I found an interesting post about the Afghan situation over at Brink Lindsey’s web site today, which I mostly agreed with, but I found one sentence somewhat discomforting.

Specifically, we have to use our power to keep warlordism in check while the fledgling national government gets established, builds an army, and otherwise develops the capacity to project authority nationwide.

As someone (Harry Browne aside) who considers himself a libertarian, this grated. The purpose of an “army” is not to be used against a nation’s own people. If there are warlords in Afghanistan to be quelled, and said entity is a nation, keeping down “warlords” is a job for the police, not an army. Armies (where they are justifiably used at all) are to be used against outside agressors–not against internal subversives.

I have no objection to Acting-President Karzai building up a force to pacify the Afghan nation, but to call it an “army” is to confuse terms, and potentially lay the foundation for a future police state.