SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
On Afghanistan, We Need a Policy, Not a Macho Hissy-Fit
Oct 10, 2009
A small delegation from the women's peace group CODEPINK
spent last week in Kabul, on a kind of listening tour, to refine their
understanding of what women in Afghanistan want to see from the US.
They've returned saying just what MADRE has been saying since 2001:
that the US needs to withdraw its military from Afghanistan and do so
in a way that addresses the needs of people there. For MADRE, US
obligations stem from the fact that Afghanistan's poverty, violence
against women, and political corruption are, in part, results of US
policy over the past 30 years.
So why is CODEPINK's co-founder Medea Benjamin being raked over the
coals for allegedly "defecting" from the peace movement? The catalyst
was a snarky article in the Christian Science Monitor that characterized Medea as "disappointed"
when some of the women she met with in Kabul didn't support CODEPINK's
call for a US troop withdrawal. (Remind me again why all women are
supposed to have the same political views?)
After the CSM falsely asserted that CODEPINK is "rethinking their
position" on Afghanistan, Scott Horton posted a piece on Antiwar.com
called, "Is Medea Benjamin Naive or Just Confused?" From there, things got really nasty. Justin Raimondo writing on Antiwar.com had a macho hissy-fit, calling CODEPINK "a gaggle of political whores." The next day, blogger John Walsh tried to one-up Justin, suggesting that CODEPINK be renamed "Whores for Wars."
These sexist rants do nothing to address the substance of CODEPINK's question: what does a responsible exit strategy look like?
If you listen to what the CODEPINK delegates are actually saying,
it's clear they're not naive or confused; they're just saying something
that doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker.
Here's Medea summing up CODEPINK's position after their visit to
Kabul: "we [also] heard a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they
didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have
a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan
troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process
and included economic development; that the United States shouldn't be
allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that's really our
position."
"Bring the Troops Home" is a bumper sticker, not a policy. We need a
policy. And holding the US accountable for its actions in Afghanistan
is a good place to start.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Yifat Susskind
Yifat Susskind is the Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She has worked with women's human rights activists from Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa to create programs in their communities to address women's health, violence against women, economic and environmental justice and peacebuilding. She has also written extensively on US foreign policy and women's human rights and her critical analysis has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy in Focus and elsewhere.
A small delegation from the women's peace group CODEPINK
spent last week in Kabul, on a kind of listening tour, to refine their
understanding of what women in Afghanistan want to see from the US.
They've returned saying just what MADRE has been saying since 2001:
that the US needs to withdraw its military from Afghanistan and do so
in a way that addresses the needs of people there. For MADRE, US
obligations stem from the fact that Afghanistan's poverty, violence
against women, and political corruption are, in part, results of US
policy over the past 30 years.
So why is CODEPINK's co-founder Medea Benjamin being raked over the
coals for allegedly "defecting" from the peace movement? The catalyst
was a snarky article in the Christian Science Monitor that characterized Medea as "disappointed"
when some of the women she met with in Kabul didn't support CODEPINK's
call for a US troop withdrawal. (Remind me again why all women are
supposed to have the same political views?)
After the CSM falsely asserted that CODEPINK is "rethinking their
position" on Afghanistan, Scott Horton posted a piece on Antiwar.com
called, "Is Medea Benjamin Naive or Just Confused?" From there, things got really nasty. Justin Raimondo writing on Antiwar.com had a macho hissy-fit, calling CODEPINK "a gaggle of political whores." The next day, blogger John Walsh tried to one-up Justin, suggesting that CODEPINK be renamed "Whores for Wars."
These sexist rants do nothing to address the substance of CODEPINK's question: what does a responsible exit strategy look like?
If you listen to what the CODEPINK delegates are actually saying,
it's clear they're not naive or confused; they're just saying something
that doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker.
Here's Medea summing up CODEPINK's position after their visit to
Kabul: "we [also] heard a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they
didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have
a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan
troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process
and included economic development; that the United States shouldn't be
allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that's really our
position."
"Bring the Troops Home" is a bumper sticker, not a policy. We need a
policy. And holding the US accountable for its actions in Afghanistan
is a good place to start.
Yifat Susskind
Yifat Susskind is the Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She has worked with women's human rights activists from Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa to create programs in their communities to address women's health, violence against women, economic and environmental justice and peacebuilding. She has also written extensively on US foreign policy and women's human rights and her critical analysis has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy in Focus and elsewhere.
A small delegation from the women's peace group CODEPINK
spent last week in Kabul, on a kind of listening tour, to refine their
understanding of what women in Afghanistan want to see from the US.
They've returned saying just what MADRE has been saying since 2001:
that the US needs to withdraw its military from Afghanistan and do so
in a way that addresses the needs of people there. For MADRE, US
obligations stem from the fact that Afghanistan's poverty, violence
against women, and political corruption are, in part, results of US
policy over the past 30 years.
So why is CODEPINK's co-founder Medea Benjamin being raked over the
coals for allegedly "defecting" from the peace movement? The catalyst
was a snarky article in the Christian Science Monitor that characterized Medea as "disappointed"
when some of the women she met with in Kabul didn't support CODEPINK's
call for a US troop withdrawal. (Remind me again why all women are
supposed to have the same political views?)
After the CSM falsely asserted that CODEPINK is "rethinking their
position" on Afghanistan, Scott Horton posted a piece on Antiwar.com
called, "Is Medea Benjamin Naive or Just Confused?" From there, things got really nasty. Justin Raimondo writing on Antiwar.com had a macho hissy-fit, calling CODEPINK "a gaggle of political whores." The next day, blogger John Walsh tried to one-up Justin, suggesting that CODEPINK be renamed "Whores for Wars."
These sexist rants do nothing to address the substance of CODEPINK's question: what does a responsible exit strategy look like?
If you listen to what the CODEPINK delegates are actually saying,
it's clear they're not naive or confused; they're just saying something
that doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker.
Here's Medea summing up CODEPINK's position after their visit to
Kabul: "we [also] heard a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they
didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have
a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan
troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process
and included economic development; that the United States shouldn't be
allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that's really our
position."
"Bring the Troops Home" is a bumper sticker, not a policy. We need a
policy. And holding the US accountable for its actions in Afghanistan
is a good place to start.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.