Is it really worth it?

[rae]

With the last election, Obama campaigned about getting the troops out of Iran in a timely fashion. I think Americans all wanted that, even if we disagree about what is or isn’t timely. He also campaigned on taking the war against Al-Qaida back to Afghanistan and stopping them. Again, I think most Americans wanted to see that as well. So, a year ago Obama was elected. Two months later, he became CIC. At the end of March, he stood by his generals and made a speech, telling America that they had concluded their evaluation on what needs to be done. They had a plan in place and were moving forward. Fast-forward five months, and we have the top general, who Obama put in charge, requesting more troops. Really, that whole scenario that happened, we can only speculate. I can tell you that I personally have NEVER seen a general make a public request like that. I’ve never seen the whole leaking of the report just to get the media attention because the President is sitting on a report and not doing anything about it. We all know there is a chain of command, and this is JUST NOT DONE. So, what happened? Why did a general feel compelled to pretty much put his career on the line, just to make his point? That was the end of August. Obama is still thinking it over. He’s asking for other options. Two months and countless deaths, and morale is sinking lower. He’s been CIC for 9 months, and the troops are still waiting. He is second-guessing his generals and maybe he’s second-guessing himself. We’ve had this discussion before. I’ve said it before. Either have faith in the generals in charge and give them what they need to win the war, or pull out asap and bring our men and women home. Each day of delay, each day of no decisions and our soldiers are paying the ultimate price.

[Lesley]

Rae....thank you so much for you words. I think it may just very well be the most you've 'spoken' in some time. I must say that you clearly stated your opinion and while I many not have agreed with everything you said in the last 3 posts, there were some bites that I would 100% agree with.

When a fallen hero comes home, he deserves dignity and respect and privacy. I have had mixed emotions about Bush’s decision to disallow photos and videos at Dover. On the one hand, I have the utmost respect for that soldier’s privacy. On the other, maybe if seeing all of the flag-draped coffins could shock the old men who wage war into ending war, it could be one way to end all wars.

The photos of any military personnel that come home in a coffin also make me uncomfortable. I think sometimes it's too easy to be cavalier about lives of unknown soldiers too far away in a conflict that only hits the news occassionally and rarely as a lead story. We are so removed it almost seems like it's someone elses fight. I 100% agree that these photos do something to the soul...at least given the title of my post, you know that this is exaclty how I was affected. I was told that pictures are with the permission of the family. I don't know for 100% of that is fact or not, but I do feel that keeping the ultimate sacrifice of soldiers a secret of sorts...to not actually see the pain, and results of war, the population was done a disservice with regards to what this is actually doing to so many families across the country. Is it worth it? I waffled much previously, I no longer waffle. It's not.

He also campaigned on taking the war against Al-Qaida back to Afghanistan and stopping them.

I think there are two concerns here. I'm not sure Obama thinks the top Al Qaida people are in Afghanistan any longer. And he is trying to determine if the investment in the war in Afghanistan would yield results that are equal to or better than the investment. There is such a huge terrorist escalation in Pakistan and Pakistan was also on the original radar (during the campaigns). His promise was to go where the terrortst are going. Nomads that they are. Now that Abdullah Abdullah has decided to jump out of the Nov 7 re-election, the need for escalation is even more muddied (the voting fraud that propted some of the desire for escalating troops). Currently US troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1. Seems odd that the desired results are still not attainable. Now what were the desired results?

As for your comments regarding the treatment of women under Taliban rule. Absolutely I agree that it is inhuman. Where we seem to disagree is that I do not believe the military is the best or the appropriate medium to enforce human rights doctrines.

[rae]

The photos were with permission of the family. Of all that came home on that flight, only one family agreed to the publicity, so only one was shown. The family permission is the least they could do. I would rather that this be one of those things that the soldier himself/herself would also check yes or no on the myriad of forms they are required to fill out before deployment. The service member themselves should be the ultimate decision makers, imho.

As far as the Taliban, I didn't say I believe that our military is the best or appropriate entity to enforce human rights. I'm sure they are NOT the best for that particular job in that particular part of the world. But, I don't see anybody else willing to do the job. I'd much rather it be another country who shares the same faith, same culture, going in with either their dangling carrots or their 2X4's, whichever proves necessary.

[Pearls]

Originally Posted by intheknow

Another question:

What about the horrible nature of the way the Taliban treats its women and girls? Any thoughts about liberating them? Where are the feminists? Why haven't they been screaming about that like they have about so many other things that seem so trvial in comparison?

Laura Bush tried. Is she keeping he nose in those issues still....I don't know. But she pushed for educating Afghan women.

Karzai has now been declared the winner. He's certainly a bad bad BAD president for the women of Afghanistan. The question is.....can we make a difference in their culture, in how they treat women? I have my doubts. And this administration is certainly not showing themselves to be a champion for human rights, very much the opposite.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Silence Meets Despair of Afghan Women
April 02, 2009
Silence Meets Despair of Afghan Women
By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan's women are no longer in vogue.

It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. "The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists," the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control."

That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands' sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house -- even for work or school -- without a husband's permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.

"This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan," Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively "legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan."

The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan's parliament quickly. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious factions. The United Nations Development Fund for Women says it is still analyzing a final version of the legislation, but is "seriously concerned" about its impact. It appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.

The U.S. State Department has had no immediate comment.

Afghanistan's women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration's tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations -- whether they're in China, Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager's home -- in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.

This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls -- a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.

"My message is very clear. Women's rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought," Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. "You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population (is) underfed, undereducated, under cared for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines."

The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. "They are talking about child marriage," she says.

Without pressure from foreign powers who hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little even women in the country's parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction that is said to hold the balance of power in Karzai's re-election bid to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.

The ugly truth in Afghanistan is that it has long been sliding back into the violent chaos that is friendly political ground for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Women have, as usual, been among the chief victims.

There is indeed a lengthy and urgent to-do list for the Obama administration, which says it is determined to abandon a failing course. But that does not mean the United States should again fail Afghanistan's women.

To consign them to what Laura Bush correctly called "deliberate human cruelty" is cruelty itself.

[intheknow]

Has Obama made a decision yet? Hello?

[Lesley]

For women's rights in Islam. I cannot be won at the end of a gun. This not a military issue. It's a social and highly religious issue. While people in the US are so worried about government trampling all over their freedom to worship as they may, it seems that same privilege has some defined liberties and Islam or sharia is not one of them. The change needs to come from human rights activism and more importantly from within the nation itself. Just like this: Sharif University Student to Khamenei: Why Can’t Anyone Criticize You? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? Persian2english's Blog

(NOTE: this is not a full translation, but a summary)


Supreme leader Khamenei usually holds conferences with top students who are pre-selected to speak. These students usually go on stage and praise Khamenei. Then Khamenei usually speaks and talks about how much he values their ideas.

But this Wednesday October 28th, the conference was different. After the students spoke, Khamenei asked if anybody had any questions. Mahmoud Vahidnia, a math student from Sharif university who is also winner of the International Math Olympics, stood up and said courageously:

“Yes, I have some words with you.”

Here is a summary translation of what the students said to Khamenei:

“Why can’t anyone criticize you in this country, isn’t that ignorant? Do you think that you make no mistakes? Why have they made an idol out of you that is so unreachable and that nobody can challenge? I have never read an article about your performance in any newspaper because you have shut down all the media that is against you in the country. Why does national TV show all the events untruthfully? For example all the events after the election. Why do you support them [national TV shows], when everyone knows they are lying? Since the president of national TV is directly selected by you, then you are responsible for all this.”

——————————–

Khamenei evades answering the student and calls his words not truthful. He claims that people criticize him everyday and he listens to them and then fixes his errors.

Everybody knows that this is just another lie. Rumors say that the student has been arrested.

************************************