Humanitarianism: Not a goal, but a possible effect

Ann Friedman takes to The American Prospect to argue against the feminist rationale for sending more troops to Afghanistan. Many U.S. feminist groups support escalation because they think it will improve the lives of Afghan women; Friedman criticizes them for ignoring Afghan views.

As the American left debates, I'm struck by a desire to know what Afghan women, who have been living under the U.S. occupation for roughly eight years now, think would be best for their country.

She bases her critique on a representative sample of exactly three Afghan women, including Malalai Joya, the politician and activist who's quoted in every single story about women in Afghanistan.

I actually agree with Friedman that protecting women's rights is not an explicit goal of the U.S. military -- nor should it be. Armies are not humanitarian forces. The population-centric strategy endorsed by top NATO commanders (though not always by lower-ranking officers) has humanitarian overtones, but only because that's the best way to undermine an insurgency.

Friedman's criticism is much too black-and-white, though; it doesn't allow for the possibility that escalation in Afghanistan, if it strengthens the central government and weakens the Taliban, could improve the plight of Afghan women. It's not a direct goal -- but it's a likely follow-on effect.

Friedman rejects that argument, I'm sure, because she thinks the current Afghan government "has not been markedly better" for women than the Taliban (her words). She cites the Shi'a personal status law as proof.

She's either being mendacious or ignorant. As Una Vera documented earlier this month, Afghan women are demonstrably better off today than they were eight years ago. Millions of girls are in school; women run for office. Whatever the central government's shortcomings vis-a-vis women, it's better than the Taliban; the corollary is that a return to Taliban rule would be disastrous for women.

Now, it's true that the surge, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, will continue to have negative short-term consequences for civilians. NATO troops continue to kill and wound ordinary Afghans; homes will be destroyed, livelihoods shattered, families broken up. Again, armies are not humanitarian forces. But if we're focused exclusively on women's rights, you cannot argue in good faith that women are better off hoping for a U.S. withdrawal, a power vacuum, and a possible Taliban takeover.

There are plenty of good arguments against the surge in Afghanistan. Friedman's is not one of them.

Also, just to make this point explicitly: Can we please, please, please stop treating Malalai Joya as if she's representative of everyone with ovaries between Herat and the Khyber Pass? Please?

No Comments