In international affairs, this short - sightedness can lead to long - term complications, pain, and unnecessary suffering.

Exhibit 1: Afghanistan.

The nation of Afghanistan was very much on the radar throughout the 1980s, following the Soviet invasion. It was the reason we skipped the Olympics. Here was awful and savage aggression, the Red Army conquering yet another nation to add to the ever - enlarging Soviet empire.

The Soviet move worried President Carter so much that, to his eternal credit, he initiated support to ragtag bands of freedom fighters known as the mujahideen.

They would fight toe - to - toe with one of the greatest military machines the world has ever known. President Reagan continued to send them arms in increasing numbers and sophistication.

Also, President Reagan cobbled together an in - exile coalition government, a group of very different people --- everyone from supporters of the Afghani monarchy to Muslim radicals --- who would run the country once the Soviets were defeated.

And defeated they were. After 10 long years, half of which their country was brutalized under the "kindler and gentler" Gorbachev (Soviet landmines made to look like toys was _not_ empty Cold War rhetoric, but part of a methodical effort at genocide to exterminate a troublesome people), the Mujahideen drove the Red Army into ignominious retreat.

It is no coincidence of history that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact disintegrated less than a year after the Red Army's defeat; military dictatorships don't absorb military losses very well. So when the Wall came crashing down, it was turbaned men of the Asian steppes who deserved much of the credit.

And Afghanistan dropped right off the screen.

The Soviets left. War over.

Like children walking away from a videogame, the press and politicians of the West deserted Afghanistan.

But it was three more years before the Soviet puppet dictator was finally defeated, and a country left dead in the Soviets' wake tried to rouse itself to the awful task of rebuilding. Where do you start when everything is gone?

President Bush The Elder gave half - hearted help to the coalition, more lip service than actual aid. He was in the middle of an election in which the Democrats were blasting him for caring too much about foreign policy, so he backed way off.

Then President Clinton came in. Like him or not, you have to admit that foreign policy was never on the top of his agenda.

Without US leadership, and too busy celebrating the end of the Cold War, none of the other democracies gave a damn about Afghanistan. The coalition government was left swaying in the wind.

And still, they pulled it off.

Almost.

One of the heroes of the War Of Liberation (as the Afghanis call the anti - Soviet struggle) was Masood, "the Lion". A phenomenal guerilla leader, he was compared often to George Washington for his military talents and political acumen.

Masood is a devout Muslim; he believes women should remain in the home, that men should run the families, that clerics should have a say in government, etc. But Masood had suffered under Soviet dictatorship enough, and more importantly had enjoyed enough US support, that he was decidedly pro - West in is attitudes and planned policies. He was a moderate; yes, the country would be Muslim, but not at gunpoint at certainly not in an abusive or invasive way.

Masood's main political rival was Hektmayer, a radical pro - Iranian cleric. Hektmayer was highly critical of Masood's "lax" laws and coziness with the US, publicly calling Masood a traitor.

Hektmayer and his faction of Mujahideen were supported by Pakistan which wanted (1) a weak Afghanistan and (2) a radical Muslim Afghanistan (as the Pakistanis aren't known well for their religious tolerance).

Other groups were rumored to be receiving support from the Soviets just for spite and to keep Afghanistan weak.

Masood was supported by no one. None of the "great powers" of democracy. Nobody even offered to help rebuild the country's shattered economy --- the Soviets had killed ALL THE HORSES in the ENTIRE NATION, and since the Afghanis were nomadic herdsmen this had a huge economic impact, Masood asked for help. Was politely turned down. Every time. By everyone.

And yet Masood, with his Washingtonian skills, was able to get Hektmayer thrown out of the coalition government. Hektmayer and his troops left the capital (Kabul), seemingly never to return.

The government of Afghanistan became bogged down in factional infighting. Party A wouldn't support Law #1 because Party B supported it, but if Party C votes yes on Law #2 then Party A will let Law #1 pass.

It was a dizzying mishmash of politics. Remember, you had everyone except communists trying to run the country; moderate pro - Iranian Muslims, pro - West Socialists, conservatives in favor of monarchy, and so on.

And the government had literally no money, so roads and law enforcement and trivial little things like that had to go by the wayside. Afghanistan spiraled into a quagmire of lawlessness, warlords sprang up, a second civil war loomed ominously imminent.

Then the Taliban came.

The Taliban (a Persian word meaning "student of knowledge", usually applied to a religious student) originated as vigilantes seeking to restore order. Several teenage girls were kidnapped and raped by a local Mujahideen commander / warlord. Outraged at the crime and angered that the girls remained captive, 16 students under the young (30 something) Mullah Omar stormed the warlord's stronghold, freeing the girl and executing the rapist.

The Taliban continued to grow in numbers and continued to restore order in the country. They enjoyed great success; people actually looked forward to the Taliban coming to their towns, because then the rapes and robberies and murders that were occurring hourly would stop.

The Taliban were akin to the "good" gunfighter of the Old West, swaggering into town and killing all the bad guys. They were Robin Hoods with Kalishnikov rifles, Round Table knights charging into battle.

Unfortunately, their leader, Mullah Omar, was a student of Hektmayer.

They declared that they were going to take over the country and run things. Who could blame them? Democracy had given them chaos, and the West had done nothing to help. The Taliban were supported by the majority of the public who were sick of the anarchy and who viewed the new freedom fighters (most of them so young that they had never known anything but war and refugee camps) as finishing the liberation of their country.

As the Taliban moved from the rural areas into the cities --- culture clash! The mostly pro - West (and mostly corrupt) populace of the cities viewed the Taliban as barefooted fanatics, and to the Taliban these people represented everything that was wrong with Afghanistan!

Yes, public support has dwindled as the Taliban have "closed the noose" and begun the rigid enforcement of their religious doctrine. But many people are legitimately frightened of what might replace the Taliban! For a woman in the city of Kandahar, the choice is literally between getting beaten for leaving her house or getting gang raped inside of her house; which would you choose?

The Taliban are an indirect creation of the west's failures to help an emerging democracy in need, of the US (read: Clinton administration) ignoring the pleas of a nation torn apart by the Cold War.

When they blew up the Buddha statues, there were many fingerprints on the charges. Ours included.

Good news; Hektmayer is dead, Masood is still fighting as the commander of the Northern Alliance (which still holds about 15% of the country but only 5% of the population). "The Lion" has inflicted severe defeats upon the Taliban.

This nation has a choice to make NOW. We can either work with the "moderates" within the Taliban and try to bring them into an alliance with us, or we can support Masood in the second civil war.

It would be nice to see Masood win, but then what? More coalition government? And how much more war can this husk of a nation take?

If the Taliban can see a benefit to Western aid, they have already shown that they will "bend" their religious law. (A food charity threatened to leave unless the Taliban allowed the charity to employ women; the Taliban, rather than see people starve, allowed the charity to hire some elderly women in a compromise far more important than it seems.)

Bribe the Taliban, make peace between them and Masood, and pour some money in to get that nation back into the 19th century.

The alternative is to do nothing.

And as in Zen, so in international affairs; to take no action IS an action.

Don't believe me? Look at Afghanistan.