Ben Smith notes a striking omission from Obama's speech tonight: Although Obama spoke about America's dedication to human rights generally, there was no mention of the terrible plight of Afghan women specifically.Certainly, the horrendous state of women's rights under the Taliban is worth highlighting repeatedly, and a major reason why the Taliban resurgence is so dangerous. No one wishes to see a regime that used stoning as a means of punishing adultery return.Curiously, however, his March 27 AfPak speech did include such a reference:
As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.It's a sign of the extreme realism reigning in Washington today. Still, I find myself wondering whether a President Hillary Clinton would be pressing this case harder.
But Crowley appears to be suggesting that Obama should have framed the current mission, centered around supporting the government of Hamid Karzai, as a women's rights endeavor. This is bizarre, and not a little bit insulting to Afghan women. It was Karzai's government that legalized marital rape and banned women from leaving the home without their husband's permission. Karazi has also previously suggested that he would be comfortable including former warlords with Taliban-esque views on women in his government, and with brokering deals with the Taliban itself that involve sacrificing women's rights protections. One can see the case for supporting such a government on national security grounds, but it is hard to see how bolstering the Karzai regime is supposed to represent a substantial gain for women's rights.
It is worth considering the alternative policies that could be implemented here as well. Even if the troop increase leads to a slight improvement in women's rights, it is hard to imagine the money going to fund it would not be better spent, from a women's rights perspective, on funding education for girls, ensuring personal protection for female politicians, providing seed capital to female-owned businesses, or supporting other gender equity-focused development projects. The decision for those concerned with the rights of Afghan women, that is, need not be between a surge and the status quo. There are other options for expending American resources, ones that address this goal better. That does not in itself make the surge unjustified. It does, however, make women's rights-based justifications of it more than a little disingenuous. Good on Obama, then, for steering clear of them.
--Dylan Matthews
