You are right. Many Afghans--and not just women--look back with longing at the time of communist rule, even after the Soviets became involved. There was much needed land redistribution, things were built and modernized, and everybody went to school, many of them abroad in other communist countries. Women both walked about in Western clothing and they worked. Literacy rates and health care improved.

Older Afghans realize that no, things were not great according to American standards, but they were so much better than everything that came afterwards. For once all the arable land in the country was not owned by the (British-installed) king and his relatives and the average guy had a chance. Afghanistan lacked the undercover spy agencies that made life terrible in other communist countries. In other words Afghanis under communism did not have any Stasi-like police state. For that matter, neither does Nepal, or Vietnam to this day.

I know this is really, really difficult for Americans to believe, what with both James Bond and Rambo doing stints in Afghanistan fighting the bad ´ole commies in popular 1980s movies. It is almost literally impossible for Americans to grasp that there might be things in the world worse than a communist government, we´ve been so fully brainwashed.

Well, there are worse things, and the Afghans have got them, thanks to people like Charlie Wilson and his pathological need to "chase pussy and kill people" (as he himself put it). Now we´re supposed to fix the very problem we single-handedly created with the help of the Saudi religious evangelists.

No wonder they don´t trust us.

I have no clue what the answer to this problem is. These poor people are well and truly fucked, and there´s no good answers any more. There are still a few old communists knocking around the region (too, they still have a party in Iraq, although much reduced there also), but I doubt if they can get enough steam going to be any help any more.

There´s no way out.

I like where you are going with the emphasis on tribalism. I would agree with you, but would point out that tribalism, like the plantation economy, depends on a great deal of unpaid labour to make it work, and the purpose of both systems is not merely survival but making life pleasant for a very few dominant males (Afghanistan isn´t all harsh; there are wheat fields, vineyards, everything). For plantations, the free work came from slaves, for tribes, it´s women (and slaves). The overlords in both systems make a case that they benevolently care for their charges, only of course they don´t.

The purpose of a plantation, or a tribe, or a corporation for that matter, is to enrich and empower a ruthless old geezer at the expense of everybody else, including powerless males. The difference is that the corporation, however reluctantly, has to pay its labour, and can be regulated by modern governments so that it does not become too abusive (at least in theory). That´s why living in the American or European business environment, however bad, is still preferable to living under a plantation owner or a tribal warlord.

The slave class in both the plantation and tribal systems (and it´s worth noting that both are agricultural, militant, and xenophobic) is systematically denied education, and often outnumber their masters who are scared to death of retribution, hence the disproportionate harshness of punishments for any perceived slight.

The idea that the Taliban are obsessed with sexual misbehavior because they are repressed puritans is only partly true. In reality a woman can be physically beaten or restrained for any disobendience, including spending too much money while doing the shopping.

I would argue that tribalism, like the plantation system, is not worth keeping if it is built on the backs of slave labour. I would also point out that tribalism is not the same thing as having a big jolly extended family: it´s quite different.

I agree with you that tribalism is an economic system that´s trying to survive--I just don´t think there´s any real discussion about whether or not it should. It shouldn´t. Some people will be blinded by romantic notions of tribal identity....they should remember that Europe had a period which was governed largely by tribal rules and tribal identifications. It was called the Dark Ages.

Do we really want to go back there?

I´ve written Cary a letter and received a very nice and thoughtful answer a few days later in my personal email. He didn´t choose the letter for his column, but said he might.

So I know the letters are not made up although they may be edited.

However, there´s the rather weird fact that on a couple of occasions I´ve seen Cary Tennis and Dear Prudie address the same question/letter in their resepective columns, Cary here and Prudie over at Slate. I don´t know what to make of that.

But FWIW it´s my opinion the letters are real.

Nobody here in Europe uses the loaded Orwellian term "pro-life". They refer to this menace as the "anti-abortion" movement, its original and true name.

Please Joe, can YOU stop referring to them as "pro-life"?

Because if you call yourself pro-life while shooting down people in a church, you aren´t really, are you?

lots of us have made the same mistake.

Now leave, and take your daughter with you, to make sure you finally break the cycle.