Afghan Women Have Not Been ‘Betrayed’

“… And we look forward, Mr. President, to the inclusion of women in all aspects of your reintegration and reconciliation efforts and in all aspects of Afghan society. We share your perspective that Afghanistan’s women are critical to the country’s reconstruction and stabilization and must be afforded opportunities to contribute fully. And I am delighted that we have two women ministers from Afghanistan with us today. And women’s issues will be considered in all of the discussions as well as in a separate session co-chaired by Ambassador Verveer and Minister of Social Affairs and Labor Afzali. [...]” – Sect. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Moving ancient, misogynistic mindsets is heavy lifting.

There are few people writing on the issue of Afghanistan women who long more to see this country and their situation up close more than myself. I continue to endeavor to make that manifest, but in the interim the research continues even if few definitive answers have been found. However, the one thing I know is that if the Afghan women have been “betrayed” it is not by the United States, NATO or any other group working diligently to aid Afghanistan’s fits, starts and thrusts to become part of the modern era.

The post at FP’s front page on Afghanistan women being “betrayed” is really remarkable, but not in a good way. Of course, the article is written by women to give it credibility. But it is nonetheless stunning that after all the money, blood and American political energy spent in Afghanistan we still get this whining.

Things haven’t changed fast enough, so what the hell’s the matter with you people, get with it, the authors of the piece, Valerie M. Hudson and Patricia Leidl, chide. Because after all, it’s a really simple task moving a tribal, unconnected land where drugs are king into the 19th century. Chop. Chop.

Ms. Hudson is from Brigham Young who has written about sexuality through “Bare Branches,” which evidently explores “The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population,” according to FP’s blurb on her. Leidl “an international communications consultant.” It makes some of the conclusions in the piece predictable.

The foundational bankruptcy of the article is to be found in this section.

And the ready availability of pornography on U.S. bases, coupled with seamier depictions of life in the West, not only damages prospects for gender equality but by extension, Western interests. As one young, well-educated 24-year-old Afghan male pointed out, “Your culture has no respect for women at all. Look at your pornography and the way you exploit women in ways that we can’t even imagine. Do you call that progress?” Added another Afghan USAID programmer working in Gardez, a man in his 50s who is the father of three girls, “It would be better for the coalition if they could figure out a way to limit this kind of material.”

We can do better — much better.

Oh, spare me.

The rant of the anti porn people, as if the absence of this form of machismo entertainment in the middle of a hideously dangerous war zone would change Afghanistan in the whirl it would take to whisk it away. The military is made of trained warriors, not armed metrosexual robots.

The Obama administration must instill in all military personnel and senior diplomats the necessity of fully protecting women’s rights. Key to that is educating them about how gender equality furthers Western interests and security.

They write this as if the American military turns on a dime, but also that the majority are not interested in this task. How fast do these women think the military culture changes? For that matter, who doesn’t know that gender equality promotes “Western interests and security,” the reality irony flying right over the heads of Hudson and Leidl.

Afghanistan doesn’t want Western civilization imposed on their culture.

Additionally, both women forget how the Taliban came to power in the first place. Ronald Reagan facilitated their rise beginning with his embrace of the mujahideen, which became the Taliban, that also included fundamentalist Pakistanis trained in madrassas, when the Soviets invaded. On the second observance of Afghanistan Day, back in 1983:

“… In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been killed, millions have lost their homes and their livelihood. Others have been subjected to torture and other atrocities, and many have been victims of the grisly chemical and biological weapons, including yellow rain — weapons the Soviets have used in violation of solemn international agreements. The consequences of this calamity extend to Pakistan, which has assumed the burden of sheltering and feeding nearly 3 million refugees. Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson — that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.” – Ronald Reagan

The Taliban continued to rise and took control of Kabul, Afghanistan during Bill Clinton’s presidency, while he was fighting off the right-wing assault on all fronts. They solidified their power while Congress had their eyes trained on Pres. Clinton’s zipper.

The problem isn’t that women in Afghanistan have been betrayed. It’s that in the end we can only do so much to aid them. It brings me back to the post I wrote excoriating Steve Clemons for repeating Dana Priest’s notion that in the end we may just have to tunnel the women out, hardly an answer either.

If Afghanistan remains moored in their tribal, misogynistic culture by choice, with women in Parliament only a front for the men who control their votes, what does anyone think we can do from the outside?

No matter what U.S. intentions are today, since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has been in a state of constant revolution. Afghan women are caught in the crossfire of a civilization grappling with their recent fundamentalist history and the modern era of information transparency, where gender barbarism can no longer be hidden.

The U.S. involvement in Afghanistan going back to the Reagan era (Carter funded it initially, but he was gone before anything manifested) and the slow changing reality of this country is why I’ve supported Pres. Obama from the start of his Afghan policy, which after Bush’s neglect was a moral imperative. However, I have always contended we’re nation building not fighting al Qaeda, which the White House mistakenly used as their campaign point. It’s unfortunate no one is being honest about this difference in mission, because it would open the field for a transparent debate, instead of the dishonest notion that terrorism is why we’re in Afghanistan. If the future, long term prospect of oil was broached, that too would be less disingenuous. However, instead we’re left with faulty excuses about our mission in Afghanistan, with the realities on the ground making many skeptical we will succeed, or in fact that we’re succeeding today.

It’s a complicated morass in which we find ourselves in Afghanistan, but it’s not like we just arrived. Simplifying it on the wings of shaky gender arguments of betrayal gets people riled up in order to engender support for our continued presence in a country where we may have finally done all we can do.

Share