Some people will seize on this as evidence that U.S. troops must stay in Afghanistan. In reality, Islamic State activity there should be contained, and a strong response given if they hit American installations. But that doesn’t require that troops be there indefinitely.
“Islamic State Claims Rocket Attack Targeting Afghan Inauguration: Statement,” Reuters, March 9, 2020:
CAIRO — Islamic State has claimed responsibility for a rocket attack targeting the inauguration of Ashraf Ghani as Afghan president in Kabul on Monday, the group said in a statement on an affiliated Telegram channel without giving evidence.
Ghani’s ceremony was disrupted by the sound of two rockets hitting the edge of the compound of the presidential palace compound in the capital Kabul, Reuters witnesses said, but there was no word of any casualties and he continued his speech.
gravenimage says
Afghanistan: Islamic State claims rockets that hit presidential compound during inauguration
…………….
But…but…partners for peace!
mortimer says
You have to be a brave man to be president of Afghanistan. I wish Pres. Ashraf Ghani all success in bringing stability. A tall order.
LB says
Stability? In an islamic country? You do realize that’s an oxymoron, right? In theory, the only way an islamic “country” can be stable is if it’s absolutely 100% sunni (or other sect) muslim, without a single person of other faith (or even race, for that matter) and that it does not have a single non-muslim (or other muslim sect) neighboring country. But even so, there’s no guarantee that it will remain stable because muslims gravitate towards total islamic world domination, so there is no chance of them simply being content within their own borders. Face it, as long as there is islam, there will be conflict, both internal and external. I thought you of all people should know that the best.
Now you might make an argument for countries on Arabian Peninsula like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Oman, etc. but those countries are “peaceful” (on the surface at least) due to the combination of extremely harsh laws for the most minor infraction (internal stability), as well as massive influx of money (primarily oil, but other business ventures as well) from the West (external stability). So they are stuck between a rock (islam) and a hard place (the West) where they definitely WANT to do something (9/11 was a good start) but are unable to do so because that would obliterate their primary source of income and potentially jeopardize their rather comfortable position as supreme rulers–I’m of course talking about Arab kings, royals and oil sheikhs who hold all the power.
So I guess you can make a case of a “stable” muslim country if its ruler is an absolute tyrant with deep-rooted supreme power, ruling with an indiscriminate iron fist, while being showered with obscene amounts of Western money. Except, that doesn’t sound like a country that belongs in 21st century to me.
mortimer says
Morroco is fairly stable.