Issue them visas and a path to citizenship in developed countries.
That being said, it would just be a gesture. These women are not free to travel, or make any kind of life choices freely. And even if they were, social pressures are almost insurmountable.
If the dissenters leave and don’t put up a fight, who is going to do the right thing?
Imagine if the resistance fighters of France or Benelux said instead, it’s fucking bad here, we gotta get out of town and let’s go to Argentina (or Angola, pick a place).
That would have left the baddies without resistance. That’s what would happen if no one were to put up a fight. Yes it’s deaths, but the future might be worth it. If Americans can go die over there to protect civil society surely locals can organize a fight.
Look at the VC of Vietnam, they could have said, shit, let’s just go to China or whatever and forget our homeland, but they didn’t. They fought tooth and nail with every breath, men women and children. I disagree with their choice of government but I admire their will for self determination and willingness to fight for what they thought was righteous.
You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in.
https://theprint.in/diplomacy/afghan-govt-wants-iaf-support-...
https://theprint.in/defence/will-pull-india-into-a-vortex-wh...
Because US troop withdrawal is also a simultaneous porkbarrel withdrawal.
This is something very obvious I am surprised nobody talks about.
US "war funds" to the most Afghan establishment were basically loyalty bribes.
I'm not sure there's been a more wasteful government action in human history than the US government in the Middle East
[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/25/how-a-former-cia-wo...
I wonder though if what has been posted in another thread here had happened: if we either hadn't have gone in at all, or retreated immediately after. Maybe the passage of time would have softened up the Taliban government structure by now and there would be meaningful change brewing from within. In that sense, fighting their own wars could have helped the country. I've seen good cases being made for the theory that the people of Afghanistan would almost certainly be better off by now. As it stands today, they are reset to the very beginning of any possible road to democracy and human rights. Then again, there is no guarantee they'll ever choose that. I sort of see the point of those who argue that "we" need to be fine with that, too.
However, this piece of news is more immediate and the suggestion made here relates to immediate relief for people in trouble. And in such cases, I can't ethically be in favor of letting anyone fight their own wars.
Russia is an example. After centuries Empire and communism, they were in no way ready for democracy. Democracy may still work out some day in Russia, but not now. Also not now in Afghanistan. They need to work that out themselves.
People following your line of logic are so arrogant, and coarse.
I can't speak for the others, but for me it's because I'm a humanist and I strongly believe governments must be, as well. I'm arguing from a perspective of minimizing human suffering and (ideally) optimizing progress and development towards a future that is pleasant, prosperous, and scientifically literate.
On the more contentious side I would also argue the implementation of a state in such a society must be entirely secular, even if there is a majority religion, because the humanist goals laid out above are fundamentally incompatible with a state religion. But as I said, that particular bias is mostly my personal opinion and could be considered outdated (maybe a side effect of my age).
That is not to say there is a single ideal country I can point at and declare that they're currently fulfilling this ambition completely. But it's easy to identify a government, power structure, or ideology where the core agendas actively move society further away from it. I understand why these kinds of value judgements don't sit right with you, but I'm not arguing for the superiority of Western culture per se.
Edit: About your point of "immediately" adopting democracy, there is no moderate time span. Fundamentalist regimes with popular support, especially when they're religion-based, are usually incredibly stable because of the way consent is continually built and dissent is harshly squashed. If a country slides politically over time, it's usually not towards a secular democracy. Chances are the Taliban will rule Afghanistan for many generations.
> It just seems like Afghanistanis are self-determining to support Taliban anywhere outside of Kabul.
There is no question that the Taliban gobbling up the country is an expression of public will. I do think it's regrettable, and I strongly believe "we" should offer assistance to the few people who actually make it out. But other than that, there is really little to do but watch. It's been a long time coming.
Maybe the Euro Countries (or even Canada?) could be nicer, but the USA (politicians making the decisions that go in affect) clearly don't give the slightest fuck and haven't for decades.
Most people who live here have never dealt with them and have no idea just how bad it really is. I think their interview process might include an IQ test with an upper limit for acceptable candidates.
I know several developer that immigrated to US, and then because of what they had to deal with regularly. No personal experience though
https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/142632472646...
(Presuming it's actually followed through with)
We know what happens when you have mass immigration from countries with low standards of living. We saw it with Gaddafi, it destabilizes regions and introduces problems with housing supply, welfare budgets and wage suppression.