear that democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be plagued by numerous problems, and neither country is particularly stable.
What this sort of thinking represents to me is an inability to prioritize on what sorts of goals to set when it comes to foreign policy. I actually think Obama's on solid ground here--cutting a deal with more moderate elements of the Taliban might well increase stability if they stop fighting, while remaining odious from a human rights perspective. When you face chaos, try to bring stability. When facing stability, try to liberalize. I guess that's my take on the matter.
