Helping Afghan Women and Girls

As the coalition I'm working with--Get Afghanistan Right--continues to make the case that the Obama administration would be wise to rethink its plan to escalate militarily in Afghanistan, I've tried to engage the arguments made by some feminists and human rights groups who believe that such an escalation is necessary to protect Afghani women and girls. I share their horror when I read stories like this one by New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describing an acid attack against girls and women--students and their teachers--at the Mirwais School for Girls. But how will escalation or increased US troop presence improve their security or make their lives better?

I thought it would be important to speak with someone who has experience working on the ground with Afghan women's organizations. Kavita Ramdas is President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women. For 15 years she has worked with groups like the Afghan Institute for Learning--which serves about 350,000 women and children in their schools, health care centers, and human rights programs.

This is what Kavita said:

We're hearing from groups we've worked with for over a 15 year period now, on the ground inside Afghanistan and with Afghan women's groups and Pakistan as well.

First, I think it's remarkable that our approach to foreign policy --not just for the last eight years, but with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan in general over the last thirty years--has been almost entirely military focused. There hasn't been any willingness to take a cold hard look at how effective or ineffective that strategy has been in whether or not it has helped stabilize the country. And there has been much less attention paid to whether this militaristic approach has done anything positive for the women of Afghanistan. It's doubtful whether America's foreign policy has ever had the welfare of Afghan women at heart. As many Afghani women have said to us, 'You know, you didn't even think about us 25 years ago,' and then all of a sudden post 9-11, we're sending troops to Afghanistan and ostensibly we're very concerned about women. But there's very little willingness to really look at the implications of a military strategy on women's security. It is very important to begin with the following question: If the strategies that we used up to this point have not succeeded in ensuring the safety and well being of women and girls, what makes us think that increased militarization with 30,000 additional US troops is somehow going to improve the situation and security of women in Afghanistan?

The second question is, what has been the role of the existing troops in Afghanistan with regard to the situation and the security of women? In general, what happens when regions become highly militarized, and when there are "peace-keeping forces," militias, as well as foreign troops--which is NATO and the United States, primarily? In most parts of the world, highly militarized societies in almost every instance lead to bad results for women. The security of women is not improved and in many instances it actually becomes worse.

What do I mean by that? Take for example Afghanistan. In 2003, almost every woman's group I met with in Afghanistan, which was already a few years after the initial invasion, said that although they were very grateful for the fact that the Taliban was gone, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan in general and in Kabul in particular had highly increased the incidence of both prostitution as well as trafficking-- it's not one in the same thing. Prostitution in the sense of--being something "voluntary" because very poor women and girls would come down, particularly from the countryside where villages are in a state of absolute dire impoverishment...there's very little to eat, very little production...I talked to so many women and women's organizations who've said, young girls sleep with a soldier in Kabul for $40, $50, which is more than their mothers could make as a teacher in a full month. That's the incidence of prostitution as a function of--people call it in the women's movement "survival sex." The trading of sex for food on a survival basis.

Then there is also trafficking which actually also increases because when there are military settlements, camps, barracks...criminal elements start bringing in women--forcibly or coercing them under other guises. Girls--in this case mainly from the Uzbek and Hazara tribes, as well as a number of Chinese girls in Kabul--are actually trafficked in to fill the "needs" of foreign troops. Very few Afghans can afford to actually pay for these kinds of services, so you have a situation where the main customers are the military troops.

Then you put on top of this the fact that there are all kinds of other armed militias and gangs moving around freely in the countryside because the more foreign troops there are, the more resistance there is going to be from indigenous forces--whether it's the Taliban, different kinds of mujahideen, different groups of ethnic tribal factions. Throughout history, whenever foreign troops are present, there will be resistance against those foreign troops in one way or another.

Those militias and militant groups are also armed, roaming and wandering, going randomly into villages, and targeting women as they please by sexually assaulting and raping. As for the incidents that you've been hearing about--whether it was the girls who got acid splashed on their faces that you read about in The New York Times-- these incidents have been going on for the last four or five years across the country. Girls going to school and teachers have been attacked, and under very various pretexts. Either the Taliban, mujahideen or various factions are attacking them for being "morally loose" or "promiscuous." These people are armed--and because war tends to infuse large amounts of testosterone into large groups of men, living and wandering around together--this does not create the safest of environments for girls in villages, for schoolteachers, for women of any kind--women working in the fields. And so, what we've been hearing reports of are random sexual attacks on women in villages, on girls walking to school, on teachers or other women who are working. So, attacks on women have increased, for all sorts of reasons--the most common one that we hear in the West is "Oh, these Islamic fundamentalists don't want women to work or study and so they're attacking them." But there are plenty of people who don't really care whether it's about Islam or not, they're just interested in showing their power by sexually abusing women.

One has to be very clear-eyed about why we are sending 30,000 troops. Quite frankly from a US government perspective, it's because we believe that the "bad guys"--Al Qaeda--are running riot in Afghanistan and somehow that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the extremists in Pakistan are all one in the same, and they're all collectively bad guys, so we need to go fight them.

I wish we could say to President Obama, "Yes Afghanistan needs troops--but it needs troops of doctors, troops of teachers, troops of Peace Corps volunteers, and troops of farmers to go and replant the fruit orchards. For anyone who grew up in India or Pakistan, Afghanistan was the place where you bought the best, incredible dried fruit in the world. Those orchards have been completely devastated. Afghanistan was not a country that just grew poppy for opium sales. It was a country that was forced into selling opium because it had nothing else.

So, we need a different kind of troop deployment in Afghanistan, we need a massive deployment of humanitarian troops. We need to invest in Afghanistan's economic infrastructure, in its agriculture. These are villages where people are literally not able to piece together anything that comes close to a subsistence living. Afghanistan is a country in which the maternal mortality rate is the second highest in the world after Sierra Leone. Why are we not sending in teams of doctors and midwives to train local women? We're not talking about a German Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Instead, we're talking about--without a very clearly defined "enemy"--sending in 30,000 troops to look for this shadowy enemy and we're not even clear about what that enemy represents. Afghanistan has a very long and very proud history of having thrown out every foreign invader that was ever unfortunate enough to try to subdue them. Yet every political leader suffers from this historical amnesia, and seems to lack the willingness to look at the core structures within Afghanistan society. Afghanistan is a very non-centralized nation of very unique and independent small groups and clans that have never had a formally centralized government.

Returning to this argument that sending in troops is being done because, "we have to save the women," is exactly what George Bush cynically did in his use of that as a kind of justification. I think the Obama Administration has to be very, very careful not to fall into this trap. Yes, there is an incredible need to make a difference in Afghanistan, but more military presence is not the solution. More presence, yes. More dialogue, yes. More engagement with both Pakistan and Afghan leaders and different factions, yes. More genuine investment in the long-term economic growth and development in Afghanistan, absolutely. But none of that is what is being promised. What is being promised is 30,000 US troops and the accompanying support systems, including the Halliburton companies that will supply, feed and look after them.

This then creates another effect which is very important to remember. You then have a group of people, who are foreigners, who do not speak or understand your language or your culture, who are allegedly there fighting the bad guys, who are members of your own people. These "outsiders" feel like occupiers - they live in relative comfort with access to food -all the trappings of what looks like a luxurious life. When the vast majority of that population is living on less than $1 a day. This creates a huge amount of resentment. You walk around any of these American camps in Iraq or Afghanistan -- huge areas of land which are cordoned off--and there are SUVs and guys full of body armor and machine guns. Inside it's like a little America with the PX, hamburgers, and TV for the troops to watch whatever they want. Meanwhile, outside, Afghan children on the street are still playing with cluster bombs that were dropped by the American army in 2001--they risk being blown up, and losing their sight, their limbs, their fingers.

I think about how this country has been systematically denuded of its core resources--both human capital and natural capital, and it makes me grieve. Kabul used to be a place with incredible trees. Everybody who lives there now will tell you all the trees have gone. What Afghanistan needs is truly a massive Marshall Plan. No one is talking about that. I don't see anyone holding this government of Hamid Karzai accountable for what is absolutely endemic corruption. You talk to any women's groups and they will tell you that in order to go to a meeting in any ministry, just to get into the door, you have to pay a bribe. To go to the 1st floor you have to pay a bribe, to get into the room you have to pay a bribe. It is at a level of corruption that is truly extraordinary.... Do we want a situation in which the Afghani people will actually welcome the return of the Taliban because it will finally usher in some kind of law and order?

We have to be very careful in making these assumptions. Another question I would ask is to what degree has there been any consultation with any aspects or representatives of Afghan civil society, i.e. women's rights organizations, human rights organizations on the ground in Afghanistan, or with teachers, doctors, professionals about what is needed in Afghanistan today? Or, with others who have any sense of whether the presence of these additional foreign troops will simply serve to isolate someone who is already seen as a puppet of the Americans? Or will it give him any credibility? I doubt it will give him any credibility. And then what?

What would you say to those who say, "I agree with you that we need humanitarian troops -- troops of doctors, troops of midwives, etc. But we can't do that until there's more security and the only way to get more security is to send more troops"?

I actually think that is just a bogus argument. This is not to say that these places aren't dangerous or difficult--but to Third World ears it sounds like the argument of Westerners who don't want to put their own lives at risk. When I went to Kabul in 2003, India had sent doctors, nurses, buses--and it was really interesting to see the difference amongst common Afghans, how they saw where US money had gone and where they saw Indian money had gone. Indian development aid was seen in the fleet of over 150 Tata buses--Tata is a company that manufactures buses and cars in India--over 100 buses had been sent over land through Pakistan. Pakistan actually allowed safe passage of those buses. And they were the buses that actually connected cities to each other. And every day Afghans took those buses to go to work, they used them to get around. And they had a sign--[the buses] just said Tata --and everyone knew those buses were from India. Kabul hospital has about 60 or 70 Indian doctors and nurses who were sent by the Indian government and they are assigned over there. Now, is it just that "Third World" peoples' lives are less important so it doesn't matter, so we can send them into insecure situations? I bet you if you asked the Cuban government to send doctors to Afghanistan, they would. I'm not sure the American government would like to have them there but I'm sure they would go. I think saying "we have to wait until it's secure and we can't send anybody", it's a very weak argument. And, of course, you don't just send anyone, either troops of soldiers or troops of humanitarian workers without asking what local people want and what their priorities are. You sit down, like in 2002 when different groups came together to write a constitution. You see what is and isn't working in Afghanistan. Bring all the warring factions together--at least ask--which hasn't even been tried!

We're just accepting that the way to get security is with the presence of more guns. If I have more guns than you then that makes me secure. It actually doesn't. It doesn't make us more secure. Because as soon as the other person gets more guns he's going to come and try to take you out any way. We know this from gang warfare. This is how gangs operate in urban centers of the United States. Having more weapons and more troops doesn't necessarily make you more secure.

What makes you secure is feeling that you have some legitimacy and some credibility amongst people in the communities where you live. Right now I don't think the Americans have a shred of that credibility. The US did have that credibility right after the fall of Taliban. Things had gotten so bad that even though people knew that the US came out of selfish reasons post 9-11, they were still willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. And at that point the US moved on to Iraq--instead of investing in the rebuilding of Afghanistan--which really it owed Afghanistan after the 35 years of misery that it put Afghanistan through by "fighting a proxy war against the Russians via Afghans." We didn't commit any troops in that last hot war of the cold war era. No Americans were killed fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. But they certainly seeded a global jihad. US funds and Saudi funds supported a military dictatorship in Pakistan and put people like Osama Bin Laden and others through the ISI training camps, where they learned to fight the "godless communists". Now they have turned their sights on their erstwhile funders--the US and its allies are now the infidels.

Although it does not seem like it, I believe that there are real alternative options that could be considered by President Obama and this new administration. Given all the goodwill in the world towards Obama right now, there is a little window of opportunity, in which I believe other nations would give the new administration the benefit of the doubt. If they said, "Let's sit down with Pakistan and Afghanistan; and Iran has to be part of that conversation too and talk about what we can do to try to improve the situation.

What are the priorities of the people of Afghanistan? What do they most need at this time?"

I'm quite sure that the people of Afghanistan would not say that what we most need is 30,000 American troops eating food enough to feed each of our families ten times over.

Comments (47)

1. "What would you say to those who say, "I agree with you that we need humanitarian troops -- troops of doctors, troops of midwives, etc. But we can't do that until there's more security and the only way to get more security is to send more troops"?"

   Actually, my question would be...what if we pull-out of Afghanistan from a position of weakness to the Taliban and the warlords...the Taliban re-take the country...and KICK OUT the "humanitarian troops"?

   Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 3:43pm

2. Another very fine post, KvH, on a topic of great concern.

   I'd like to link to the latest TruthDig feature by Chris Hedges on another topic of great importance:

   The daily bleeding of thousands of jobs will soon turn our economic crisis into a political crisis. The street protests, strikes and riots that have rattled France, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Iceland will descend on us. It is only a matter of time. And not much time. When things start to go sour, when Barack Obama is exposed as a mortal waving a sword at a tidal wave, the United States could plunge into a long period of precarious social instability.

   At no period in American history has our democracy been in such peril or has the possibility of totalitarianism been as real. Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. And poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed.

   How will we cope with our decline? Will we cling to the absurd dreams of a superpower and a glorious tomorrow or will we responsibly face our stark new limitations? Will we heed those who are sober and rational, those who speak of a new simplicity and humility, or will we follow the demagogues and charlatans who rise up out of the slime in moments of crisis to offer fantastic visions? Will we radically transform our system to one that protects the ordinary citizen and fosters the common good, that defies the corporate state, or will we employ the brutality and

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 3:51pm

3. technology of our internal security and surveillance apparatus to crush all dissent? We won't have to wait long to find out.

   There are a few isolated individuals who saw it coming. The political philosophers Sheldon S. Wolin, John Ralston Saul and Andrew Bacevich, as well as writers such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, David Korten and Naomi Klein, along with activists such as Bill McKibben and Ralph Nader, rang the alarm bells. They were largely ignored or ridiculed. Our corporate media and corporate universities proved, when we needed them most, intellectually and morally useless.

   Wolin, who taught political philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley and at Princeton, in his book "Democracy Incorporated" uses the phrase inverted totalitarianism to describe our system of power. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism and the Constitution while cynically manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens, but they must raise staggering amounts of corporate funds to compete. They are beholden to armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington or state capitals who write the legislation. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion or diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip.....

   "I keep asking why and how and when this country became so conservative," he went on. "This country once prided itself on its experimentation and flexibility. It has become rigid.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 3:51pm

4. It is probably the most conservative of all the advanced countries."

   The American left, he said, has crumbled. It sold out to a bankrupt Democratic Party, abandoned the working class and has no ability to organize. Unions are a spent force. The universities are mills for corporate employees. The press churns out info-entertainment or fatuous pundits. The left, he said, no longer has the capacity to be a counterweight to the corporate state. He said that if an extreme right gains momentum there will probably be very little organized resistance.

   "The left is amorphous," he said. "I despair over the left. Left parties may be small in number in Europe but they are a coherent organization that keeps going. Here, except for Nader's efforts, we don't have that. We have a few voices here, a magazine there, and that's about it. It goes nowhere."

   End quote.

   The whole thing:

   www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21889.htm

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 3:51pm

5. Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 3:51pm

   How "coherent" has Ralph Nader been?

   In 1996 and 2000, he ran as a Green...when he tired of them, he ran as an Indy. He does almost nothing to build up a third party, but merely makes his quixotic, even ego-driven runs for President, siphoning away from other actual left-wing parties, leaving them weaker and looking more fringe than they did before.

   He garners all the Media attention (demands it in fact) and gets supported by the Republicans for his spoiler effect.

   If you needed to CREATE a better way to minimalize or hurt left-wing political parties...you couldn't do better than Nader.

   Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 4:04pm

6. long...

   but good.

   bless you, KVH, for being a kind, caring, feminist and...

   a realist.

   its a bitter combo, is it not? but once we start saying we gotta "fix all the problems" as an excuse to intervene militarily...

   thats just a bottomless pit straight to bottomless hell. black holes of baghdad everywhere...tokens of our great compassion!!!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2009 @ 4:08pm

7. kick out the taliban -- women haters.

   put in the northern alliance -- women haters.

   progress.

   bring back the soviets.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 4:11pm

8. bring back the soviets.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   you really hate them soviets, don't you?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2009 @ 4:12pm

9. Maskot,

   The Hedges article is not about Nader, but the political and economic state of the nation.

   In any case, whatever one's opinion of Ralph Nader, his voice --among so many intelligent voices on the left, generally-- is one that fully deserves to be heard loudly and clearly in the American discourse. That these powerful, and indeed useful, voices are so rarely heard in our so called mainstream media is but one more significant symptom of the dreadful disease that afflicts us.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 4:14pm

10. Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i agree that nader is a smarty and deserves to be heard as well as many others.

    but what to do? the anointed one has been sent earthward by a worried heaven and who's got time for greenies or libbys or socialists or anarcho sydicalists? the king is a dem and the dems are in charge and when its all said and done we will have inched a few steps closer to "socialism" and...

    THANK GOD!

    jeez, this thirty year satano-aynrando reactionary insanity is OVER and now we can...

    INSTITUTE A FEW COMMON SENSE PROGRAMS THAT WE NEED WHICH HAPPEN TO FALL UNDER THAT AWFUL, HORRIBLE, BUGABOO SHIBOLETH WORD...SOCIALISM...

    and the dems will do it. they probably wont do it as much as nader nor kucinich want, but...

    so?

    those guys aint getting it done AT ALL.

    but sure - if you want more non dem power...do something to make it happen. i think greenies could stand a chance at getting more local elections, for example, of FORMING A BLOCK IN THE DEM PARTY...

    more important than anything is theformation of quasi-political, mainly net based, interest groups, like move on...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2009 @ 4:27pm

11. Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/02/2009 @ 4:14pm

    KOOL, it's not on-topic, so why should I be?

    And again, what has Nader DONE with his "powerful voice"? How many Green Party Congressional candidates has he campaigned for...total?

    And how much of it is HIS quadro-annual self-promotion...and as of late, realized that by actual left-wing parties that they want little to do with him?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

12. <i>Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 3:43pm </i>

    I just want to point that no one has yet responded to this, and it's kind of devastating. These "humanitarian troops" are what Kavita Ramdas' entire position relies on, and Mask neatly undercuts the entire thing with one little stroke. Humanitarian troops can't do anything if they get kicked out. You need to make sure that doesn't happen, and if the Taliban are the only ones with the guns...good luck.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/02/2009 @ 4:49pm

13. Makes one wonder what Afghanistan would be like today if the communists had prevailed. A secular country protective women's rights?

    'Ratebzad wrote the famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country .... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."[50]

    The majority of people in the cities including Kabul either welcomed or were ambivalent to these policies. However, the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with religiously conservative Afghans in the villages and the countryside, who favoured traditionalist 'Islamic' restrictions on women's rights and in daily life.

    The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter) began to covertly fund forces ranged against the pro-Soviet government, although warned that this might prompt a Soviet intervention, (according to National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski).[51] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology.'

    Source: Wikipedia

    While we are supposedly the champion of human rights, our hand in their suppression is ever present.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/02/2009 @ 5:04pm

14. Humanitarian troops can't do anything if they get kicked out. You need to make sure that doesn't happen, and if the Taliban are the only ones with the guns...good luck.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/02/2009 @ 4:49pm

    Thrawn, I hate to admit it, but you almost make some sense here. But, Katrina has a good point that you are missing. We are making the situation worse, not better.

    The Taliban basically would like to go back in a time machine where things are well, like they are today in Afghanistan. The best thing we could do for the women there is get them the hell out of there and let these thugs kill each other. We would accomplish two goals in doing this. 1) We'd remove innocent victims from a war they had nothing to do with in the first place. 2) Remove the possibilities of the Taliban to create future nutcases.

    I know this would be practically impossible as would building a utopia in the middle of Afghanistan, but the present course we are on hasn't done crap with the exception of empowering the drug lords, two bit criminals, pimps and of course the helping the Taliban in recruiting extremist nutcases that appear to be large in numbers in that part of the world.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/02/2009 @ 5:10pm

15. While we are supposedly the champion of human rights, our hand in their suppression is ever present.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/02/2009 @ 5:04pm

    indeed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 6:43pm

16. There is no security in Afghanistan for anyone...its hostile and unforgiving in its terrain and the troops are sitting ducks. We could be here for another 10 years and we will win zippo, we should cut our losses and leave. The culture we keep trying to change will never happen, it's been there for many more years than America can even think about and if we think sending more troops in is the answer then I think it is a bad move. If Osama Bin Laden was killed tomorrow do we not think that there are many many more that will be ready to take his place and so the cycle goes on and on? The Iraq war was stupid and so is this one.

    Posted by Caj at 02/02/2009 @ 6:51pm

17. WOLF, CAJ, before I get pidgeon-holed on Afghanistan, let me be clear.....

    I want us out too and as fast as possible.

    No more than another 2 years, but based on IMMEDIATE negotiations with the Taliban and other parties from a position of strength. Not some neo-con dream of "winning the war"...but a negotiated peace with the Taliban, if they DO re-take the country, guarenteeing (under pain of embargo and sanction) basic human rights.

    AND bringing the Iranians back into it....remember (and none of the Right does) Iran was helping us when we first went into Afghanistan, because they hated the Taliban and their haven for Al Qaeda (Iran being Shiia, AQ being Sunni).

    But pipe-dreams of "humanitarian troops" who are sacrosanct to the Taliban is foolish naivete.

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2009 @ 8:34pm

18. <i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/02/2009 @ 5:10pm </i>

    You are right; removing all the women from the country would prevent the Taliban...or anyone else in the country...from having children ever.

    It seems like the right move is to have troops...but not do it the dumb way. The fact that our current policy isn't helping doesn't mean we shouldn't do it correctly. The Taliban is going to remain highly militarized no matter what because that's their most effective way of suppressing those who don't like them. That makes most of the harms Katrina cites are at best non-unique. No troops there means we can't do anything. Some troops there means we can do something, we just have to do it carefully and thoroughly.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/02/2009 @ 9:40pm

19. What are we supposed to be "doing" in/to Afghanistan exactly?

    Nothing good, that much is certain.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 02/02/2009 @ 10:41pm

20. An interesting article in the CSM...

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0203/p01s01-wosc.html

    Once again... the lack of prospering business infrastructure... much of which has been destroyed or neglected by war and it's preoccupations... have created a most unstable society that is essentially unable to provide for itself the basic necessities of life for its citizens.

    The Afghans are fluent in the languages of war... but one glance at their history provides ample causes for the lack of literacy in peace.

    We ought to help them prosper... and stay mostly out of their way. They probably need some 'alone time' to sort it all out... and a chaperone or two...

    That's the language Democracy speaks best.

    Posted by ttr at 02/02/2009 @ 10:55pm

21. If you've ever found yourself scratching your head over some occasion or other of intrusive religious proselytism, you ain't seen nothin yet in the way of shove-it-down-your throat fundamentalism until you've either read this piece or watched some gay sitcom on TV lately. And here you thought we were fighting the war in Afghanistan to overturn the Taliban that had been shielding Osama, the guy responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers? Wrong, we really sent a NATO force of several thousand over there to function as social engineers! And their cause: To shove Western feminist thinking down the throats of Moslems in the Middle East. YES INDEEDY, THESE FANATICAL SOCIAL CRAZIES ARE ACTUALLY ADVOCATING AN ESCALATION OF TROOP LEVELS AND VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTAN SOLELY TO BRING THAT RESULT ABOUT. Where's the clitorectomy knife when you need it? I think I'm feeling moved to do a few lobotomies.

    Posted by john lowell at 02/02/2009 @ 11:08pm

22. as much as it hurts to say it: we never, ever should have gone into afghanistan. i marched against it before it began, and i will march again if it continues.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/03/2009 @ 01:40am

23. Posted by john lowell at 02/02/2009 @ 11:08pm

    Sarcastic...or are you insane? (I'm open to either possibility).

    Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:07am

24. Get Afghanistan Right as per The National Organization of Woman (NOW).

    This is a military operation - not a humanitarian operation. The meddling of NGOs in a military operation muddies the water for our military commanders. The politicians of course want to score points as being proponents of noble imperialism, but from a military standpoint, our goal and focus should be as clear cut and concise as possible. The "limited warfare" or "contained conflict" nation building concept is a strategy for a prolonged (read never ending) entanglement that will cost the US more and more blood and treasure, and in the end, is futile, and a profound and manifest folly. Our goal should be doing what is good for America and Americans at this point. We must free ourselves first. The world will turn on its own, as it always has.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 09:33am

25. Posted by john lowell at 02/02/2009 @ 11:08pm

    If you read in the newspaper or watch the news and hear about a crazed serial killer running amok like "Dr. Giggles" and performing clitorectomies and lobtomies on feminists, I think we know where to look for the perp...

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 10:17am

26. Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 10:17am

    looney has some...issues.

    Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 12:13pm

27. <i>Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 09:33am</i>

    "Our goal should be doing what is good for America and Americans at this point...The world will turn on its own, as it always has."

    Unfortunately, this statement is simultaneously morally incoherent and empirically wrong.

    The moral incoherence is pretty straightforward. The only way that doing what's good for America and (by implication) not caring about the rest of the world makes moral sense is if you also reject the notion of intrinsic human dignity. That's problematic right at the outset since, arguably, the US' founding documents are ROOTED in the notion of intrinsic human dignity. If you accept the notion of intrinsic human dignity, then, you can't simultaneously buy into a philosophy that says "only Americans matter."

    The empirical problem is equally clear, and can be illustrated by two questions (though many others would fulfill the same purpose):

    1) Are there still oppressive dictatorships?

    2) Are people still starving?

    Since the answer to both of these questions is clearly yes, the claim that "the rest of the world is doing just fine on its own, thanks" is conceivable only if you cease exercising either vision or rational faculties. Now, that doesn't mean that for every problem there is, America is the solution. That smacks of a very dangerous egoism that ignores practical concerns, and I would certainly never defend that. Would I would say, though, is that pretending we don't have to care about the rest of the world because they're all just fine is a convenient excuse for blatant moral myopia.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 1:23pm

28. Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thrawn - I suggest you read The Founding Fathers a little closer. You are externalizing principles that were meant to protect human dignity at home rather than abroad.

    Further, our Founding Fathers would not be on board with your espoused neoconservative doctrine of nation building abroad, and they would be aghast at such actions such as subversion of our national security for the sake of Israel.

    I am sympathetic and empathetic to human rights, but not to the extent that they waste or sacrifice our rights, resources and country here at home. Don't forget our support for mujahadeen was based on the evils of the Soviet Union, and the strawman argument that we were fighting communism based on high minded ideals rather than the more obvious economic interests. The "human rights" of women in Afghanistan were of little concern back then - why?

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

29. The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union--the Cold War adversary of the United States--from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

    The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil. This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened. Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 2:02pm

30. continued................

    We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 2:03pm

31. 'It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.'

    Excerpt: George Washington's Farewell Address to United States - September 17, 1796

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 2:23pm

32. Send Gary Snyder and Ursula K Le Guin to fix the mess - they are possibly the wisest people in the us.

    Posted by mikecope at 02/03/2009 @ 2:38pm

33. "Thrawn - I suggest you read The Founding Fathers a little closer. You are externalizing principles that were meant to protect human dignity at home rather than abroad. "

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

    ::chuckle:: Actually you might want expand the list of your reading material a bit as well. As America was to be a beach head, for just such a purpose.

    Posted by V at 02/03/2009 @ 2:47pm

34. ::cough:: you might want "to..." etc.

    Posted by V at 02/03/2009 @ 3:09pm

35. ::chuckle:: Actually you might want expand the list of your reading material a bit as well. As America was to be a beach head, for just such a purpose.

    Posted by V at 02/03/2009 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    All ears V - give us your list...

    "Beach head" for protection of women's rights and dignity IN Afghanistan....manifest duty to interfere in foreign affairs of other countries to protect those rights, as envisioned by us, and our own sense of morality.

    can't wait - part of my schooling that I must have missed.

    Now when did we give women the right to vote in this country again? chuckle chuckle ............

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 4:03pm

36. <i>Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 1:49pm </i>

    Since I think we're in agreement that the empirical claim you cited ("the world will take care of itself") is clearly wrong, the interesting divide seems to be on the philosophy.

    The first thing that comes to mind is that there seems to be a conflation of law and morality. I would argue (though I doubt you would) that the legal meaning of the Constitution is defined by its original understanding. For that, the perspectives of the ratifiers are pretty important. But we're not talking about the legal powers of the government here, we're talking about what it ought to do. Moral questions are independent of what the Framers thought about them (though it's also worth noting that the dynamics they faced, including America's strength, were very different at the time).

    I'm arguing that if you affirm intrinsic human dignity, as THEY DID, it is impossible to say that only the people inside our boundaries matter. You might weigh their interests MORE, because of the government's specific obligation to the people who gave it power, but you can't say that the people outside our borders are of no moral significance whatsoever. We should weigh very careful any decision to go into another country where a severe problem (like starvation) exists, but to pretend that it is of no importance to us whatsoever is morally incoherent and (to inject a theologically-laden term) sinful.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 4:03pm

37. Since I think we're in agreement that the empirical claim you cited ("the world will take care of itself") is clearly wrong, the interesting divide seems to be on the philosophy.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The statement implies that time and events march on for everyone - and we are not the deciders over everyone's fate of this plaent. "Taking care of itself" is your qualitative judgment as to whether an empirical outcome is good or bad.

    I see nothing "morally incoherent" in owing allegiance to the well being of my country first. The Founding Fathers did not either.

    I have no problem with you going over to Afghanistan on your own dime to work for women's rights. In fact, I would applaud it. However, I do object to entanglement and interposition of women's rights issues in Afghanistan into our foreign policy goals to be implemented by military intervention. Since we are engaged militarily, the stated goal of containment of terrorists and to that end attempting to engage the help of a non-secular population, who may have a different view of women's right than your own, should be our focus. I do not feel it "just" that American blood should be let for sake of Afghan women's rights.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 4:55pm

38. I'm arguing that if you affirm intrinsic human dignity, as THEY DID, it is impossible to say that only the people inside our boundaries matter. You might weigh their interests MORE, because of the government's specific obligation to the people who gave it power, but you can't say that the people outside our borders are of no moral significance whatsoever. We should weigh very careful any decision to go into another country where a severe problem (like starvation) exists, but to pretend that it is of no importance to us whatsoever is morally incoherent and (to inject a theologically-laden term) sinful.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thrawn - did I say it was of no moral significance????????????????????????

    Sometimes it boils down to a choice, and that choice is which decision carries the greatest moral weight. The Founding Fathers did discuss human rights as intrinsic, but within the context of Government protecting its citizens....not the citizens of the world. You acknowledge this. This moral choice and dilema has repeated itself many times throughout history. That is why our Founding Fathers advised to thy own Country to be true.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 5:11pm

39. <i>Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 4:55pm </i>

    OK. First off, I just wanted to make I was clear what you meant by the "taking care of itself" part. I completely agree that we cannot be the deciders (did you pick that word deliberately? :D) of everyone's fate, or anything close to it. That kind of egomaniacal attitude is extraordinarily dangerous and almost always hideously destructive. So foreign policy requires a kind of humility. Additionally, the US government owes a particular obligation to the people it has sworn to protect and for whose sake it exists.

    At the same time, as a moral agent, the US cannot turn a blind eye to the vast amount of suffering that exists in the world.

    So how do we weigh those competing concerns? To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure. I'm certain that we have to, but the question of how much weight to put on each is a really difficult one. The one thing I'm saying, and it sounds like you agree, is that we cannot be guided exclusively by our own interests. It's not enough to say that the line stops at individual people helping people in the third world, any more than it is to say that individuals rather than the government should care about the poor in our own country. However limited the government's role should be, it is involved and implicated by necessity.

    So how does that weigh with our anti-terrorism objectives in Afghanistan. As you suggest, it's tricky. Though just dismissing the women of that country offhand strikes me as abhorrent, we can't ignore the importance of being able to fight terrorism/the Taliban as well. If we can do both, we certainly should.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 5:35pm

40. If we can do both, we certainly should.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/03/2009 @ 5:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thawn.....I think we have our hands full right now. Even if Taliban and al-Qaeda were to wave the white flag and lay down arms, there still would be resistance from other non-secular and other fundamentalist factions.

    "If we can"....in a perfect world.....I don't disagree with you, and I find the treatment of women there to be abhorent.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 7:47pm

41. Posted by Mask at 02/03/2009 @ 09:07am

    Might you be open to darting out on foot into fast moving traffic on I-90? I'd be open to your doing that. Hell, I'd even watch. Can we convince you? Can we pay you?

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/03/2009 @ 10:17am

    Can we pay you?

    Posted by john lowell at 02/03/2009 @ 11:09pm

42. and I find the treatment of women there to be abhorent. Posted by OneVote at 02/03/2009 @ 7:47pm

    indeed.

    yet it wasn't too long ago that the female folk in these parts were kinda in similar straits.

    no vote, no freedom, no school, no ankle showing.......

    it took considerable fortitude and generational perseverance for 'our' society to achieve today's "equality".

    and for "us" to say they are backward, i feel, is hypocritical, for 100 years is but a hiccup in terms of what's gone down humanwise.

    the best thing we can do is build hospitals and schools, roads and t.v. stations.

    (<i>that</i> is what has made hezbollah popular in lebanon, not some crazy speeches.)

    and that's about all you can do.

    i mean, what would the reaction be if troops of mullahs came over and shut down hollywood?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2009 @ 02:19am

43. the best thing we can do is build hospitals and schools, roads and t.v. stations.

    (<i>that</i> is what has made hezbollah popular in lebanon, not some crazy speeches.)

    and that's about all you can do.

    i mean, what would the reaction be if troops of mullahs came over and shut down hollywood?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2009 @ 02:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    'One of the most important activities pursued by insurgent guerrilla movements in their attempt to engender popular support is the establishment of civil action programs. By establishing medical clinics, schools, judicial courts, civilian self-protec- tion cadres, and local government councils, the guerrillas pro- ject a capacity to govern, demonstrate their solidarity with the plight of the average citizen and affirm their professed commit- ment to fairness and equality.'

    Che Guevara: Fundamentals of Guerrilla Warfare CSC 1988 SUBJECT AREA History ABSTRACT Author : Clark, Major Jackie K, U.S. Marine Corps Title: Che Guevara: Fundamentals of Guerrilla Warfare Short Title: Guevara

    Posted by OneVote at 02/04/2009 @ 09:59am

44. What if we had spent the $500 billion wasted on Iraq on Afghanistan? Think of what it might be like by now.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/04/2009 @ 4:03pm

45. Rather than play "what if," we can all do something right now; and Katrina can lead the way:

    Please call them Afghan or Afghans, not Afghani. (Even this spell checker underlines Afghani.) The currency of Afghanistan is the Afghani. Calling an Afghan citizen an Afghani is like calling an American citizen a "dollar."

    Posted by ericbagai at 02/05/2009 @ 4:49pm

46. This is very complicated. The thing to remember is that the man who that sprayed those girls with acid is just as self righteous about the action as an American may be about stopping it, and he is not alone. The total subjugation of women is the common rule there, and in many other countries. Also, western nations attempting to deliver law and order and a more enlightened set of social rules will foil the process, simply by being delivered by western nations. Should we make an honest effort to help them? Of course. To what degree? We may bring change there, but what about in neighboring countries? The Taliban is an organized crime syndicate temporarily unseated from power in the narco-mafia state they created. Their retreats are marked with murder, terror, and rape inside their own country. If they can eject a sadistic, intelligent, well equipped and brutal enemy like Russia they will prevail against any foe. They have the full support of radical elements in the region (whole governments looking the other way while arms and materials flow to them over their borders). The money and power are to easy to obtain. We would need to kill every last one of them, then the next group waiting in line to fill that power vacuum. There are many equally savage factions waiting in the wings. Is the U.S. the correct party to carry the human rights torch in an arab nation after years of gitmo, secret torture prisons, and having killed hundreds of thousands of arab men women and children in a war based on falsified intelligence? Not to mention our support for Israel. Probably not. That torch needs to be carried by a party that isn't already viewed as an enemy in almost every way, as we are.

    Posted by Milhaus at 02/06/2009 @ 12:49am

47. Pure Rubbish this pretext for our being in Afghanistan protecting women and their rights. Our purpose in Afghanistan, should and is, the elimination of the Taliban and the other assorted Islamic extremists who represent a legitimate threat to Western Civilization. All other concerns are side issues which should be dealt with by appropriate agencies. The main emphasis should be marshaling whatever forces are necessary to accomplish our goals including sending troops into the border areas of Pakistan if that government is unwilling or unable to control their own borders. I certainly haven't forgot 9-11. God Bless the USA and its allies.

    Posted by Mikebarr at 02/06/2009 @ 4:38pm