Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Helping Afghan Women and Girls

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 05:51 PM
Original message
Helping Afghan Women and Girls
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/03-13

Published on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 by The Nation

Helping Afghan Women and Girls

by Katrina Vanden Heuvel w/ Kavita Ramdas

As the coalition I'm working with--Get Afghanistan Right--continues to make the case that the Obama administration would be wise to rethink its plan to escalate militarily in Afghanistan, I've tried to engage the arguments made by some feminists and human rights groups who believe that such an escalation is necessary to protect Afghani women and girls. I share their horror when I read stories like this one by New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describing an acid attack against girls and women--students and their teachers--at the Mirwais School for Girls. But how will escalation or increased US troop presence improve their security or make their lives better?

I thought it would be important to speak with someone who has experience working on the ground with Afghan women's organizations. Kavita Ramdas is President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women. For 15 years she has worked with groups like the Afghan Institute for Learning--which serves about 350,000 women and children in their schools, health care centers, and human rights programs.

This is what Kavita said:

We're hearing from groups we've worked with for over a 15 year period now, on the ground inside Afghanistan and with Afghan women's groups and Pakistan as well.

First, I think it's remarkable that our approach to foreign policy --not just for the last eight years, but with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan in general over the last thirty years--has been almost entirely military focused. There hasn't been any willingness to take a cold hard look at how effective or ineffective that strategy has been in whether or not it has helped stabilize the country. And there has been much less attention paid to whether this militaristic approach has done anything positive for the women of Afghanistan. It's doubtful whether America's foreign policy has ever had the welfare of Afghan women at heart. As many Afghani women have said to us, 'You know, you didn't even think about us 25 years ago,' and then all of a sudden post 9-11, we're sending troops to Afghanistan and ostensibly we're very concerned about women. But there's very little willingness to really look at the implications of a military strategy on women's security. It is very important to begin with the following question: If the strategies that we used up to this point have not succeeded in ensuring the safety and well being of women and girls, what makes us think that increased militarization with 30,000 additional US troops is somehow going to improve the situation and security of women in Afghanistan?

The second question is, what has been the role of the existing troops in Afghanistan with regard to the situation and the security of women? 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.

..much more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. excellent and true
wtf are we there for anyway? no fucking reason. this bullshit about us being there to 'fix' the culture is the same bullshit bush threw out to justify his defense contracting buddies and oil buddies about iraq. propoganda and bullshit.
you cant fix a culture and its not our frigging JOB to fix anyone elses goddamned country. get the hell out of afghanistan and let them work out their own issues on their own. saudi arabia sucks for women too but we dont attack them . follow the money and then the reason we are in afghanistan will present itself. its always follow the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. possibly the worst place on earth right now
is the Congo. Where is the outrage about that?

And if we really wanted to make the world a better place, food and medicine gets a lot more bang for the buck, and has a tendency to sway people toward liking you, instead of hating you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. if there were money to be made in the Congo, the US would be in there
like flies on shit. And then they would use the same old excuse 'we are here to liberate the peeeopleeee'. how many times do they intend to use that line of crapola.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. There is money to be made, and we are there
What, you think they just up and decided to start killing each other for the fun of it? No, Kongo has a huge amount of some very rare minerals we need for electronics, in addition to more "mundane" minerals such as tin, gold, and quite probably, oil and natural gas.

We pay off one goon squad to wrest the turf from some other goon squad, and we buy what htye dig up with their slave labor - the Chinese and French are deep in this mess, too - in fact, Rwanda and its spillover into Kongo was almost definately a proxy resource war between the US and France.

Africa is a nasty, nasty place with regards to covert ops and proxy wars. it's made worse by hte simple fact that most western media outlets simply couldn't bring themselves to give a shit about Africans. Palestinians are given better media treatment than Africans are, and that's saying a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. you are right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. We already "helped" in the Congo by killing Patrice Lumumba.
It was revealed that U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had said "something to the effect that Lumumba should be eliminated".<14> This was revealed by a declassified interview with then-US National Security Council minutekeeper Robert Johnson released in August 2000 from Senate intelligence committee's inquiry on covert action. The committee later found that while the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba, it was not involved in the murder.<14> In 1975, the Church Committee went on record with the finding that Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba's assassination as "an urgent and prime objective". (Dulles' own words).<15> Furthermore, de-classified CIA cables quoted or mentioned in the Church report and in Kalb (1972) mention two specific CIA plots to murder Lumumba: the poison plot and a shooting plot. Although some sources claim that CIA plots ended when Lumumba was captured, that is not stated or shown in the CIA records. Rather, those records show two still-partly-censored CIA cables from Elizabethville on days significant in the murder: January 17, the day Lumumba died, and January 18, the day of the first exhumation. The cable on the 17, after a long censored section, talks about where they need to go from there. On the 18th, the cable expresses thanks for Lumumba being sent to them and then says that, had Elizabethville base known he was coming, they would have "baked a snake". (see <16> Significantly, David Doyle, the then chief of base, Elizabethville, told other CIA officers later that he had had Lumumba's body in the trunk of his car to try to find a way to dispose of it <17>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Our invasion of Afghanistan has nothing to do with helping Afghan women or girls -
that is a right-wing excuse. It seemed to work pretty well when they told people they were liberating Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, so this is the cover story they're giving this time. Afghanistan is being "handled" because there is money in opium and gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. a new chapter
of an old war. When your only tool is a hammer, every 'problem' looks like a nail.
As the article points out, the "military" is not the vehicle that brings freedom and justice to women (or children), never was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Military action certainly didn't help
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. We continue to fill graveyards with people we "help". K&R
People in Vietnam and Cambodia are still dying from the anti-personnel bombs we dropped to "help" them. And, now after similar "help" in Iraq, we are moving on to "help" the people of Afghanistan.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. the Gandhi quote
this is why they kill off people like MLK Jr. and Gandhi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC