Mayor Karzai signs pro-rape bill in Afghanistan, scapegoats the Shi'a

That is THEIR law and is according to THEIR custom. I am as appalled as any Westerner by such a law, but we can not go around imposing our values on the rest of the world. That is THEIR law and there is nothing that we can (or should) do about it.

What should Obama do? Veto the bill?

This kind of ends-justify-the-means foreign policy is essentially realpolitik revisited - the exact kind of short-term "great game" thinking that created the Taliban itself.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Taliban arise out of a combination of instability in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets and the Pakistani ISI's desire to control the region - all as filtered through the religious sensibilities of the local populace (perhaps influenced by Saudi-funded madrassas)? The US is often accused of creating al Queda, which may have some truth to it, but I can't see how we're responsible for the Taliban. Even the less strong "led to" rather than "created" is a stretch. The US wanted to stick it to the Soviets, so used the uprising that was already there. Given the religious nature of Afghanistan and the NWFP, could that resistance have been anything other than Islamic? Lots of foreign jihadis were recruited as well, but again it seems like the US was more "riding the tiger" than controling events. The Saudis were awfully influential in bringing foreigners in as well. Unlike the US, they stayed behind after the Soviets left. While maybe in retrospect the Pakistanis and Afghans would have been better off with the US, you'll have a hard time convicing me that they would have accepted US aid the same way they've accepted Saudi aid. In fact, as Pakistan goes up in flames I hear lots of complaining from S Asian Muslims that its all America's fault, but I never hear a word against the Saudi madrassas that directly produce these nutjobs.

It's a disgrace and an embarassment to Obama's entire Afghanistan policy, and the domestic economic crisis is no excuse for such a craven failure to stand up for the values we purport to uphold.

Why should the US fight for women's emancipation in a region where it appears the one way to get people to all agree to "A" is for the Americans to assert "B"? Wouldn't we be doing more harm than good? Even if America was not so widely distrusted, do Muslims anywhere want us to try to affect cultural changes in Muslim countries to our liking? Be careful what you wish for - next thing you know Muslims will be becoming agnostic, women will be playing frisbee with dogs in public parks wearing shorts and t-shirts, and beer will be readily available. You may or may not be cool with that stuff, but I don't think the people of AfPak would welcome anything that looks like it would even remotely lead there.

Our involvement in Afghanistan has never been about engendering more liberal cultural values, despite the rhetoric. And it shouldn't be. The value systems, once one gets more specific than, say,"peace, security and family," are just too different. I say we live and let live - from a great distance. I'll agree that the US (usually influenced by US energy corporations) has, by these standards, failed often and dramatically over the years. The solution is not, however, to get involved in Muslim cultural disputes. The solution is to ensure no more 9/11s, then get out. Heck, just get out now and make sure they realize the last 7 years have been a shower of rose petals compared to what happens if we're attacked again. It'd be better if we could create an honest democracy and a prosperous, grateful populace in our wake, but I don't see it happening. The US brand if far too damaged, and our values (again, beyond the most general) far too different.

I suppose it would unsporting to point out that the legal concept that a wife could not refuse to have sex with her husband was the universal western stardard until the middle of the 20th century. It's probably technically still on the books in a lot of places.

We're basically looking at a culture that is 50-100 years behind us in social evolution. We shouldn't find this surprising as they are essential a pre-industrial and even pre-Renaissance culture.

As much as we would like to forcably drag these people kicking and screaming into the 21st century as we see it, we can't. Change has to come from the bottom up to be real and lasting.

Please: The Taliban have NOT "retaken most of the country". Don't undermine the intelligence of your position by tossing off nuggets like that. Your comment implies the Taliban controls territory and, save for a relatively small, confined mountain region, there is virtually nothing that the Taliban "controls", and even there we have the strategic initiative, though they retain tactical capability for limited ops. The security situation outside of the Kabul "Green Zone" for a figure like Karzai is bad but the US (largely) and the ANA (coming along) have established credible security by largely confining the scope of the Taliban to the Pak border provinces. The Taliban is as restricted outside, more so actually, of that area as Karzai himself is outside of Kabul.

The new law is certainly not a positive example of SecState Clinton's policy matching her rhetoric.

I thought before the Taliban took over that women were pretty free in Afghanistan? They didn't have to wear coverings and could go to school. At least that's what was implied in Taliban by Ahmed Rashid.