Suddenly there’s a major concern across the country — from the mainstream media to every last rock-ribbed Republican — for the rights
of Afghan women and girls to be able to work, to go to school.
Even George W. Bush found his way back into the news cycle: “I think the
consequences are going to be unbelievably bad, and sad.”
This is why we’ve hemorrhaged trillions of dollars over the past two decades
engaging evil itself. This is why thousands of people had to die, millions had to be displaced. We were defending the rights of… people we could care less about.
There’s a paradox here, wrapped in lies and feel-good public relations.
The women of Afghanistan are indeed endangered
as the Taliban reclaims the country. Their loss of human rights should definitely be a matter of global concern — just as so much else that’s wrong across the planet should be, from poverty to war to climate catastrophe — but the American
military is deeply part of the problem, not the solution.
And the mainstream media, ever on the lookout for simple answers, seems unable to
This is what’s worth knowing: “The women of Afghanistan today are not the women of 26 years ago.”
The speaker is Taranum Sayeedi, one of about two dozen Afghan women protesting recently outside what had been, until the Taliban shut it down, the women’s
ministry in Kabul. It has been replaced by the Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which had been part of the government in the previous era of Taliban rule, in the 1990s, to which she was referring. Those were the days when religious
police arrested women on the street if they were not appropriately covered… or were listening to music.
The fact that women in Afghanistan
are standing up to this now is a burst of global hope. Let it be part of a global human rights movement. Movements for change emerge from the cultural core. Human rights are claimed and won. They are not a “gift” from the military. The 19th Amendment
wasn’t preceded by airstrikes on the nation’s capital.
So a crucial question that accompanies the Afghan women’s protests
is this: How can the rest of the world support it?
I don’t think the answer is more drone strikes.
But that seems to be the assumption that hangs in the air as former Bush administration personnel, including W himself, weigh in on the American withdrawal from Afghanistan 20 years into the
quagmire (a.k.a., “the mission”.)
The deep irony, as Belen Fernandez points out at Al Jazeera, is that Bush’s war on terror
“has thus far killed more than 47,000 civilians (including women) in Afghanistan alone and displaced millions.”
are hardly what you would call a basic military or political value. Most militarists, I would think, are adamantly against feminism of any sort — but they will grab any cause they can if it helps them define the enemy of the moment. Waging war begins
with waging public relations.
And the irony intensifies. The American military, which purports to be supporting women’s rights in Afghanistan,
could hardly be said to value women’s rights in its own ranks. Rape has long been a side effect of militarism and war, and any discussion — let alone investigation — of it has long been avoided.
“For decades, sexual assault and harassment have festered through the ranks of the armed forces with military leaders repeatedly promising reform and then failing to live up to those
promises,” Melinda Wenner Moyer writes at The New York Times, pointing out that, according to numerous studies, “nearly one in four servicewomen reports experiencing sexual assault in the military, and more than half report experiencing
When we tear back the public relations, it becomes clear that women’s rights — indeed, human rights —
remain a global matter and require a global, nonviolent, movement: a movement that’s just beginning.
28 Sep 21/Tuesday