Skip to main content

Moderate Taliban = Muslim Feminist?

The devil (shaitan if you are Muslim) is always in the details.

In this case, the details of changing Afghanistan strategy in a war we are not winning, involved talking to moderate elements of the Taliban, whom VP Biden assures us constitute 70% of our enemies, even though a lot of Afghanis on our side are not sure really exist.

Of course, if they do exist, they're apparently going to have moderate themselves enough to negotiate with women:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Advocates for women's rights in Afghanistan urged world leaders to move forward with talks with the Taliban and insisted that women have a place at the negotiating table.

"We need to talk with the Taliban," Najia Zewari, the Gender and Justice Unit Manager for the Afghanistan branch of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) told scores of US lawmakers, rights workers and reporters at a briefing in Washington.

"Our worry is that so far we have not received any message if women would be part of the discussions or if women's issues are part of the agenda of the Taliban," she added....

"We don't know if women's participation or women's rights are preconditions for the talks," Zewari said. "But what we do know is what we want: women want peace, and we need to talk with the Taliban to bring peace."

Afghan women want "a peaceful transfer of power, away from the men with the guns," said Wenny Kusuma, head of UNIFEM Afghanistan....

Democratic lawmaker Jan Schakowsky called for women to not be left on the sidelines if talks do get under way.

"We don't want to see women's issues as a separate issue in Afghanistan, sliced off from the core of the problem. When we solve problems in Afghanistan, women need to be front and center in the considerations of how we move forward," she said.

Women were denied many basic rights, including access to education or jobs, during the five years that the hardline Taliban ruled Afghanistan, from 1996 until 2001....

"After the fall of the Taliban, we had good progress in developing women's status. We have a constitution that finally recognizes women's rights, we have a 25 percent quota in parliament, so women participate in parliament," said Noori.

But she urged that the gains not be taken for granted, especially in the light of the re-emergence in 2006 of the Taliban, which continues to launch attacks on US and other Western forces under NATO command.

"Afghan women are targeted, threatened by warlords," said Noori.

"Fliers are delivered in the middle of the night to their houses telling them to not run for office, not go to polling places to vote. Their families are threatened," Noori said.


This presents the Obama administration with an interesting conundrum. We have said publicly through SecDef Gates and other high administration officials/generals that we know we can't impose a western-style democracy in Afghanistan.

And during the surge and Sunni uprising in Iraq we proved that we're quite willing to look the other way during neighborhood ethnic cleansing if it would facilitate our military strategy.

Women being among the very few beneficiaries of our invasion of Afghanistan, and among the individuals most likely to be victimized by any sort of Taliban-infested regime, do we dump the Afghani women back into Muslim hell just to get our asses out of the country with a declared victory?

Chinese folklore suggests that if you save somebody's life you become responsible for them.

President Obama adopted Afghanistan as his war during the campaign, and signed orders sending 17,000 more American troops into the country, even as our supply routes into the country were collapsing and our generals admitted they had no strategy to win.

I'm personally having trouble seeing even Biden's hypothetical moderate Taliban representatives being willing to sit down at a negotiating table with women, because that moderate a Taliban, well, would be ... Taliban.

Can't wait to see how we handle this one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...