Progressive Bankruptcy on Afghanistan

by Taylor Marsh

It begins in Iran, where a cleric was caught with his pants down. Daily Beast has the story, which got me thinking about the plight of women in that corner of the world, but specifically in Afghanistan, especially since some leading progressives, Steve Clemons and Rachel Maddow in this instance, seem willing to relegate them to the Taliban and tunnels, with their flippant judgment that going into Afghanistan is simply not worth the fight. Thankfully, President-elect Obama doesn't agree. But first things first:

The cleric was apparently a member of the government-run Friday Prayers Committee in Hamadan province. Semi-official news sites tried to downplay the impact of the video, which leaked out of an Intelligence Ministry investigation. But their reports did acknowledge that the man involved was a married cleric, and that the video depicts the consummation of an unlawful affair. [...]

We all know what would happen if this video was of a woman committing adultery, now don't we.

Segue to something that was said on Rachel Maddow's show this week during an interview with Steve Clemons. The conversation was about Afghanistan and what would happen if we walked away, with Clemons quoting Dana Priest from an online chat. Saying that we'd simply have to smuggle the women out when it got bad.

"... (Dana Priest) is increasingly of the view that we're going to probably have to come to terms with the Taliban and just find a way to tunnel out women, because it will be an awful reality for them, otherwise this will be a never ending war ..." - Steve Clemons

Coming to terms with the Taliban is a reality, agreed. But count me out on treating Afghan women as collateral damage that we will try to smuggle out via tunnels. I mean, really.

Progressives are getting quite flippant about the Afghanistan quagmire and how we shouldn't escalate at all in that country, seemingly content to smuggle women out instead of trying to work in selected areas/cities to help Afghans restore security. Of course, Afghanistan cannot be seen in a vacuum, with the Af-Pak challenge joined, which is why Afghanistan remains important. Anyway, I have no answer on this one, but find the type of dialogue I heard between Maddow and Clemons anything but enlightened, even considering he was quoting Dana Priest. I'm not in favor of escalating in Afghanistan like Iraq, mainly because Afghans have never had a central government, so it won't work. I also have the utmost respect for Steve Clemons, who is a consummate expert on foreign policy, and someone I know and continues to teach me every day. I'm also certainly not one of the "elitist" or "traditional" viewpoints he talks about in the interview either. But the notion that we allow another human rights disaster to unfold for women in Afghanistan, until we can smuggle them out, a suggestion being regurgitated by respected progressives, is unconscionable to me.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as first lady, human rights are women's rights. Countries that disavow women's rights also have fewer democratic values and freedoms. Maybe progressives against action in Afghanistan should consider looking at a broader picture in Afghanistan, one that includes women's rights, but also the rights of young girls to go to school, and whether that is a long term strategic interest to the U.S., not some luxury for which we can't afford to fight. Are we really willing to allow Afghanistan to go back to the days before 9/11, shrugging off what women and girls will suffer as a result? This is the progressive line on Afghanistan? No troops in Afghanistan; deal with the Taliban, and we'll just smuggle the women out when things get bad? Unacceptable foreign policy thinking in the 21st century. Women's rights are human rights.

President-elect Obama is right to be turning his attention and military focus to Afghanistan, which is really a broader subject to include Af-Pak, with Pakistan the number one priority in the region. The policy won't be easy to implement, especially with progressives losing their moral courage, but leaving the women and girls of Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and tunnels should not be U.S. policy under President Obama.

Comments

[Ergon]

For some peculiar reason Afghan wedding parties seem to get attacked quite regularly by US helicopters. So when Americans kill women that's ok, we're saving them?

[Snuffleupagus]

How best to do good in Afghanistan? An important question that should allow for more than....

A) Double our troops and try to make it better

B) Acknowledge that we are failing and come home.

We can choose the Obama way which is a continuation of the Bush way with his same war czar, if we care about women.
Or we can bring our troops home....this makes us silly naive progressives with good intentions who actually hurt women.

This is one nasty little catch-22. It is as if America can only wage war or go home.
We can do so much more if we reject this argument.

An acre of beans or carrots could pay the same money as an acre of opium poppies if we subsidized farmers.
Books and schools for women and children. Is it possible that anyone other than our Marines and Blackwater could deliver on this? Could they do it cheaper?
Involve some of the countries in the region in reconstruction, allow them to reap some of the benefits of roads jobs and food. Unlike building US bases in Iraq with slaves from India, sub contracted by Haliburton, we could actually employ locals at fair wages. And do it cheaper.

There is so much that can be done to help the ravaged country of Afghanistan, and I want us to do it.
I completely reject the idea that it can only be done by our military industrial complex.

[ThePeacemakers]

Afghanistan is not really a country anymore...just a wasteland. Other countries in the Mid East need to incorporate it...maybe Pakistan? Who cares? They need a government that understands their way of life - not a propped up leader the US puts in to make them more amendable to "our way" of life.
"Our way" of life needs a lot of work - even if we don't treat women quite as badly.

[texanna]

We can no more enforce our version of women's rights on others than we can enforce our version of a suitable form of government on them. We cannot afford, literally do not have the funds, to step out of the Iraqi quagmire and into the Afghani quagmire. While Clemmons and Maddow seemed a bit flippant about the plight of women under Talibani rule, we have to be realistic about the problem. There are a lot of places around the globe where women are treated in the most vile, sub-human manner and we should be making an effort to change that. But we're going to have to change that reality with efforts other than military, which I'm pretty sure is what Maddow and Clemmons were trying to say - however, poorly they may have been in saying it.

[JulieSA]

The Taliban are against any education for females, and the decree less medical care for females than for males. That is violation of human rights, a whole class of people denied a fundamental right in the UN declaration of human rights.

We can't be everywhere and fix everything, but freeing the women of Afghanistan is surely as worthy a cause as Darfur and the other "progressive" causes. It's estimated that the increased access to medical care and education since we invaded has saved many thousands of women's and babies' lives, although there is much more to be done.

[Snuffleupagus]

Lovely sentiment Julie, I wish it were true.

Reality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/womens-lives-worse-than-ever-786752.html

[randyjet]

The Soviets had the same problem in Muslim areas when they took power. They solved the problem rather quickly. I suggest we do the same thing.

[WorkingClass]

The United States does not dispatch imperial troops to come to the aid of women in distress. Maybe it should but it does not and will not.

[vietveter]

I don’t see America running to the aid of the women of Saudi Arabia. That would be a good place to start. All groups of people, good and bad, need funding. Money is not the root of all evil but it sure is an important part. Why not cut the funding? Why not go after it at the source?

If we really, I mean really want to change the way women are treated in Afghanistan.
CHANGE THE WAY THEY ARE TREATED BY THE SAUDIS!

[JulieSA]

The world needs Saudi oil, and as long as we depend on it, they'll be getting money for it. That's their funding, and we can't cut it off.

The Saudis can be reasoned with over time. They're horrible, but at least their women get to go to school and to the doctor, unlike women under the Taliban. King Abdullah allowed some voting by women in some village elections at our urging. Hopefully, that will be expanded over time. The Taliban harbored Bin Laden, and forbade all education and medical care from females.

[mgloraine]

The US is not the only country engaged in Afghanistan, and women's rights / human rights is not exclusively an American concern. Any discussions with the Taliban should include representation from all NATO members in addition to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US. Dealing with the Taliban would legitimize them somewhat in the international arena, so the best approach may be to initiate a very public conversation regarding the conditions required of the Taliban by all of the nations involved. If Afghanistan and Pakistan both mandate equal rights for women, the Taliban will have to concede or have nowhere to stand.

Moderate muslim states in the region would back the maneuver as a tactic against the Taliban, as long as the status of women in their own country were not scrutinized too closely. If the moderates were to proclaim their agreement with the principle of equality for women, albeit for reasons of political expediency, it would be more difficult for them to oppress or short-change women in the future without political repercussions both domestically and internationally.

[myskylark]

I wish it were possible for us to commit large forces to Afghanistan so that we could effect a change in that country horrible record on human rights. The problem is that we really cannot effect change even with (actually, especially with) military intervention. In the years since, with our aid, the Afghans expelled the Russians, the West has ignored them. Even now, there has been no real effort made to bring economic improvements to Afghanistan. No Western power has been able to defeat the Taliban and the War Lords militarily yet. Also, our army is sadly diminished by the criminal war in Iraq. Where are the forces and equipment to come from to undertake another military engagement when we don't have the forces or the money necessary
to do so? The tragedy of women in Afghanistan and in so much of the Muslim world is heartbreaking. If there's a way to move effectively to change those conditions, let's do it. I just don't think that military action is an option.