Meanwhile, it still sucks to be female in Afghanistan

Has anyone noticed that the war/antiwar crowds have reversed their positions when it comes to Afghanistan? The Bush administration (despite its vocal claims otherwise) has been quietly pulling back on commitments to Afghanistan, blocking a planned $174 million in Afghan humanitarian aid (including $2.5 million that was desperately needed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs). There’s also been a lot of hemming and hawing over doing the most important thing – expanding the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In August, the Bush administration reversed itself and said it might support expanding the ISAF. In September, the State Department issued a report saying just the opposite.

Meanwhile, feminists, human rights groups, the UN, and democrats – groups that have been, in general, more skeptical about invading Iraq – all want the ISAF increased. Why? Here’s a few reasons…

• Gunmen in Afghanistan have forced the closing of a girls’ school, the Feminist Majority Foundation reports. This is just the latest of a series of incidents in which girls’ schools have been attacked, bombed, and burned down.
• The Kabul government has just reinstated "virtue and vice" police, the Taliban’s forces in charge of beating women who dressed "improperly." Reports indicate that the new "virtue and vice" police won’t be as awful as they were under the Taliban, a comparison which gives new meaning to "damn with faint praise."
• Last week, forces belonging to Abdul Rashid Dostum – who is a minister in the U.S.-supported Kabul government – drove hundreds of civilians away from their villages, looted their homes, and committed multiple rapes. (Should we worry about who we appoint to replace the Taliban? Not according to conservatives like Catherine Seipp, who mock feminists for "hand wringing about the Taliban’s replacements.")
• A combination of bad medical care and lack of women’s rights makes has given Afghanistan the second-hightest infant mortality rate in the world (1,700 out of every 100,000 pregnant Afghan women die in childbirth; for comparison’s sake, the number in the US is 12 in 100,000). "In addition, the study also noted that 80 percent of the women interviewed considered sex with their husbands obligatory. Nearly half said that a husband had the right to physically abuse his wife for disobedience."
• A drug smuggler strangles his wife because he suspects her of infidelity. The police chief’s reaction? "That woman committed a crime. Her death was her punishment."
• Human Rights Watch has documented that harassment, assault, and rape (including gang-rape) are ongoing problems for many women in Afghanistan, especially women who live outside of Kabul. Even in Kabul, however, too many women still have good reason to fear breaking the Taliban’s edicts on women’s behavior. According to the British group Womankind, "Women continue to be assaulted or abused for not adhering to former Taliban edicts that strictly controlled women’s behavior, dress, expression and movement." As one women interviewed said, "It doesn’t matter that the Taliban are no longer here, because the Mujahidin are here."

• Taliban-style sharia law is still the law of the land – including in Kabul. One of many "lowlights" from this article: a female police officer suggesting that rape isn’t possible: "Can you force the thread through the needle if the needle is jerking around?"

• According to Womankind, "Trafficking in women and girls has increased. Girls are purchased in Afghanistan, trafficked through Pakistan and sold into prostitution or marriage in the Persian Gulf countries."

Have things improved for women in Afghanistan as a result of U.S. actions? On the whole, yes – as several of the sources I’ve linked to, particularly the Human Rights Watch report, document. But why do so many apparently sane people think it’s time to uncork champaign and declare victory in the fight for Afghan women’s rights?

The truth is, "better than under the Taliban" is not one-tenth of the way to "good enough." As Laura Bush said nearly a year ago, "fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity – a commitment shared by people of good will on every continent." (Emphasis added.)

The commitment Ms. Bush spoke of has not been fulfilled. There’s more to be done. The next step – increasing security forces, so that improvements to women’s rights can spread beyond Kabul – is obvious. The people who are opposing war in Iraq want more intervention in Afghanistan. So why the delay?

Laura Bush, where are you?

UPDATE: After writing and posting the above, I remembered Unqualified Offerings‘ recent post on Afghanistan. Jim is too smart to join the "everything in Afghanistan is okay now" crowd. Nonetheless, he argues against increased intervention, saying that “conquering Afghanistan in a matter of weeks is no big deal – the Soviets did it in 1979. Holding it is the hard part. [US leaders] desperately do not want to be the Soviet Union in 1980 or, god forbid, 1986. ”

Jim makes a persuasive case – but I’m not totally convinced. Fifteen years ago, warlords were able to stand against the Soviets because they were being propped up by US aid and support. Today, there isn’t a power in the world able to prop up the warlords against focused US action (or even an international action). So the two situations aren’t the same.

UPDATE 2: Body and Soul, and her readers,are having an interesting discussion of the ethics of enforcing western values in non-western cultures..