I have to tread careful water on this next entry because it is a matter of opinion that WILL be controversial. Let me say several things, if there was one true thing that I could allign myself with President Obama on, this would be it. First off, listen to Gen McCrystal. Commanders on the ground are the ones who should be making these decisions. OK, pressing on to what will be an on-going debate I urge you to uderstand that I have an Intel background. I have friends that have much more experience than I do, but I have come to certain deductions in my research. I'll go to the most stinging observation in Part 1. The reason we've seen Afghanistan deteriorate is because of several mitigating circumstances, but chief among them are WOMEN and their CONSTITUTION. The ratification of their constitution came in 2004 as well as their first election in which Pres Hamid Karzai was elected. If you read the constitution which was HEAVILY influenced by western nations, it requires by law that over 1/6 of their House of Commons be women, thus equating them to men. This is not well received by the Pashtuns, or the Hazara (whom hate each other, well get to that in another entry). Afghanis are largely territorial and are not binded to materialism like western thought requires, so their perception of private prooperty is limited at best. Private property is however, best examined in their view on women. They are possessions. Is this right... NO! But before we go all moral on the world, we have to recognize that in order to secure Afghanistan, we must to a degree submit to their mores. Americans are now realizing the distinction to which isolation vs. interventionalism is playing on the world. We toe a very small line in priority to our national defense. Do we who choose to enhance our security by securing the interior of nations who could harbor terrorists, enable ourselves to impose our morals, at the cost of ethnocentric aggression? I as a Christian, and soldier have to come to grips that maybe the moral thing is to allow Afghanistan and Iraq to govern democratically while not imposing certain freedoms and liberties on the misistries and departments within their respected governments. More thoughts on this to come...
Ok, I understand your point here. HOWEVER...I disagree with it. Yes, Afghans are largely territorial and independent. So much so that they have never had a successful central government (not even the monarchy had much power). THAT is the mistake we are making in Afghanistan, not that we are making them let women play ball. We need to change our definition of "victory" to one that really conforms to that country's mores which is a local, in many cases, tribal style government. Put simply, they don't want to be told what the hell to do by someone a thousand miles away. This has NOTHING to do with the women. Afghanistan, before the Soviets invaded, actually did let women show their faces and work and leave the house. Were they property? Legally,sure. But they were also educated and much freer than they are today. It is my view that the lack of a role for women in Afghan society right now is actually the reason that country is doomed to fail. When half of your population can't read or write or speak for themselves, how can a government ever be successful? This is NOT a cultural or historical phenomenon, it is one that became resurgent with the invasion of the Soviet Union and has continued under the Taliban. The fact is that Karzai has no credibility and the central government has no credibility and this has nothing to do with women in government, but everything to do with electoral fraud, corruption, American meddling and the idea that most Afghans don't want an authoritative central government. Many, MANY countries (including ours) used to forbid women from participating in government and also used to consider them property (hell, in the 1970s in the U.S. women couldn't get their own credit cards. 35 years ago!!!) the idea that just because something has always been that way means that it can't change is insane. So, to end my diatribe, I agree with you on a certain account: we need to play more by their cultural rules. However, I am sick of their archaic treatment of women being treated as "cultural" and something to be accepted. Oh, and the other part of our problem is that we refuse to commit the level of troops that is needed to clear, secure, and KEEP it secure until stability is really established. THAT is, at the end of the day, the real problem.
ReplyDeleteI like what you had to say Cate, and Ill clarify in my next bit on Afghanistan several other rotating spheres that make the battle over there a 4th dimensional war, but Ill ask this... how much of a hand did we have in creating their constitution for them?
ReplyDeleteAnd with the provisions of that constitution (i.e. many of its mandates) how many are kind've infused to be synonymous with the name Karzai... I think theres equal disdain for him and their new laws. Thats why he's been appealing toward Iran and other radical influences