Obamas real politik in afghanistan ..women back in chains and oppression

[jameznyhc]

This was written by a liberal columnist Marie Cocco .


Silence Meets Despair of Afghan Women
By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan's women are no longer in vogue.

It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. "The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists," the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control."

That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands' sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house -- even for work or school -- without a husband's permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.

"This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan," Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively "legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan."

The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan's parliament quickly. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious factions. The United Nations Development Fund for Women says it is still analyzing a final version of the legislation, but is "seriously concerned" about its impact. It appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.

The U.S. State Department has had no immediate comment.

Afghanistan's women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration's tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations -- whether they're in China, Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager's home -- in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.

This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have . Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls -- a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on AfghanisHillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regimetan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.

"My message is very clear. Women's rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought," Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. "You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population (is) underfed, undereducated, under cared for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines."

The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. "They are talking about child marriage," she says.

Without pressure from foreign powers who hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little even women in the country's parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction that is said to hold the balance of power in Karzai's re-election bid to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.

The ugly truth in Afghanistan is that it has long been sliding back into the violent chaos that is friendly political ground for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Women have, as usual, been among the chief victims.

There is indeed a lengthy and urgent to-do list for the Obama administration, which says it is determined to abandon a failing course. But that does not mean the United States should again fail Afghanistan's women.

To consign them to what Laura Bush correctly called "deliberate human cruelty" is cruelty itself.

mariecocco@washpost.com

[darius]

Karzai . . . another big fucking mistake we are responsible for

[jameznyhc]

Karzai . . . another big fucking mistake we are responsible for

just gotta keep him in line like bush did ..

[Defekted]

Jamez cant seem to make up his mind:

one thread he asks why are we there? whats the point? this is a mistake.

and this thread he is implying that we should fight tooth and nail for the rights of afghan women.

which one is it maaaaaaan? Sometimes you chase your own tail trying to pin something against obama.

[jameznyhc]

Jamez cant seem to make up his mind:

one thread he asks why are we there? whats the point? this is a mistake.

and this thread he is implying that we should fight tooth and nail for the rights of afghan women.

which one is it maaaaaaan? Sometimes you chase your own tail trying to pin something against obama.

i dont think we should be there obviously democracy not workin out so well if they need us protectin karzai um 8 years later...there no nukes or al qaeda training camps .. these people are clearly savages ..there no jihad where foreign jihadists are killing afghannis day and night .. this is a homegrown insurgency and these people are animals .. more like savages actually

But since barry gonna send 21,000 whats the problem with Laura bush's position? ..even if he wasnt why not use poltical pressure or cut off $$$ and security.. makes sense to me.. you allways push diplomacy right?? i didnt see laura bush picking up a gun and fighting tooth and nail

Michelle can take lauras role in bringing an international spotlight to this.. Actually Hillary did a fine job as first lady as well when speaking of the abused, oppressed and enslved women of afghanistan

Thirdly this was written by a liberal .. i made no commentary just posted the article for discussion .. im sure your a fan of Mrs. Cocco

[jameznyhc]

hey defeckted i just thought of something .. Obama is now an official armchair general neocon according to you correct?? lol ..

[metfan85]

The notion that Afghanistan can be ruled by a central power is stupid and childish. But not much else is expected out of the foreign policy geniuses who brought us the Shah of Iran.

[Defekted]

i dont think we should be there obviously democracy not workin out so well if they need us protectin karzai um 8 years later...there no nukes or al qaeda training camps .. these people are clearly savages ..there no jihad where foreign jihadists are killing afghannis day and night .. this is a homegrown insurgency and these people are animals .. more like savages actually

But since barry gonna send 21,000 whats the problem with Laura bush's position? ..even if he wasnt why not use poltical pressure or cut off $$$ and security.. makes sense to me.. you allways push diplomacy right?? i didnt see laura bush picking up a gun and fighting tooth and nail

Michelle can take lauras role in bringing an international spotlight to this.. Actually Hillary did a fine job as first lady as well when speaking of the abused, oppressed and enslved women of afghanistan

Thirdly this was written by a liberal .. i made no commentary just posted the article for discussion .. im sure your a fan of Mrs. Cocco

I have no problem pushing for human rights all over the world - from Afganistan to the occupied West Bank to China to Sudan. But to do so with diplomacy and political pressure. To say we took out Saddam cuase he was a bad man is nonesense. War is not an option because a certain person is bad. War is the last option ONLY when we get hit. We should NEVER hit first. EVER. So afganistan is a situation where we are still fighting in response to the 9/11 attacks. Taliban and AQ Leadership are still very much active in teh region and are in control of large swaths of terrirtory (especially in the south and east).

[jameznyhc]

I have no problem pushing for human rights all over the world - from Afganistan to the occupied West Bank to China to Sudan. But to do so with diplomacy and political pressure. To say we took out Saddam cuase he was a bad man is nonesense. War is not an option because a certain person is bad. War is the last option ONLY when we get hit. We should NEVER hit first. EVER. So afganistan is a situation where we are still fighting in response to the 9/11 attacks. Taliban and AQ Leadership are still very much active in teh region and are in control of large swaths of terrirtory (especially in the south and east).

Thats what Laura Bush was doing lol .. diplomacy and political presuure against a regime we were fighting .. again we completed the job years ago ..

oust the taliban ... Check

oust al qaeda of a host and training camps.. Check

have an election .. check

now what the fuck are we still there for .. we only went in cause the taliban didnt hand over bin laden .. so why we stil;l trying to kill the taliban? ..shouldnt we be focused on al qaeda leadership instead of backwards cave dwellers ?? ..

[jameznyhc]

I have no problem pushing for human rights all over the world - from Afganistan to the occupied West Bank to China to Sudan. But to do so with diplomacy and political pressure. To say we took out Saddam cuase he was a bad man is nonesense. War is not an option because a certain person is bad. War is the last option ONLY when we get hit. We should NEVER hit first. EVER. So afganistan is a situation where we are still fighting in response to the 9/11 attacks. Taliban and AQ Leadership are still very much active in teh region and are in control of large swaths of terrirtory (especially in the south and east).

well thats not a priority of this administration as it was in the last 2 administrations .. China we didnt peep a word of their human rights abuses when Barry sent Hillary did we?

[darius]

just gotta keep him in line like bush did ..

Masoud would have been the ideal choice -- a real afghan hero. To bad his assassination was orchestrated quite well and pinned on the Taliban.

[jameznyhc]

Masoud would have been the ideal choice -- a real afghan hero. To bad his assassination was orchestrated quite well and pinned on the Taliban.

um he was assinated before 2 days before 9/11 .. we know alot of taliban did not support bin ladens war on America and tried to reign him in .. others were very pro bin laden ..

[darius]

um he was assinated before 2 days before 9/11 .. we know alot of taliban did not support bin ladens war on America and tried to reign him in .. others were very pro bin laden ..

i know when he was assassinated . . . i was speaking hypothetically -- had he not been off'ed

[Defekted]

Thats what Laura Bush was doing lol .. diplomacy and political presuure against a regime we were fighting .. again we completed the job years ago ..

oust the taliban ... Check

oust al qaeda of a host and training camps.. Check

have an election .. check

now what the fuck are we still there for .. we only went in cause the taliban didnt hand over bin laden .. so why we stil;l trying to kill the taliban? ..shouldnt we be focused on al qaeda leadership instead of backwards cave dwellers ?? ..

Seems that you are still very ignorant of the facts, but Taliban fighters and AQ leadership and their fighters are still very much in cahoots with each other on both sides of the pak/afghan border...... and without taliban cover the AQ leadership would be toast..... the taliban and their tribal alliances on the other side of the pak border are the ONLY people in this world right now that can provide OBL and his cronies a safe haven.....and as long as that is the case, we along with the international community, have every right to take the taliban on.

now there are clever ways still in play to divorce that toxic marriage that is keeping OBL alive and free - like negotiating with moderate elements within the taliban..... in exchange for security guarantees or whatever.... if we can somehow isolate AQ further, it will be easier to cature or kill them - which is the minimum price for the lives of 3k innocent americans - lives lost from AQ (without the help of a single Iraqi or Palestinian I might add)

The logic is quite simple......sorry if you dont get it...... results might be a whole lot tougher to get, but we have to try. Justice needs to be served. Again this is a reaction to an attack directed at the actual attackers...... thats an equation everyone should be able to comprehend.

Trust me, if tomorrow Obama decides to preemptively start a war with xyz country becuase they "said" something or did "something" that has nothing to do with us...... I will be on the streets protesting.....100%

[jameznyhc]

Seems that you are still very ignorant of the facts, but Taliban fighters and AQ leadership and their fighters are still very much in cahoots with each other on both sides of the pak/afghan border...... and without taliban cover the AQ leadership would be toast..... the taliban and their tribal alliances on the other side of the pak border are the ONLY people in this world right now that can provide OBL and his cronies a safe haven.....and as long as that is the case, we along with the international community, have every right to take the taliban on.

now there are clever ways still in play to divorce that toxic marriage that is keeping OBL alive and free - like negotiating with moderate elements within the taliban..... in exchange for security guarantees or whatever.... if we can somehow isolate AQ further, it will be easier to cature or kill them - which is the minimum price for the lives of 3k innocent americans - lives lost from AQ (without the help of a single Iraqi or Palestinian I might add)

The logic is quite simple......sorry if you dont get it...... results might be a whole lot tougher to get, but we have to try. Justice needs to be served. Again this is a reaction to an attack directed at the actual attackers...... thats an equation everyone should be able to comprehend.

Trust me, if tomorrow Obama decides to preemptively start a war with xyz country becuase they "said" something or did "something" that has nothing to do with us...... I will be on the streets protesting.....100%

well im all for killing terrorists but why fight an insurgency on the ground? do what israsel does and target the leaders and terrorists themselves .. there will be collatrial damage (as weve seen some pakistani citizens killed already) .. but its minimal .. with your new found anti terror position im sure you would agree with israel now when they go after hamas and hezbollah ..

[Defekted]

well im all for killing terrorists but why fight an insurgency on the ground? do what israsel does and target the leaders and terrorists themselves .. there will be collatrial damage (as weve seen some pakistani citizens killed already) .. but its minimal .. with your new found anti terror position im sure you would agree with israel now when they go after hamas and hezbollah ..

When Hamas or Hezbullah kills 3,000 Israelis by crashing planes into buildings, than yes Israel has a right to respond......(hasnt happened yet, has it?)

and if Israel kills thousands of civilians in both Lebanon and Palestinian territories from fighter jets way up up up in the sky, then yes Hezbullah and Hamas has a right to respond (has happened, yes?)

simple math buddy.

[metfan85]

When Hamas or Hezbullah kills 3,000 Israelis by crashing planes into buildings, than yes Israel has a right to respond......(hasnt happened yet, has it?)

and if Israel kills thousands of civilians in both Lebanon and Palestinian territories from fighter jets way up up up in the sky, then yes Hezbullah and Hamas has a right to respond (has happened, yes?)

simple math buddy.

So when Obama kills thousands of civilians, and they retaliate with a terrorist attack, in your mind it must be legitimate, as will our retaliation where more civilians are killed. Your preaching peace, but the circle will go unbroken by that type of reckless attitude.

[just b u]

When Hamas or Hezbullah kills 3,000 Israelis by crashing planes into buildings, than yes Israel has a right to respond......(hasnt happened yet, has it?)

and if Israel kills thousands of civilians in both Lebanon and Palestinian territories from fighter jets way up up up in the sky, then yes Hezbullah and Hamas has a right to respond (has happened, yes?)

simple math buddy.

it's not simple math, both of those statements are not true and are much more complicated. but this isnt about Israel fighting Hamas and Hezbollah thread, so i will stop it at that lol.

and the attrocities done to women in those backward middle eastern countries continues. how sad

[metfan85]

and the attrocities done to women in those backward middle eastern countries continues. how sad

not for nothing, but they weren't fighting the taliban when the taliban was in charge. but they are fighitng us for being there briging our supposedly progressive ideals. Why the heck is it any of our business? We have enough problems of our own.

[just b u]

not for nothing, but they weren't fighting the taliban when the taliban was in charge. but they are fighitng us for being there briging our supposedly progressive ideals. Why the heck is it any of our business? We have enough problems of our own.

i dont think we should bring progressive ideas there, the place is not ready for it, it wont work at the time being. in this case i'm just saying we should help out all the women who actually want to get out and live a life without danger, or being treated like property and abused. Just by raising awareness there is a hope of private parties getting involved collecting money for groups there who support the women who want education and some rights or even as far as helping them escape such situations.

furthermore putting sanctions up that would hurt their economy. I am in no way saying we can go in there and make that place a democracy, it's not ready but when they're blatantly abusing women like that, raising awareness is the least that should be done. That's what gets the ball rolling.