A message to progressives on Afghanistan (Part 2): women’s rights

This post is part of a 5-part series responding to arguments made by thoughtful Democrats and progressives who are unsure about opposing President Obama’s plan for Afghanistan. You can read Part 1 on whether we need troops to provide security here.

Reason #2: The US needs to defeat the Taliban to protect human rights, and especially women’s rights.

This is a difficult issue to deal with, and I am as horrified as anyone in hearing stories about acid attacks on schoolgirls in Afghanistan. Many prominent women’s activists within Afghanistan have been clear that escalating militarily is not the path to greater women’s rights.  Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women stated, “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.” In response to the idea of sending more troops, she argues, “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.”

Rangina Hamidi, president of the first women-run business in Kandahar, recounts a conversation with a friend:

While women’s rights have improved in some ways since the fall of the Taliban, there is still cause for concern. Women are disproportionately affected due to death and injuries caused by US and NATO troops. Many women have been thrust into poverty with little support after losing a home and a family breadwinner in an air strike. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which has been organizing for women’s rights within Afghanistan since 1977, states:

Hamid Karzai, the president brought to power largely through US support, recently signed a law legalizing rape within marriage and imposing harsh restrictions on women’s behavior within the Shiite population.

Sonali Kolhatkar of the Afghan Women’s Mission paints a similarly dire picture of women’s rights in Afghanistan since the invasion:

The US has often used women’s rights as a justification for military conflict, resulting in a lot of rhetoric and little substantial progress. This is often grounded in an idea that the occupying forces know what is best for the women of the occupied land (with the “what” consisting mostly of some kind of military operation), rather than a concerted effort to integrate Afghan women into the political process. Dr. Masooda Jalal, the only women to run for the presidency of Afghanistan in 2004, argues that women are still not given a voice in what the future direction of Afghanistan. In an article based on an interview with her, Patricia DeGennaro writes:

The US is far more likely to have a positive impact on human rights and women’s rights by listening to people on the ground in Afghanistan and developing programs for reconstruction and aid under their guidance. “Democracy” is rarely imposed from the outside; the best hope
is an effort led by Afghan civil society, not a corrupt Afghan government or the US military.

Tomorrow I’ll post on Reason #3: “Terrorism is a legitimate threat and we need to eliminate it.”

Flickr photo courtesy of DickStock.