President Obama has announced that he will send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next few months in an effort to curb the increase in violence. But he's not focusing on military solutions alone. He told journalist Peter Mansbridge, of the CBC:
I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means. We're going to have to use diplomacy. We're going to have to use development.
I'm heartened to hear that he's going to take a multi-dimensional approach, but I wish we could hear more about what "diplomacy" and "development" really mean here. They are both words that are thrown around to the point of becoming almost meaningless unless they are pinned down with some specifics. What will this diplomacy look like? Will Clinton be in charge of the talks? What kind of development are we really talking about--educational expansion, food relief, work programs?
And what are the implications of all of this for the women of Afghanistan? A long time ago I saw activist Malai Joya speak. At age 29, she was the youngest person to become a member of the Afghan Parliament, one of 68 women elected to the 249-seat National Assembly, or Wolesi Jirga, in 2005. But after she spoke out against the fundamentalists and former warlords in parliament, her life was threatened and she was suspended.
When I heard her speak shortly after her suspension, I was so moved by her insistence that the best thing for the people of Afghanistan was to have American troops out ASAP. But with the violence escalating, 40% more this year than last, and girls being doused with acid just for trying to go to school, would she still prefer that U.S. troops stay out? RAWA, the organization Joya is connected to, still hasn't put out any sort of formal reaction to Obama's announcement.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What do the Women of Afghanistan Want?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12043
Before the US funded and supplied the Taliban (late 80's)
women in that country were educating themselves, working as doctors, pharmacists, etc.
The university staff was mostly women 70% plus.
You can not create peace with military action. The military presence is not peaceful.
That's what I was wondering. Anyone read Three Cups of Tea? I like the idea that so many things could be changed for the better if you would just give as many children as possible, boys and girls, an education.
I agree with you both. I'm sitting at work so I cant dig up my sources, but a lot of research has been done in developing nations regarding the best place to send aid money. Turns out when literacy rates go up (particularly for women and children) the overal welfare of the nation skyrockets. I mean, its not rocket science, but its cool to see the data play out that way too.
Oh, I have read another very efficient way to spend aid money is on vitamin supplements, particularly when people have sufficient calories but are eating food with poor nutrient value. People are still going blind from vitamin A deficiency for example. It's actually depressing to think about how much money is spent on military and how much that money could do if spent efficiently on development.
I agree with you both. I'm sitting at work so I dont have a chance to dig up sources but the socioeconomic status of the whole country has a direct proven link to the literacy rates. Turs out the best cost-benefit impact is to improve literacy rates of women and children. I hope someone passed that research on to Mr. Obama.
I wasn't aware that Joya was connected to RAWA, but I have read that she supports their work. RAWA definitely still would like US troops to leave. The presence of our troops does nothing to calm the fundamentalists or stop the Taliban; instead, the rising civilian deaths, even under Obama (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/02/02/obama-more-deadly-for-afghan-civilians-than-bush-in-jan-2009.html) are aggravating the problem according to RAWA. They "believe that freedom and democracy can’t be donated; it is the duty of the people of a country to fight and achieve these values” (About RAWA), and they can.
In fact, one of the main reasons why progress has not been made since the US "liberated" Afghanistan was because we deposed their rulers, turned right back around, and instated the Northern Alliance, a collection of corrupt warlords, rapists, and misogynist fundamentalists. We knowingly put these people into power. It impresses me that RAWA is not afraid to call these criminals out by name.
You are right Lyndorr, it really is about the freedom of education. RAWA's main goals are to educate the people, mainly women and girls (through their humanitarian initiatives) and to bring technology and secular principles back into the classroom. RAWA also has thousands of male supporters (2,000 in 2003 per Brodsky) who believe that women's rights are human rights, so they are not a fringe group. It is just dangerous for anyone, male or female, to support them publicly.
Hara is correct, our involvement with Afghanistan didn't start with 9/11 like Bush made it out to be in his speeches after the attacks; it began long before. We continue to do that country a disservice by risking our honest and brave people (doing their best to protect Afghans and rebuild their infrastructure) when we continue to allow the Northern Alliance to hold places of power.
"I wish we could hear more about what "diplomacy" and "development" really mean here."
There are a number of resources available to explain how the development takes place, unfortunately a number of military's involved in the effort have not been the best in communicating their missions. Since I've been living in Canada for the past few years, I've had the most exposure to Canadian Military viewpoints but their policies do not vary radically from the other nations in Afghanistan South (US, UK, Netherlands, Romania, etc.)
If you'd allow I'd like to outline the core operating principles of the counter insurgency effort, from what I've read in studies of the engagement, or heard from people who have been to Afghanistan in various capacities.
At the local level when soldiers will move into a community they will seek out the tribal elders using translators the military officers will negotiate with the tribal elders, talk about what they need and how the two sides view their relationship advancing. Eventually they seek the election of a local group of elders, of which half has to be women. This group then decides for the community what development is most necessary. They then give their request to the military which seeks to provide them with the funding, equipment, and if necessary technical expertise.
This combines with more immediate action effects. Officers have at their disposal a number of tools, in the form of either cash which they can use to directly put people to work (fixing irrigation systems, building roads) or the military equipment under their command, including their medical facilities which they can use to treat civilians, as well as standardized shipping containers which are filled with goods including food, fuel, a generator, pots, pans, etc. which can significantly improve the quality of life of the civilians. They also can deliver food and supplies to some of the most remote places in Afghanistan using the military's heavy lift capabilities.
Pulling out a level we have capacity building efforts, such as the installation of new turbines in the hydroelectric dam, training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan Police Force to become more capable and more professional fighting forces.
Now the point of this is not to paint too rosy of a view of Afghanistan. Development agencies have had the problem of paper projects, which do not exist on the ground. ISAF at the same time has radically varying rules of engagement, and you are correct to identify the northern alliance as a major long term problem. But the question remains if given the current level of troops, can they be dealt with right now. I personally do not believe they can be, but I agree that they should be.
That said I apologize for the length of this post. This is a topic which interests me deeply.
Thanks, that was really interesting!
The policies that you outlined about the military supporting local development, is that based on information about the Canadian military? Or is it more widely applied?
Has any research been done with regards to the effects of these policies, perhaps comparing them with the work of specialist NGOs? Do the policies seem to work well? Are the military able to be well received and trusted, given the ongoing violence and problems with civilian casualties?
I don't know very much about development but I've been working with a development charity at my university which sends volunteers to take part in small scale development projects, so I've been learning a bit recently about the difficulties of transforming money and good will into tangible results on the ground!
is that based on information about the Canadian military? Or is it more widely applied?
Its based on the what I've heard from the Canadian Military, however, my understanding is that there is communication between the ISAF countries on best practices, so it wouldn't surprise me if its applied similarly throughout the many of the nations in Afghanistan South.
Has any research been done with regards to the effects of these policies, perhaps comparing them with the work of specialist NGOs? Do the policies seem to work well?
I'm not aware of any specific research on the topic. However, from what I've heard it is generally conceded that this is not the military's field of expertise*. NGOs are typically more experienced.
But there are two catches, the first is that the military can go places that NGOs are unable to travel for either security reasons, or because the locations are simply too remote to get aid to without a C-130 at your disposal. The second catch is that the military is able to coordinate its aide to accomplish a strategic objective. NGOs by contrast maintain their own security by being neutral actors.
Now this may be a theoretical advantage, that the ISAF forces should be planning this all into a coherent policy, and some (John Nagl in the last version of Foreign Policy, or Austin Long in the RAND Document "The Doctrine Of Eternal Recurrence") might suggest that the US at least hasn't done such a great job of it.
As far as success in the operations, they do have significantly more success when the people are directly engaged in the project (measured by the development not getting burned down or blown up and more people using it). Job creation directly reduces the power of the warlords because they are less able to hire gunmen and delivery of food and aid to the remote regions of Afghanistan makes it significantly easier for special forces to move through the area after winter. But there are problems if you can't help everyone at a sufficient pace.
Are the military able to be well received and trusted, given the ongoing violence and problems with civilian casualties?
With the introduction of more tanks there has been an ability to decrease civilian casualties. Some of the structures in Afghanistan were virtually immune to the weaponry an infantry group would carry around, and this would cause them to call in an air strike. Air strikes are incredibly blunt, and cause a lot of collateral damage. With a tank round you might just have to patch up a single wall afterward, instead of rebuilding an entire building. It also significantly decreases the chances of civilians getting hurt. So the military has that working for them.
But the military has the fact that it simply didn't have enough troops, or enough supplies, working against them.
If you have two tribes which utterly hate each other you might be able to keep them both happy if they both get the same spending. If you only have enough to build it for one tribe, then you may have only bred more antagonism.
Finally if you don't have enough troops it leads to thinking that the troops need to make a smaller force go further. They tend to do this with an increased reliance on helicopters, more reliance on airstrikes, and have less time to stay in an area to build ties with the communities that they are operating in. This can be deadly in a counter-insurgency, because the military appears to just be a transient force which signifies that something bad is going to happen in the area.
*The military does have some things it does very well, such as battlefield triage
Thanks very much, that's very interesting.
Never apologize for bringing such insight. It's great to be able to learn here. Thanks.
According to NPR's Talk of the Nation today, most of the additional troops will not be in combat but will be trainers drilling the Afghan Army to get them up and running.
Non combat troops can be used to free up combat troops currently serving in an advidsor capacity and non combat troops can be used in combat roles to varying degrees, so unfortunatly, descriptions don't matter. Actions do.
Iraq Veterans Against the War has always had members who were veterans of Afghanistan but we recently appoved a resolution that also calls for an end to the war in Afghanistan.
Look forward to seeing more about RAWA here, thanks for sharing everone.
The thing is, we shouldn't be surprised, because Obama was talking about this during this campaign. HOWEVER - he also made it seem like he'd bring troops home from Iraq FIRST.
Granted, it does make more sense to be in Afghanistan than Iraq (since the people that we were supposedly looking for are in the former & not the latter. Though, other people are in Saudi Arabia, but since we like that country, we won't go there) but that's "sense" in terms of war. War barely makes any sense as it is. Can anyone really say with a straight face that the way to stop extremists is to back them into a corner? WTF sense does that make?
All I've ever heard any politician say is that these "terrorists" hate America & what we stand for & want to destroy us. But has anyone actually thought to ask "Hey...what do you guys actually want? What can we do to make you stop killing people?"
Though, in my humble opinion, they're probably less likely to want to kill us if we stop invading all surrounding nations. The war in Iraq is kind of bullshit when you consider that there has been constantly US soldiers in various Middle Eastern nations for DECADES. That just wasn't an official "war", so I guess if anyone dies they're not technically casualties. Like how if you get paid off the books you figure you don't technically have to claim it on your income taxes because it wasn't from your "official" job.
So, even though I knew this was a possibility, my vote for Obama was a vote for diplomacy over violence. So....where is it?
(P.S. - I do find it sad how everyone is really upset over this troop surge in Afghanistan, whereas no one even TALKED about the bombing we've been doing in Pakistan. That OBAMA approved within two weeks of taking office. Yeah...)
I imagine Malai Joya would be against Obabama's decision to increase US troop numbers in Afghanistan, even if there has been an increase violence and disorder in recent months.
If foreign troops are needed to maintain the peace those troops shouldn't come from the US or the UK in my opinion. They're both nations with less than admirable previous in Afghanistan.
It's early days yet, but Obama's foreign policy seems to differ from Bush's only in tone. And in fairness to Barack he didn't pretend things would be otherwise during his election campaign.
I imagine Malai Joya would be against Obama's decision to increase US troop numbers in Afghanistan, even if there has been an increase of violence and disorder in recent months.
If foreign troops are needed to maintain the peace those troops shouldn't come from the US or the UK in my opinion. They are both nations with less than admirable previous in Afghanistan.
It is early days yet, but Obama's foreign policy seems to differ from Bush's only in tone. And in fairness to Barack he didn't pretend things would be otherwise during his election campaign.