WI US backed Mohammed Zahir Shah's return as King of Afghanistan at Loya Jirga?

Inspired by Hendryk's post at Chat, I bounced around and came across this at Wiki regarding Mohammed Zahir Shah, the former King of Afghanistan:

Wiki said:
In April 2002, while the country was under NATO occupation, Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan to open the Loya Jirga, which met in June 2002.[16] After the fall of the Taliban, there were open calls for a return to the monarchy.[14] Zahir Shah himself let it be known that he would accept whatever responsibility was placed on him by the Loya Jirga.[16] However he was obliged to publicly step aside at the behest of the United States as many of delegates to the Loya Jirga were prepared to vote for Zahir Shah and block the US-backed Hamid Karzai.[16] While he was prepared to become head of state he made it known that it would not necessarily be as monarch: "I will accept the responsibility of head of state if that is what the Loya Jirga demands of me, but I have no intention to restore the monarchy. I do not care about the title of king. The people call me Baba and I prefer this title."[14] He was given the ceremonial title "Father of the Nation" in the current Constitution of Afghanistan[17] symbolizing his role in Afghanistan's history as a nonpolitical symbol of national unity. The title of the 'Father of the Nation' dissolved with his death.[18]

So, what if instead of Hamid Karzai, the US decided to back the restoration of the monarchy and thus have Mohammed Zahir Shah return to his throne? How would Afghanistan be different, compared with OTL?

Remember that, since Mohammed Zahir Shah would probably die as in OTL in 2004 (starting with complaints of an intestinal problem, and spiralling from there), so that would mean that upon his death, his son Ahmad Shah Khan would become King, followed by his son Mohammed Zahir Khan.
 
Probably not that different, though not as bad as it is now, especially now that you have a leader that's not a glorified warlord, with support from good parts of civil society. So perhaps an Afghanistan that is still almost hopelessly dirt poor (except for the mining magnates, but they're in a minority), but with less Taliban interference, as you have a legitimate alternative to the Taliban.
 
Depends. If Iraq is butterflied, then maybe bringing back the monarchy plus increased American and NATO support to the fledging Afghan government plus the money could make Afghanistan a marginally better place.
 

Cook

Banned
Mohammed Zahir Shah would probably have been seen as an Afghan version of Charles II’s Restoration of the Monarchy after the grim years of Oliver Cromwell, complete with the beheadings but minus all the illegitimate children running around.

He’d have been able to play to Afghan nostalgia to an age of peace that very few of them would actually be old enough to remember. And as a traditional leader he’d have had a good chance of winning over wavering tribal elements that are only fighting with the Taliban because of the foreigners in their country.

The problem would be the political impact of the US supporting him. It’s a hard sell to say you are fighting for democracy and then return an old King to his throne. Comparisons would be made to the Shah of Iran.

Bush and the Neo-Cons would be condemned as even more reactionary than IOTL.
 
Mohammed Zahir Shah would probably have been seen as an Afghan version of Charles II’s Restoration of the Monarchy after the grim years of Oliver Cromwell, complete with the beheadings but minus all the illegitimate children running around.

He’d have been able to play to Afghan nostalgia to an age of peace that very few of them would actually be old enough to remember. And as a traditional leader he’d have had a good chance of winning over wavering tribal elements that are only fighting with the Taliban because of the foreigners in their country.

The problem would be the political impact of the US supporting him. It’s a hard sell to say you are fighting for democracy and then return an old King to his throne. Comparisons would be made to the Shah of Iran.

Bush and the Neo-Cons would be condemned as even more reactionary than IOTL.

Well, given the existence of the Loya Jirga, it would likely be a constitutional monarchy, a rough approximation to Britain or Japan, which are not reactionary, and are certainly more or less democratic.
 

Thande

Donor
The problem would be the political impact of the US supporting him. It’s a hard sell to say you are fighting for democracy and then return an old King to his throne. Comparisons would be made to the Shah of Iran.

Bush and the Neo-Cons would be condemned as even more reactionary than IOTL.

I thought about that, but Bush was never apologetic in the slightest over his close relationship with the Saudi royals, who run a regime far more repressive and absolutist than this hypothetical Afghan restoration.
 

Cook

Banned
Well, given the existence of the Loya Jirga, it would likely be a constitutional monarchy, a rough approximation to Britain or Japan, which are not reactionary, and are certainly more or less democratic.

Yes, but selling it is the problem.

“Bush restores King”, “Rumsfeld’s pet Monarch” etc.

“American boys dying to prop up foreign king”
 
Yes, but selling it is the problem.

“Bush restores King”, “Rumsfeld’s pet Monarch” etc.

“American boys dying to prop up foreign king”

I suppose... I guess America can be more radical that it thinks itself... but don't Americans also have some affection for royalty, or do they have to be white to get any notice, I wonder?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I suppose... I guess America can be more radical that it thinks itself... but don't Americans also have some affection for royalty, or do they have to be white to get any notice, I wonder?

Finding them to be a quaint and fascinating thing doesn't mean there's a desire to prop kings up or be ruled by them.
 
Mohammed Zahir Shah would probably have been seen as an Afghan version of Charles II’s Restoration of the Monarchy after the grim years of Oliver Cromwell, complete with the beheadings but minus all the illegitimate children running around.

He’d have been able to play to Afghan nostalgia to an age of peace that very few of them would actually be old enough to remember. And as a traditional leader he’d have had a good chance of winning over wavering tribal elements that are only fighting with the Taliban because of the foreigners in their country.

The problem would be the political impact of the US supporting him. It’s a hard sell to say you are fighting for democracy and then return an old King to his throne. Comparisons would be made to the Shah of Iran.

Bush and the Neo-Cons would be condemned as even more reactionary than IOTL.

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I think neoconservative ideology might have some problems propping up a monarch too. Given the whole idea was "create stable democracies which will spread democracy by showing these backwards people how good democracy is."
 
That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I think neoconservative ideology might have some problems propping up a monarch too. Given the whole idea was "create stable democracies which will spread democracy by showing these backwards people how good democracy is."

OTOH, it's completely possible to have a constitutional monarchy, with elections and all that good stuff. They'yr propping up Zahir Shah, not Nicholas II.
 
Top