The deaths of civilians, both in the initial car crash and in the protests that followed, sparked the worst anti-American riots the city has seen since the fall of the Taliban four years ago.In wars, or "wars," as in politics, or "politics," certain constructions become so prevalent, so ubiquitous, that they persist long after the moment of their accuracy, or "accuracy," has passed.
The New York Times
"The fall of the Taliban," is one of these. It was clear enough at the time, but is now perfectly clear that the Taliban didn't fall so much as they shrugged and walked away.
Now they're marching back.
5 comments:
As I said at the time, we shoulda hit the T when they blew up the statues ... at least we woulda had the moral high ground for a while ...
the Taliban didn't fall so much as they shrugged and walked away.
Well, yes, but in another sense the Taliban did "fall". Afghanistan's UN ambassador, its Olympic team, etc., no longer carry credentials issued by a Taliban-aligned government. It's not wrong to say that the Liberal government "fell" in Canada last year, although of course the Liberal party still exists and everyone expects that they'll be back in power someday.
The Taliban "fell", but it was not destroyed and is now dusting itself off.
Maybe the "Drang nach Taliban?"
With Dick Cheney as Hans Castorp and Condi as Clavdia Chauchat ...
"deaths of civilians" - big deal. Quilting-bees, spelling-bees, killing-bees - they're all good; they're all Mom, apple pie and the Brooklyn Dodgers.
The Brooklyn Dodgers? Sheesh. Come home, Don DeLillo.
And pyesetz: yes. You're right. Neat blog!
Post a Comment