News How Has the Status of Women in Afghanistan Evolved Historically?

[Gokul43201]

You are using rhetorical flourishes again. That's fine for grabbing attention and opening an argument I guess, but then I await the substance.

Women's rights are suddenly being painted as a reason for the US to occupy Afghanistan. Where are all the PF voices calling for the US to impose gay rights on the mullahs too? Wouldn't that be consistent? Wouldn't it be great if Time put out an emotive cover with a story like this?

Is all of this also directed at me? If it is, I'm clueless about what you mean, or more specifically, what you think I'm saying/doing.

 

[apeiron]

Do you attribute the improvement in women's rights to principles derived directly from Socialism any more than you do the torture and murders of thousands of the so-called elite?

OK, so I am expected to treat this question as if you were seriously puzzled. :zzz:

If we are talking about socialism/communism as poltical theory, then yes, women's equality would be part of a general desire for social equality. And no, torture and murder of elites is not a necessary part of that theory.

Is your understanding of the political theory different?

 

[edward]

A much different TIME cover.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20011217,00.html

The status of women in Afghanistan is affected more by religion that politics.

History has just repeated itself in Afghanistan.

 

[apeiron]

A much different TIME cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20011217,00.html

Nice link.

The conflict in Afghanistan has confounded expectations. Who anticipated that the Taliban's rule would disintegrate wholesale two months into the U.S. bombing campaign? Or that the regime's soldiers would abandon Kandahar as meekly and abruptly as they did, quitting the city in the dead of night?

That was in 2001 of course. So the confounded expectations was certainly true.

 

[Gokul43201]

OK, so I am expected to treat this question as if you were seriously puzzled. :zzz:

Yes, I was (seriously puzzled), but given your attitude, I am no longer interested in having a conversation.

 

[mheslep]

Of course, whether they did is state secret. But it's highly rumored, and likely.

Ok then. Actually its highly rumored that you, Werg22, set up the Taliban, very likely even.

 

[mheslep]

Is it true that the US helped empower radical Islamist groups in the 80s? That, I believe, is undisputed. Some of those jihadis (like Mullah Omar) joined the Taliban, others joined related groups, still others became competing warlords...

I believe that's very disputable. I'd agree the US neglected the region after the Soviet withdrawal. But I dispute that the US could be credited with empowering true Islamist radicals in Afghanistan.

Most US support went to the Mujahadeen ancestors of the Northern Alliance, eventually led by anti-Soviet war hero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud" , later assasinated by Taliban hosted al-Qaeda. It is almost certainly true that none of the relatively few Afghan Arabs in country at the time (including Bin Laden) received any US support. Mullah Omar founded the Taliban circa 1994 starting with a hand full of a supporters, drawing numbers from the Madrasahs and likely from the Pakistani ISI. Western or US support had nothing to do with it. That's my reading of sources such as Wright's The Looming Towers.

 

[mheslep]

But if the US set up Afghanistan as a bear trap, then how can it be "nevermind"? In fact Werg has just knocked your arguments that others created the mess out of the ball park.

I don't see that placing 'in fact' in front of non-sequitors and/or hand waiving makes them any less of either.

 

[apeiron]

I don't see that placing 'in fact' in front of non-sequitors and/or hand waiving makes them any less of either.

No, but citing that interview with Brzezinski afterwards does dispute your claim that the US had no hand in the state of Afghanistan at the time it invaded .

 

[BobG]

I believe there are studies. One really has to look at individual tribes, provinces, and regions.

This is the real key. The problem with Afghanistan is that the tribes, provinces, and regions are so independent from each other that it's hard to consider Afghanistan a single nation of people. There's lots of variation in the conditions of women throughout the country.

Here are some good pix of swinging 60s Afghanistan before it was broke...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan

And this doesn't contradict Astronuc's post. It's significant that just about all of those photos are from Kabul - plus a picture of the rural modernization program which consisted of medical personnel from Kabul venturing out into the rural areas to administer vaccinations.

But at least Afghanistan was solid within Kabul and the country was moving in the right direction. It was just a country where the rural tribes were so separated from the 'center' that it was easy for things to turn bad.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe that's very disputable.

I was going by memory - I recall the US/Isreali arms shipments going through Zia, and I'm pretty sure Zia went all out in efforts to attract Islamic groups from Saudi et al. Will recheck and get back on this, but that may not be for a few days.