Doug Bandow: Beware Crusader Temptation in Afghanistan
[Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author of several books, including "Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire" (Xulon).]
Afghanistan has become a target of aggressive pro-war activists in America, including feminists who believe in waging war to improve the status of women.
Many on the left believed military intervention abroad to be a logical extension of its attempt to perfect mankind at home.
Woodrow Wilson, more than Theodore Roosevelt, is the philosophical father of today's American militaristic crusaders ― those willing to kill in the name of promoting democracy.
President Barack Obama appeared to be a liberal hawk in March, when he explained his first troop escalation in Afghanistan, speaking of ``the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people ― especially women and girls."
However, he took a very different tone when announcing his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
President Obama said, ``Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida." He refused to ``set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests."
This disappointed the pro-war left. Dana Goldstein of The Daily Beast wrote: ``a number of prominent women's and human-rights organizations have declared themselves disappointed ― not only by Obama's choice of words, but, more significantly, by his plan to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in 18 months, which they say is far too little time to improve the situation markedly and turn women's rights efforts over entirely to the Afghan government and NGOs."
Sunita Viswanath, founder of Women for Afghan Women (WAW), explained that without a long-term U.S. military commitment, women ``will be back in the dark ages." Esther Hyneman, also with WAW, warned: ``If the U.S. left, women would be back in their burkas."
The idea of a feminist military crusade is odd enough in theory. It looks particularly unwise in Afghanistan.
Although women have made ``modest" gains since the ouster of the Taliban, in Viswanath's words, the status of women remains wretched.
Malalai Joya, a woman attacked by traditionalists for running for parliament, complained to Westerners: ``Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords."
Some war advocates admit as much, and want the U.S. to do more to transform Afghanistan. Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch argued that Washington must push the Afghan government to make ``painful political reforms to address the systematic problems Afghanistan has with its culture of impunity."
However, what evidence is there that the U.S. and its allies can force peace and national development at the point of a gun?..
Read entire article at Korean Times
Afghanistan has become a target of aggressive pro-war activists in America, including feminists who believe in waging war to improve the status of women.
Many on the left believed military intervention abroad to be a logical extension of its attempt to perfect mankind at home.
Woodrow Wilson, more than Theodore Roosevelt, is the philosophical father of today's American militaristic crusaders ― those willing to kill in the name of promoting democracy.
President Barack Obama appeared to be a liberal hawk in March, when he explained his first troop escalation in Afghanistan, speaking of ``the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people ― especially women and girls."
However, he took a very different tone when announcing his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
President Obama said, ``Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida." He refused to ``set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests."
This disappointed the pro-war left. Dana Goldstein of The Daily Beast wrote: ``a number of prominent women's and human-rights organizations have declared themselves disappointed ― not only by Obama's choice of words, but, more significantly, by his plan to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in 18 months, which they say is far too little time to improve the situation markedly and turn women's rights efforts over entirely to the Afghan government and NGOs."
Sunita Viswanath, founder of Women for Afghan Women (WAW), explained that without a long-term U.S. military commitment, women ``will be back in the dark ages." Esther Hyneman, also with WAW, warned: ``If the U.S. left, women would be back in their burkas."
The idea of a feminist military crusade is odd enough in theory. It looks particularly unwise in Afghanistan.
Although women have made ``modest" gains since the ouster of the Taliban, in Viswanath's words, the status of women remains wretched.
Malalai Joya, a woman attacked by traditionalists for running for parliament, complained to Westerners: ``Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords."
Some war advocates admit as much, and want the U.S. to do more to transform Afghanistan. Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch argued that Washington must push the Afghan government to make ``painful political reforms to address the systematic problems Afghanistan has with its culture of impunity."
However, what evidence is there that the U.S. and its allies can force peace and national development at the point of a gun?..