'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout

[Turborama]

In Afghanistan, the US women's activist group finds that their Afghan counterparts want US troop presence – as well as more reconstruction.

By Aunohita Mojumdar | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 6, 2009 edition

Kabul, Afghanistan – When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."

Rethinking their position

Code Pink, founded in 2002 to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, is one of the more high-profile women's antiwar groups being forced to rethink its position as Afghan women explain theirs: Without international troops, they say, armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable.

Though Afghans have their grievances against the international troops' presence, chief among them civilian casualties, many fear an abrupt departure would create a dangerous security vacuum to be filled by predatory and rapacious militias. Many women, primary victims of such groups in the past, are adamant that international troops stay until a sufficient number of local forces are trained and the rule of law established. (Read more about Afghan women's concerns here.)

During their weeklong visit here, in which they met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists, and civil society groups, the small team of Code Pink members had hoped to gather evidence to bolster their call for US troop withdrawal within two years, and capitalize on growing anxiety back home about the war.

Full story: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

[vaberella]

1. Good points. I don't know what to say.

I'm not keen on military being there although I'm sure they provide a function and I don't want them leaving until there is some sort of orde for the Afghan people since we provided some of the unrest. However, I'm sure, based on some of the posteres here who just want us to leave willy-nilly, that they'll advocate for this which is advocating for more death of innocents from what I can see.

[avaistheone1]

23. Stay until local forces are trained and the rule of law established? roflmao

Well that will take about another 50 to 100 years. I am sure that will be an easy task in a primitive feudal country ruled by war lords. :sarcasm:

Let's just put it on our MasterCard.

[Autumn]

44. We should just put

Democracy and security in a box and mail it to them. It makes just about as much sense as staying there.

[nemo137]

2. this has been my concern about Afghanistan.

It was bad before we went in, it's been perhaps moderately less bad since - are we going to do more harm pulling out than we'd do staying? And if so, is it enough less harm to justify us leaving? It seems like we could make things better if we tried.

[DrToast]

3. Agree

We have an obligation to at least try and win there. And no, we haven't been doing that for 8 years.

If it doesn't work, then we leave.

[jeanpalmer]

4. This is just one person

Watch Robert Greenwald's documentary "Rethink Afghanistan" and you'll find women who say they weren't protected under the Taliban, and they're not now protected under Karzai and the Americans. However, under the Taliban, there was security in place -- no bombings of the people or complete disruptions of their lives through displacement. So their message to the US: Leave.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23646.htm

[Turborama]

5. Security & no disruption under the Taliban? How about genocide, horrendous human rights violations

and mass starvation?

This documentary was filmed undercover by a female reporter in Taliban ruled Afghanistan in 2001. Warning, it is a terrifying, horrifying eye-opener!

Beneath The Veil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3660316316539768169&ei=06XNSqH_B5HMwgOK2fSAAQ&q=afghanistan+beneath+the+veil&hl=en#

[avaistheone1]

25. All of things happen to women in various countries in Africa and parts of India too.

Shall we start wars there too? It doesn't appear like a smart solution to me.

[Turborama]

9. they met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists and civil society groups

That's a lot more than just "one person".

I'll watch the documentary but it's obvious what Greenwald's agenda was before he went:

"I will soon travel to Afghanistan to interview people and groups about the war in Afghanistan. I want to hear your questions, comments, and suggestions for my trip."
www.youtube.com/user/rethinkafghanistan

I hope he was objective and didn't only add people he found that agreed with his premise to the documentary.

[ShortnFiery]

6. The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: Code Pink didn't do their homework.

Focus on security at the expense of humanitarian goals, and coalition forces will accomplish neither. The first step toward improving people’s lives is a negotiated settlement to end the war.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604

Despite this, politicians, military leaders, and sadly even some misguided American feminist groups continue to use the plight of women in Afghanistan to justify more spending, more troops and more war. People who care for the people of Afghanistan have got to see this for what it is. Women never benefit from bombs and bullets.

When the U.S and its allies chose to put the Karzai regime in place, they conveniently overlooked the fact that it is overrun with the same patriarchal attitudes toward women as the Taliban.

During my recent trip to Afghanistan, I saw the crushing poverty that Afghans must endure. A few brave women from RAWA and the Afghan Women’s Mission pointed out in a recent article that the military establishment claims that it must win the military victory first and then the U.S. will take care of humanitarian needs. But they have it backward. Improve living conditions and security will improve.

[Turborama]

7. *Focus on security to achieve humanitarian goals

Fixed

[ShortnFiery]

17. Finish the thought? * ... and coalition forces will accomplish neither.* eom

[Turborama]

33. Thanks, but no thanks. That was a complete sentence.

I can word it differently for you, if it will help you understand.

Focus on security to accomplish humanitarian goals.

Here's another one.

Improve security and living conditions will improve.

[geek tragedy]

11. Yeah, they only went to Afghanistan and talked to actual human beings over there.

Much better for them to surf the Internet.

[ShortnFiery]

18. If you watch the video - this is of ACTUAL Afghan people and other HUMANITARIANS

who work with them.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/cc_trailer.php

Sonali Kolhatkar is the host and producer of KPFK Radio’s Uprising, a daily drive-time morning public affairs program in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. She is also Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a non-profit that works in solidarity with Afghan women.

Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer representing DC-based human rights NGO CIVIC in Afghanistan for the last year.

Ann Jones is a journalist and author of a number of non-fiction books about her research into women's and humanitarian issues, including Kabul in Winter. She has also written and taken photographs for a number of publications including National

Geographic Traveler, Outside and the New York Times.
Robert Pape is a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago specializing in international security affairs. He is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

---------------------------------------------------

Much better to wrap yourself in the USA flag and faintly profess *concern* for the welfare of the Afghani people. :eyes:

[Turborama]

27. 1 Indian and 3 Americans

Sonali Kolhatkar
"I am of Indian origin and citizenship, born and raised in the United Arab Emirates. I have lived in the United States, away from my family since I was 16."

From: http://sonali-kolhatkar.sulekha.com/

Erica Gaston
"After graduating from Stanford University in 2003 with a degree in international relations focused on international security, Gaston, a native of New Orleans..."

From: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/human-rights/gaston-.html

Ann Jones
"She grew up and went to school mostly in Wisconsin and received a PhD in literature and history from the University in 1970."

From: http://www.annjonesonline.com/

Robert Rape
"Robert Anthony Pape, Jr. (born 1960), is an American political scientist known for his work on international security affairs, especially strategic air power and suicide terrorism. He is currently a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape

[geek tragedy]

30. None of those people are Afghans. You just PWN3D yourself. nt

[masuki bance]

8. It's time to end the occupations. Chickenhawks are not welcome. nt

[geek tragedy]

12. Code Pink are chickenhawks? nt

[dionysus]

14. i know. they have blood on their hands!!11!1111111

:rofl:

[masuki bance]

59. ...

[Cha]

47. Who are gratuitiously calling a

"chickenhawk"?

[Clio the Leo]

10. Thank you for presenting another side.......

... you got more guts than I have. :)

[Life Long Dem]

13. Now all you cold pinkies out there have to do the same!

:applause:

[Jennicut]

15. I do understand people's concerns about the plight of the women there

However, we never went there in the first place to "save the women". We went to hunt down Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Once you start trying to remake a society as backwards as this, you run into problems. The truth is, this has never been a good place for women and will more war really change the minds of the the men who live there? If anything it may have the opposite effect and we have seen where men join the Taliban in anger against our being there.
I am not sure how you go from hunting down terrorists to totally changing a society. What good did we do in Iraq? The Shiite are not exactly better toward women then the Sunni were, they are far more strict. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves do we do more harm then good.

[Turborama]

19. Roughly 6, 000,000 kids go to school in Afghanistan now, compared to <1,000,000 under the Taliban

I think this is something that isn't discussed enough...

More children in school in Afghanistan
Published: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 | Changed: Thursday, September 17, 2009

During the Taliban’s reign, fewer than one million children went to school in Afghanistan. Now about six million children are registered in schools and about one third of them are girls. Sida’s efforts in educating boys and girls in Afghanistan have delivered results.

Women’s literacy in Afghanistan is among the lowest in the world – about 14 per cent. However, a change has taken place. Previously, only 3 per cent of girls went to school; now about 36 per cent receive education.

The State Ministry of Education in Afghanistan has produced a national education strategy and is now implementing teacher training, producing textbooks and building schools at a greater rate than previously. But capacity remains low and the ministry is being supported by UNICEF, with aid from Sida.

Sofia Orrebrink, programme officer for Education in Sida’s Afghanistan team at the department for Conflict and post-conflict co-operation, says it is common for there to be 40 pupils or more in one classroom.

“It isn’t unusual for them to sit on the floor or out in the open air,” she says. “Despite this, there is enormous pressure on the school system. One of the requirements is to educate more teachers. School buildings are needed because many of them have been destroyed during the armed conflicts, but other basic infrastructure is also missing like desks, toilets and textbooks.”

Full article: http://www.sida.se/English/Countries-and-regions/Asia/Afghanistan/Programmes-and-Projects/More-children-in-school-in-Afghanistan/

[ShortnFiery]

22. How much you want to spend in a country that has a 21% literacy rate?

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/part3_trailer.php

For every soldier in Afghanistan, there are TWO contractors. :wow:

[Jennicut]

34. I am not against giving them aid.

In fact, Kerry is trying to provide aid to Pakistan (which needs help as well).
It is just that we have to weigh the merits of staying vs the merits of pulling back. I doubt Obama will leave. But how many more troops, how much more money and how much more time until the country is at the level we deem acceptable? It may never be truly what we want it to be.

I used to be for us adding additional troops there but really, over the last few months, I have started to change my mind. I just don't know how more we want to sacrifice there.

[Turborama]

38. I've pointed this out in another thread but it bears repeating...

Re the merits of staying versus the merits of pulling back and just giving them aid...

Building schools is a priority for us and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_T_wdajOo">destroying them is a priority for the Taliban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewk0iXJgsHw">This report from Britain's Channel 4 News says 200 hundred schools have been burnt down, teachers executed in front of the kids and there is a school in Kabul that has a whopping 18,000 kids going to it.

What do you think will happen if we just pulled out tomorrow? A return to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3660316316539768169&ei=06XNSqH_B5HMwgOK2fSAAQ&q=afghanistan+beneath+the+veil&hl=en#">this is most likely, as is no hope of Afghanistan ever recovering.

We had a good opportunity to give Afghanistan what it needed back in 2002 and it was blown by the worst president in history so he could complete his daddy's unfinished business. However, what we have to work with now is not http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/include/article.php?recordID=58">the “Tabula raza” it was then, as can be seen in the stats I posted above, and I just hope that President Obama gets it right this time.

One thing I have been considering lately is that if McCain/Palin got in we'd be at war with Iran already, Afghanistan would still be on the back burner and the Taliban quite possibly would have taken over by now.

[Jennicut]

40. I am not sure. I have been torn for the last few months.

Something is telling me to be uneasy and wary about getting involved even deeper.

I tell you, THIS is why I am not President! Obama has some tough decisions to make. I wouldn't want that job. Heck, I am not even old enough to hold that job.

[anonymous171]

57. The Soviets did the same thing. Look how that ended up.

Afghanistan is a lost cause. Unless you want us to stay there long enough to have a significant impact on their culture (about 2 generations) then we cannot save them.

[Turborama]

58. How many schools, roads and irrigation systems did the Russians build?

We have/are built/building schools there, have/are built/building roads and to help with irrigation and electricity for almost 2 million Afghans http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama/55">we even got a dam running which was lying dormant for decades due to falling into disrepair after decades of war and neglect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajaki_Dam">British and Dutch troops are now protecting that dam from the Taliban, who want to destroy it, just like how they destroy schools (as pointed out in post #38).

How is that similar to what the Russians did?

[avaistheone1]

21. If this is a "save the women" campaign why aren't we saving the women of India,

Africa, and Saudi Arabia? Women in all of these countries have to deal with brutal conditions from slavery,genital mutilation, rape to murder.

Afghanistan does not stand alone and is not necessarily the most compelling case of women living in inhumane conditions.

[Jennicut]

32. Exactly. There are repressed women across the world.

Was this ever the original objective to go there? I understood going after Bin Laden. But rebuilding a country is near impossible and we should be honest about how long that would really take. This is not simply taking down the violence level like in Iraq and then pulling out. Afghanistan has so much less structure then Iraq ever had. It has been this way for years. How many more years until it is remade into something we approve of? We need to admit that sometimes we cannot take a country and try to make into what we want.

[karynnj]

16. It is interesting that they are pulling away from a position of immediate pull out

These same reasons are likely going to be heard if President Obama backs the counterterrorism approach over McChrystal's counterinsurgency approach. They are already being defined in black and white terms - where counterinsurgency is DEFINED to result in a stable, democratic, better country and counter terrorism is being defined as a policy that "just kills the terrorists." This is wrong for two reasons - counterinsurgency is not guaranteed to work and you are left with the government you are allied with and there is no reason that counterterrorism can't be combined (though independent) with redevelopment.

The fact is that counterterrorism does not have to be a stand alone policy. Reading a few articles on the Pakistan aid bill, it is clear that it could ultimately be the model for helping reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure, if they join us in fighting terrorism. Here is a link that has information on the Pakistan bill - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8689714&mesg_id=8689714

[ShortnFiery]

20. They will NOT join us in killing the Taliban when you end up killing innocents at the same time.

We need to pull all combat troops back to the periphery and FOCUS solely on al Quaeda.

[karynnj]

24. that is what the counter terrorism approach does - at least as stated by John Kerry

and likely Biden.

To me that it does pull back to the periphery and focus on Al Qaeda IS the biggest difference between the two options.

Here:
"The president said our mission is to disrupt and dismantle al-Qaida and prevent them from coming back into this country,” Mr. Kerry said of the post 9-11 war plan. “They are not in Afghanistan now,” he said of al-Qaida, and if the U.S. and its coalition partners gear up military operations to suppress the Taliban as recommended recently by Gen. McChrystal, he said, “It is no longer an anti-terrorism strategy.”

http://www.telegram.com/article/20091007/NEWS/910070419/1052

From this NYT account, it now looks like the counter-terrorism approach is winning out. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8689752 (Let's hope they win out this time - unlike in March when Clinton, Gates etc appeared to win in bringing in McChrystal and going with counterinsurgency.)

[Jennicut]

35. I think that is really the best model.

I think Kerry (and our VP) really know Afghanistan and Pakistan well. You can combine aid with counter terrorism. Counterinsurgency requires us to tie ourselves to the corrupt, weak, and unreliable Karzai.

[jenmito]

26. Time to throw Code Pink under the bus!

This must put some in an awkward position. :shrug:

[avaistheone1]

28. Okay. They are not military strategists.

They are clearly over their heads.

Medea should send her kids to fight on the front lines for this one. Think she will? It's a great cause you know.

[jenmito]

31. So you think you know MORE than those who WENT to Afghanistan and

got the opinions of people who live there?

[avaistheone1]

36. So Medea surveyed the entire population of Afghanistan.

Pretty amazing stuff.
:sarcasm:


Funny that Code Pink is such a sacred cow to you. lol

[jenmito]

39. No, but I bet she surveyed more Afghanis than you did.

I never said Code Pink is a sacred cow to me. I'm just reading the article and giving my opinion.

[avaistheone1]

41. Well you said it was time to throw them under the bus -

just exactly what did you mean be that?

I never said I surveyed the Afghans. However to think Code Pink's survey on this is credible for the whole country of Afghanistan is ludicrous.

[jenmito]

42. I meant that those opposed to keeping any troops in Afghanistan will

throw Code Pink under the bus by minimizing or dismissing their rationale-kind of like you're doing.`

[mvd]

29. Sad that we've created such an environment of dependence

I oppose the war there and always will, not only because I think the Bush administration ignored the threat that led to 9/11 and with a competent President it would have been stopped, but because the terror threat is mobile and not like a traditional war. The fear is understandable, but it can be argued that it's not justified:

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=105801

[SIMPLYB1980]

37. Lots of people not taking this well.

That's OK Code Pink plenty of room under the "progressive" buss.

[spoony]

43. Uh, no, no room for Bush-war-lovers under the progressive bus.

Fuck that.

[avaistheone1]

45. I agree. I don't care who is leading the killing machine, I don't care if it is Bush, Obama,

the Beatles, Sponge Bob, or Mickey Mouse - no more war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[anonymous171]

56. Wars of intervention are always bad, no matter how "noble" they supposedly are

Imperialists wanted to "save" the savages of Africa/Asia/Latin America too remember?

[Phx_Dem]

46. This is very interesting. Whether you agree or disagree

with the Afganistan war, it's good to know that Code Pink is able to see other people's points of view regardless of their own strong anti-war position.

Personally, I don't know where I stand on Afganistan. On the one hand, it's a potential quagmire that is costing us a ton of money and lots of lives. On the other hand, it's a matter of national security and it's a justified war, unlike Iraq. And if we (and by "we" I mean Bush/Cheney) hadn't diverted our attention away from Afganistan in the first place, who knows if we'd still be there today. We're not Russia and this isn't the 1980s.

I've never been in the military and don't know anything about military strategy so I'm not going to pretend I do and demand that we leave Afganistan. Military offenses are always ugly and innocent people get killed, but sometimes military action is needed.

[Cha]

49. Yes, it is very interesting for the

points you state.

[MellowDem]

48. Uh-oh....

better suit up ladies, cause according to some DUers on here, it is only right you join the Army if you support having troops over there, for any reason whatsoever.

[Cha]

50. Nevertheless..Code Pink has earned their

right to speak out on issues of War.

[MellowDem]

52. I don't dispute that...

everyone has an equal right to speak on issues of War. Personally, I find their view to be rather black and white and simpleminded. If they are just now realizing that the situation in Afghanistan isn't as straightforward as "War bad, Peace good", then their naivete or viewpoint of the world as a dichotomy seems to be shining through.

There are a lot of reasons that are potentially quite humane and morally good to stay in Afghanistan until it is a functioning democracy. The question is whether it is worth the American blood or money and if it really is a best use of our resources. I just find single-issuers of any stripe to be a rather narrow-minded group.

[avaistheone1]

53. At an average cost to equip and pay for a soldier in Afghanistan of $70,000, and then to send

10,000 more soldiers would cost $700,000,000 in one year alone (not to mention the cost of the troops already stationed there), and it would take at least 50+ years to get Afghanistan to function as a democracy. Of course the U.S. is in great economic shape so this should not be a problem.



:sarcasm:


Pursing war in Afghanistan is the definition of insanity.

[MellowDem]

61. The cost will be incrediblly high...

that's for sure. Though I think you underestimate it with your figure of 700 million, that's really just a drop in the bucket of expenses. Of course, we spent huge sums of money staying in Japan and Germany and rebuilding Europe for decades (until this day really) and it seems to have somewhat paid off.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the original point of the wars (and there were many, said and unsaid) simply devolved down to building a democracy, which nobody was exactly planning on going in and which takes far more resources than, just say, going after Al-Quada. Personally, if the Taliban is not a threat to us, and I don't think they are, especially as long as there is an Afghani and Pakistani central government that keeps them on a leash, then I don't see the problem in only keeping a small number of forces in Afghanistan to go after Al-Quada, like a couple thousand. But if we are going to be in Afghanistan for the long haul, that is to build a democracy, then we might as well do it right instead of wasting resources by not having enough soldiers there to do the job. I think Obama is leaning towards the former though, and I hope he goes with that strategy.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Point in fact, women are being repressed by the Karzai regime

Let's get all the troops out, and grant asylum to all Afghani women and girls.

[anonymous171]

55. What about their families? nt

[anonymous171]

54. Code Pink is going soft right when we need them the most.

Fuck Afghanistan, fuck human rights, and fuck Bush/Obama (sorry guys) for getting us involved there and for continuing our involvement there.

(response copied from other thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6726050&mesg_id=6732598)

[jeanpalmer]

60. Why can't Afghanistan provide its own security

They've had 8 years to put together a security force. That's long enough. The real problem in Afghanistan is that no amount of troops, American or Afghani, will change the attitudes of the people. They have their way of doing things and they don't want to be interfered with from the outside. If they want to apply Sharia law, so be it. If they want to educate their kids in madrassas, same thing. Let that country handle its own problems, in the way they see fit. If you want them to build schools, dams, roads, and dig wells, we can contribute to that. But it's up to them to do it. It's not the job of the military to risk their lives doing it. And it is complete arrogance to try to force this kind of social change at the point of a gun, killing and maiming many people in the process, and dislodging them from their homes. Doing good is not a justification for making war on people.