Obama Backpedals on Empty Promises to Afghan Women
Last night, President Obama took to the airwaves to announce the "accelerated" withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan: 10,000 troops out by the end of the year and a total of 33,000 out by the end of next summer.
But if you spaced out for even a second, you might have missed it: Afghan women and girls were mentioned only once in his speech. As Obama spoke of transitioning responsibility for security to Afghans, he lauded those who are "creating new opportunities for women and girls."
Last night, President Obama took to the airwaves to announce the "accelerated" withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan: 10,000 troops out by the end of the year and a total of 33,000 out by the end of next summer.
But if you spaced out for even a second, you might have missed it: Afghan women and girls were mentioned only once in his speech. As Obama spoke of transitioning responsibility for security to Afghans, he lauded those who are "creating new opportunities for women and girls."
This after-thought is a far cry from the declaration of Laura Bush in November 2001 that "The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women." This was almost 10 years ago, with the Bush Administration rallying for war in Afghanistan and hoisting the banner of women's rights to pave their way. In the past decade, Afghan women have come to see how little weight these words carried.
Removing the Taliban from power did create openings for women to exercise new freedoms. But when women rushed to fill these openings to work, travel or study, they were viciously attacked by the Taliban and other ultra-conservatives, including those in the US-backed Karzai government. Often facing death threats, these women saw first-hand that the US was not willing to risk more than sound bites in defense of their rights.
Soon, even the empty promises began to be discarded. By April 2009, just months into his presidency, Obama was already backpedaling mightily on women's rights, saying "while improving conditions in Afghanistan is a commendable goal, people need to remember that the primary reason that US troops are fighting there is to protect Americans from terrorist attacks."
MADRE never believed that the war on Afghanistan would "improve conditions" for women or anyone else. Nor, for that matter, did we believe that it would "protect Americans from terrorist attacks." A war is no way to bring about either human rights or human security. Maybe the Administration is doing us a favor by dropping the facade about women's rights: one less false rationale to debunk.
Last night, Obama pointed to future peace talks and the need to include the Taliban. He set forward the conditions that any participants in these talks must renounce violence and abide by the Afghan Constitution. Yet, none of his conditions offer any promise that women's rights will be protected. The US-brokered Afghan Constitution, for instance, contains no meaningful guarantees of women's rights or any prohibition on gender discrimination.
Meanwhile, Afghan women, like all women living in conflict zones, suffer disproportionately from war. They shoulder the responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable, including children, the wounded and the elderly. And when foreign military intervention emboldens fundamentalist forces who claim to defend their homeland and whose vision of Afghanistan depends on denying women's rights, women come out the losers.
Perhaps President Obama hoped to soothe critics on the left by claiming to accelerate the troop pull-out. But if he follows through to remove 33,000 troops by the end of next summer, the US troop levels will not even have returned to what they were when Bush left office. For Afghan women and families, there is no end in sight to years of living with war and military intervention.
For more information, click here to read "Pressing Reset on the Afghanistan Debate: Towards Ending the War and Upholding Women's Rights"
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Last night, President Obama took to the airwaves to announce the "accelerated" withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan: 10,000 troops out by the end of the year and a total of 33,000 out by the end of next summer.
But if you spaced out for even a second, you might have missed it: Afghan women and girls were mentioned only once in his speech. As Obama spoke of transitioning responsibility for security to Afghans, he lauded those who are "creating new opportunities for women and girls."
This after-thought is a far cry from the declaration of Laura Bush in November 2001 that "The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women." This was almost 10 years ago, with the Bush Administration rallying for war in Afghanistan and hoisting the banner of women's rights to pave their way. In the past decade, Afghan women have come to see how little weight these words carried.
Removing the Taliban from power did create openings for women to exercise new freedoms. But when women rushed to fill these openings to work, travel or study, they were viciously attacked by the Taliban and other ultra-conservatives, including those in the US-backed Karzai government. Often facing death threats, these women saw first-hand that the US was not willing to risk more than sound bites in defense of their rights.
Soon, even the empty promises began to be discarded. By April 2009, just months into his presidency, Obama was already backpedaling mightily on women's rights, saying "while improving conditions in Afghanistan is a commendable goal, people need to remember that the primary reason that US troops are fighting there is to protect Americans from terrorist attacks."
MADRE never believed that the war on Afghanistan would "improve conditions" for women or anyone else. Nor, for that matter, did we believe that it would "protect Americans from terrorist attacks." A war is no way to bring about either human rights or human security. Maybe the Administration is doing us a favor by dropping the facade about women's rights: one less false rationale to debunk.
Last night, Obama pointed to future peace talks and the need to include the Taliban. He set forward the conditions that any participants in these talks must renounce violence and abide by the Afghan Constitution. Yet, none of his conditions offer any promise that women's rights will be protected. The US-brokered Afghan Constitution, for instance, contains no meaningful guarantees of women's rights or any prohibition on gender discrimination.
Meanwhile, Afghan women, like all women living in conflict zones, suffer disproportionately from war. They shoulder the responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable, including children, the wounded and the elderly. And when foreign military intervention emboldens fundamentalist forces who claim to defend their homeland and whose vision of Afghanistan depends on denying women's rights, women come out the losers.
Perhaps President Obama hoped to soothe critics on the left by claiming to accelerate the troop pull-out. But if he follows through to remove 33,000 troops by the end of next summer, the US troop levels will not even have returned to what they were when Bush left office. For Afghan women and families, there is no end in sight to years of living with war and military intervention.
For more information, click here to read "Pressing Reset on the Afghanistan Debate: Towards Ending the War and Upholding Women's Rights"
Last night, President Obama took to the airwaves to announce the "accelerated" withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan: 10,000 troops out by the end of the year and a total of 33,000 out by the end of next summer.
But if you spaced out for even a second, you might have missed it: Afghan women and girls were mentioned only once in his speech. As Obama spoke of transitioning responsibility for security to Afghans, he lauded those who are "creating new opportunities for women and girls."
This after-thought is a far cry from the declaration of Laura Bush in November 2001 that "The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women." This was almost 10 years ago, with the Bush Administration rallying for war in Afghanistan and hoisting the banner of women's rights to pave their way. In the past decade, Afghan women have come to see how little weight these words carried.
Removing the Taliban from power did create openings for women to exercise new freedoms. But when women rushed to fill these openings to work, travel or study, they were viciously attacked by the Taliban and other ultra-conservatives, including those in the US-backed Karzai government. Often facing death threats, these women saw first-hand that the US was not willing to risk more than sound bites in defense of their rights.
Soon, even the empty promises began to be discarded. By April 2009, just months into his presidency, Obama was already backpedaling mightily on women's rights, saying "while improving conditions in Afghanistan is a commendable goal, people need to remember that the primary reason that US troops are fighting there is to protect Americans from terrorist attacks."
MADRE never believed that the war on Afghanistan would "improve conditions" for women or anyone else. Nor, for that matter, did we believe that it would "protect Americans from terrorist attacks." A war is no way to bring about either human rights or human security. Maybe the Administration is doing us a favor by dropping the facade about women's rights: one less false rationale to debunk.
Last night, Obama pointed to future peace talks and the need to include the Taliban. He set forward the conditions that any participants in these talks must renounce violence and abide by the Afghan Constitution. Yet, none of his conditions offer any promise that women's rights will be protected. The US-brokered Afghan Constitution, for instance, contains no meaningful guarantees of women's rights or any prohibition on gender discrimination.
Meanwhile, Afghan women, like all women living in conflict zones, suffer disproportionately from war. They shoulder the responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable, including children, the wounded and the elderly. And when foreign military intervention emboldens fundamentalist forces who claim to defend their homeland and whose vision of Afghanistan depends on denying women's rights, women come out the losers.
Perhaps President Obama hoped to soothe critics on the left by claiming to accelerate the troop pull-out. But if he follows through to remove 33,000 troops by the end of next summer, the US troop levels will not even have returned to what they were when Bush left office. For Afghan women and families, there is no end in sight to years of living with war and military intervention.
For more information, click here to read "Pressing Reset on the Afghanistan Debate: Towards Ending the War and Upholding Women's Rights"