I remember from high school history classes that after WWI, America and Europe were all "F-You losers" and left them to their own post-war shitty devices. Then that lead up to WWII because everyone in Germany was miserable and disgruntled and so when someone came along and took control, promising something better, lots of Germans (at least initially) were like, "Yes!" And thus WWII. (This was definitely a practice question for AP Modern European History.)
Then after WWII, everybody was like, We can't just leave them alone in the rubble. We have to make sure no more Nazis get delusions of grandeur, and we have to help them rebuild--literally and economically--the country so there's no more misery/poverty/anger that will cause another war. And so there was the rebuilding of Germany. I can't remember if there was a rebuilding of Japan (since it was European history). Now Germany is all set and not trying to start wars. Neither is Japan.
Can someone explain why it was a good idea to rebuild Germany but not Afghanistan? Are these situations at all alike in anything but my wikipedia-like remembrances of high school history?
@Cimorene: Thse countries had much more of an infrastructure and a civil society conducive to bureaucratic government. I think that structural barrier is at least as big a hurdle than the ideological one. I mean, creating a liberal representative democracy out of Pashtun tribal culture would require mass production of those transmogrifiers from Calvin and Hobbes (actually I think Wolfowitz wrote a memo promoting that).
@BearDownCBears: exactly. They didn't have to invent roads, viable legal agriculture, and an education system, a few things militaries may not be particularly suited for.
@J.D.Regent: Plus the workers are targets. Try shoveling asphalt and dodging mortars at the same time. And then, during your lunchbreak, you learn the stretch of highway you finished three days ago is a smoldering crater.
@Cimorene: It has a lot to do with cultural differences. Germans had a religion, language base, government structure and yes, skin color, that many could relate to. There is a large tendency to "other" the Afghans and for them to "other" us. Much of their culture bears little resemblance to the culture of those who would hope to rebuild their country. We (as in the world) have to figure out a way to help them without eradicating the essence of their way of life. We need to be disapproving of their human rights violations while being respectful of their cultural differences. This is a very difficult line to walk.
@Cimorene: Ah, the Marshall Plan. Its a good idea, in theory, but there are several conditions that existed in Germany/war-torn Europe that don't in Afghanistan.
First of all, Afghanistan is nearly in civil war at this point. In Western Europe post WW2, the Nazis were resoundly conquered. As they were a state-run army, once the leaders died/surrendered, the general rank-and-file soldiers didn't keep fighting on their own. That's not the case in Afghanistan. There wasn't any insurgency or Nazi forces in Western Europe after WW2 ended. There also wasn't any local sympathy for Nazis, which makes it easier for rebel forces to survive. There is some of that for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Secondly, Afghanistan is massively lacking in infrastructure - both human and physical - moreso than almost any other country in the world. Its one thing to rebuild schools and roads and factories that were destroyed in Austria so that schoolteachers and factory workers can return to them, its quite another to build a school or a road where there's never been one before, and where an entire generation is largely illiterate. Its easy to restore civilization to conditions within the same decade, its much harder to create it after everyone who remembers a stable, prosperous Afghanistan (which existed until 1973!) is either dead or has fled the country.
Also the Marshall Plan was incredibly expensive.
I'm NOT saying the US shouldn't pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan in terms of infrastructure and economic development. We totally should. Its just that we won't.
ETA: Oh also! We were resoundingly treated in Europe as liberators. Everyone outside of Germany (and possibly inside as well?) was more than happy to see us. While that might have initially been the case in Afghanistan, it definitely no longer is true.
@CherriSpryte: But how would pumping money into a country do any good without somebody babysitting the projects? I mean, Germany and Japan were occupied. Granted, I don't know too much about international aid, but I see enough articles about aid workers killed in Afghanistan and Darfur to get the idea that sending a ton of civil servants into a war zone without security is risky to say the least. I mean, isn't it a pretty serious threat that if you fund NGO's in Afghanistan with little to no security detail the Taliban will sniff it out and behead as many participants as they can get their hands on?
@BearDownCBears: I completely agree with you - if the US were to try for Marshall Plan-like changes in Afghanistan, it would take a massive amount of troops and humanitarian workers. And also a huge push by I-don't-know-who to get men to treat women as equals - a gigantic factor that, again, wasn't part of the equation in Europe.
But what we're talking about is the textbook definition of nationbuilding. Which isn't happening.
I'm more pessimistic than Glenn Greenwald. I think the American public has shown it doesn't care about women's right in America. So I'm not sure why the president would be expected to think we would care about women's rights anywhere else.
That said, I think Greenwald's point is great. But I do hope we can manage to leave a standing government in that country that views all people are equals. Though that's clearly too much to expect when our own legislators fail at that, right?
@JerseyGrrrl: Personally, I'm tired of "women's rights!" being shouted by people (men) justifying the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Men that are never concerned about women otherwise, suddenly become very passionate about women's equality when it allows them to justify military action in the Middle East.
@Gumbina80: Agreed. I also think it has something to do with the extent of the injustices against women and other marginalized groups in that country and region. While most men here don't think women have it that bad and few can get too excited about the inequality of pay or poor access to choice, very few men can hear about the plight of women there and the issues facing them without being somewhat moved. When we're talking about stonings, legalized rape and outlawed education, it's hard to find men who can remain completely nonplussed.
However, things are just as bad (and maybe worse, but who's comparing?) for women in other parts of the world, and we've got no interest in affecting change in those places, so you've probably got it right.
@JerseyGrrrl: If the U.S. military became some kind of crusader for gender and sexual equality across the globe, I could get behind that. Invading and fighting countries that oppress women. For some reason, though, I don't think that's what these hawks have in mind.
@Gumbina80: The one thing that I think often gets lost in the "humanitarian war" justifications (when that's not, of course, as you point out, really what's at stake) is that when you bomb a country, you are bombing women. When you kill Iraqis and Afghanis, you are killing Iraqi and Afghani women and the people that they love, and the members of their community. That's not to say that no one should fight, for example, fascism in Europe in World War II. But that most people aren't seeking to gain their liberation through the guns and bombs of a foreign invader.
@individa: Also, when your cause isn't existential, your home front has severe war ADD, perhaps leaving the almost-liberated in a worse state than before.
I don't know when we as a country, culture, society, world, whatever, went back to being so far entrenched in the idea that war can fix not only some problems, but all problems. For a while after VietNam, I do think people in this country had started to feel that perhaps a military response was simply not always going to fix things and often made things worse, but now ... I just don't get that sense anymore.
If that is truly why President Obama did not pull out the "we're the good guys, getting rid of evil" card in the speech, because he does not believe the human rights and women's rights horrors are not fixable through military means, then I have to applaud him, because it's so easy to try to justify it that way.
Karzai may be marginally better than the Taliban, but he has demonstrated that he is happy to cater to the extremists in his country in return for political support. Remember the marital rape law? I am nothing but pessimistic about the outcome of this war.
Ugh, I have hated this war from the beginning and really resented when Bush tried to act for a second like he was invading to save the women who he previously took no notice of, and then acted like invading their country was a fucking favor. I really appreciate Greenwald's points, like a lot a lot. We did not invade Afghanistan because of how the Taliban treats women, and there is something disingenuous (mission creep, "humanitarian" bombs, etc.) about suggesting that we are staying for that reason. I am also interested in hearing how the invasion itself has affected Afghani women, and what efforts BESIDES bombing shit we have going to support the rights of women and girls . However I also get the idea that, since we are a warlike nation, why AREN'T women's rights worth fighting for? I guess when you have a hammer all you see are nails. Or when you are a nail all you see are hammers. Or something.
@J.D.Regent: I agree with Greenwald too. I think it is important to press our Afghan allies to focus on women's rights, and to focus on services for women in any rebuilding effort, but feel good photos of women voting does little to address the basic calculus of whether this war is winnable, and who exactly we need to beat.
@yvanehtnioj: Obviously I don't agree with the restrictions at all. But I can imagine that dancing and movies are banned due to "moral" issues, etc. However what "harm" could they see in playing soccer? The whole thing is becoming kinda pointless. #somalia
@MerryLilly: Typically women are allowed to play soccer if they are part of women only teams with female spectators. Apparently it is inappropriate for men to watch them in compromising positions, probably due to their athletic clothing etc. It seems these laws have just gotten more restrictive. #somalia
@sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell: Thanks for the reply! Wow, that's sad. Couldn't they just prevent men from watching these games? I mean, this was one of the few fun and empowering things these women could do :( #somalia
"We have taken this step after we recognized that women need to stay in their homes and take care of their children," Maalim Daaud Mohmed, the chairman of Balad Hawa, told reporters.
Revolutionary thinking, huh? I guess it sounds better than that the wimmins wer gettin' too equal. #somalia
@CherriSpryte: [www.reuters.com]
"The organisations closed by al Shabaab are the Halgan Businesswomen's Organisation, the Sed Huro Human Rights Organisation and Farhan Woman for Peace, he said."
There's also a story from Oct in which Somali insurgents* have been publicly whipping women for wearing bras. Depressingly, but not surprisingly, a couple outlets made that story into a joke and then never mentioned it again.
*How are these dickheads "insurgents" if they have the authority to impose laws and close down organizations? They're sounding a lot like the Taliban in the 1990s.
I want to do something, but I don't know what would help. Anybody have any ideas? #somalia
@snobographer: They're insurgents because hypothetically, the Transitional Federal Government is governing Somalia. When in fact, they're doing jack shit - they have no control or power. In the absence of an actual government, "insurgents" or "rebels" or "who's claiming this land as their own this week" have been imposing laws - such as no bra-wearing. They can do this because nobody is bothering to tell them not to.
As far as what you can do, there's VERY little aid getting to Somalia these days. [www.foreignpolicy.com]
It looks like World Food Programme's still there, so donate to them if you can.
The organization I work for supports several independent media houses in Somalia, so if you happen to want information on that, (and your heart broken on a semi-annual basis), you can get direct information here: [www.nusoj.org]
But I don't think there's any way to donate directly to that group. #somalia
@CherriSpryte: Thanks for the info. I'll bookmark your org and make a donation to the WFP.
If there's anything there like RAWA, or an org that can get aid directly to the women there, somebody please let me know. #somalia
@CherriSpryte: The FMF website says the insurgents are planning to close down 5 more organizations, but they won't say the names of those orgs. #somalia
@snobographer: Note about NUSOJ - I don't work there, I work for one of their funders.
In terms of women's groups, there's a well-respected organization called "Save Somali Women and Children" - www.sswcsom.org - that is doing amazing work, but I don't know about ways to donate to them. #somalia
Uh, I guess these guys don't know who the Mad Mullah was and history. Islamic fundamentalism is basically a massive fail in Somali society because of its distinct culture. It just doesn't translate.
It's a fucked up place, mainly due to being run by various violent factions, but I actually seem to recall someone trying this recently and people being like, "uh, I can't watch soccer? Pass." Also, dancing, music, and poetry are part & parcel of this culture.
I'm more curious as to whether the "Islamic" fundamentalist factions are trying to assert their power because there is currently a massive power struggle over who exactly gets to hold that white British couple hostage.
@Trulymadlyme: Except its not a total fail. The Union of Islamic Courts had control of most of the south of the country for awhile in 2006, and, while repressive, there was peace for the first time in 15 years. Until US-backed Ethiopia invaded, but that's a different story. Al-Shabab is an offshoot of the remnanats of UIC, and they're the ones imposing these laws. #somalia
@CherriSpryte: My understanding of the Union of Islamic Courts was that while they did have control over certain parts of the Southern portion of the country for a brief period, they lost it and other factions took over. Plus, I seemed to recall that there was a lot of flux among the various groups that had control over the various portions of the Southern Somalia over the past 20 years. They were all violent and horrible and corrupt but some just use the tag of "Islamic" to throw down an additional helping of horrible.
Then again, I could be wrong since my family was from the northern part of the country which was somewhat more quiet and they all seemed to have gotten this info third hand.
@sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell: Parts of it may currently or have in the past had Sharia but Sharia in and of itself is not Wahabism and the manner in which it is implemented across the board varies dramatically.
Also, this point cannot be stated enough: Somalia is a clan oriented society in which governs the manner in which the vast majority of people conduct their dealings, and the various, changing groups that wield power are violent, driven by resources/greed, and lack even a passing relationship with Islam, Sharia or Wahabism (which truthfully is what this article is referring to). Could there be Wabaism oppressing people there? Of course. In terms of the myriad of fucked up things in that society, it's just another janked piece of the puzzle. #somalia
@Trulymadlyme: I do not mean to suggest that Islamic fundamentalism is the only destructive factor in Somalia. However, I did want to point out that it is successful to an extent as it was only recently introduced in 2009 and the parliament now votes in accordance with its principles.
Edited by sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell at 11/03/09 12:46 PM
sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell was starred
sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell was unstarred
@sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell: Islamic fundamentalism was in Somalia way before 2009. And the parliament is ineffective at best, so it doesn't so much matter how they're voting. #somalia
@Trulymadlyme: UIC lost control of the south, particularly Mogadishu, because the TFG invited Ethiopia in to kick them (the UIC) out. It wasn't internal fighting, or anything clan-related, in that particular moment. Agreed, since Barre was ousted, lots of different groups have controlled, or tried to control, the south. And no one's succeeded for long. But UIC was the most stable system they'd had in a little while, and the fact that they were attacked because of the "growing fundamentalist threat in the Horn of Africa" is fucked up. #somalia
@CherriSpryte: I am aware that Islamic fundamentalism has existed prior to 2009 in Somalia. But the fact that the parliament disregarded more progressive law for tribal alternatives demonstrates its increasing significance in the region. #somalia
@morninggloria: Ha, that's basically my response anytime someone claims to be a libertarian. "You know where you can be free from all this terrible 'government control of everything'? Somalia. Have fun!"
Being that the only people who ever say this to me are white males, that tends to shut them up pretty quickly. #somalia
I love when people say they don't want ANY government. Usually these are middle-class to well-off Americans. I can understand less government, but no government?
I suggest someone drop their butts in a country where there is no working/central government and see how they like it. #somalia
@AlmostDream: I'm confused, how can somalia be libertarian if women are being forced to do things against their will? i dont know a lot about the politics of the country #somalia
Libertarians claim they don't want any government interference at all. (What most of the jackasses that claim to be libertarian in the US mean is that they do want all of the benefits, like schools and roads and fire departments, but they don't want to pay taxes.) #somalia
@yvanehtnioj: My boss is a libertarian. Yesterday he tried to make me read an argument made by Ron Paul about our economy, and how its collapse was not related to capitalism in any way. I tried to explain to him why this assertion was fictitious, as it disregarded the multiple mechanisms which allow our society to function, but to no avail. #somalia
Groups will do anything to gain power and terrorizing people and imposing insane regulations is a by product of their quest for power not religious purity or anything else. #somalia
12/03/09
Then after WWII, everybody was like, We can't just leave them alone in the rubble. We have to make sure no more Nazis get delusions of grandeur, and we have to help them rebuild--literally and economically--the country so there's no more misery/poverty/anger that will cause another war. And so there was the rebuilding of Germany. I can't remember if there was a rebuilding of Japan (since it was European history). Now Germany is all set and not trying to start wars. Neither is Japan.
Can someone explain why it was a good idea to rebuild Germany but not Afghanistan? Are these situations at all alike in anything but my wikipedia-like remembrances of high school history?
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
First of all, Afghanistan is nearly in civil war at this point. In Western Europe post WW2, the Nazis were resoundly conquered. As they were a state-run army, once the leaders died/surrendered, the general rank-and-file soldiers didn't keep fighting on their own. That's not the case in Afghanistan. There wasn't any insurgency or Nazi forces in Western Europe after WW2 ended. There also wasn't any local sympathy for Nazis, which makes it easier for rebel forces to survive. There is some of that for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Secondly, Afghanistan is massively lacking in infrastructure - both human and physical - moreso than almost any other country in the world. Its one thing to rebuild schools and roads and factories that were destroyed in Austria so that schoolteachers and factory workers can return to them, its quite another to build a school or a road where there's never been one before, and where an entire generation is largely illiterate. Its easy to restore civilization to conditions within the same decade, its much harder to create it after everyone who remembers a stable, prosperous Afghanistan (which existed until 1973!) is either dead or has fled the country.
Also the Marshall Plan was incredibly expensive.
I'm NOT saying the US shouldn't pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan in terms of infrastructure and economic development. We totally should. Its just that we won't.
ETA: Oh also! We were resoundingly treated in Europe as liberators. Everyone outside of Germany (and possibly inside as well?) was more than happy to see us. While that might have initially been the case in Afghanistan, it definitely no longer is true.
12/03/09
12/03/09
But what we're talking about is the textbook definition of nationbuilding. Which isn't happening.
12/04/09
12/03/09
That said, I think Greenwald's point is great. But I do hope we can manage to leave a standing government in that country that views all people are equals. Though that's clearly too much to expect when our own legislators fail at that, right?
12/03/09
12/03/09
However, things are just as bad (and maybe worse, but who's comparing?) for women in other parts of the world, and we've got no interest in affecting change in those places, so you've probably got it right.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
If that is truly why President Obama did not pull out the "we're the good guys, getting rid of evil" card in the speech, because he does not believe the human rights and women's rights horrors are not fixable through military means, then I have to applaud him, because it's so easy to try to justify it that way.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
I don't agree with the other restrictions either, but I can somewhat see where they are coming from.
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
Revolutionary thinking, huh? I guess it sounds better than that the wimmins wer gettin' too equal. #somalia
11/03/09
11/03/09
[www.reuters.com]
"The organisations closed by al Shabaab are the Halgan Businesswomen's Organisation, the Sed Huro Human Rights Organisation and Farhan Woman for Peace, he said."
There's also a story from Oct in which Somali insurgents* have been publicly whipping women for wearing bras. Depressingly, but not surprisingly, a couple outlets made that story into a joke and then never mentioned it again.
*How are these dickheads "insurgents" if they have the authority to impose laws and close down organizations? They're sounding a lot like the Taliban in the 1990s.
I want to do something, but I don't know what would help. Anybody have any ideas? #somalia
11/03/09
As far as what you can do, there's VERY little aid getting to Somalia these days. [www.foreignpolicy.com]
It looks like World Food Programme's still there, so donate to them if you can.
The organization I work for supports several independent media houses in Somalia, so if you happen to want information on that, (and your heart broken on a semi-annual basis), you can get direct information here: [www.nusoj.org]
But I don't think there's any way to donate directly to that group. #somalia
11/03/09
11/03/09
If there's anything there like RAWA, or an org that can get aid directly to the women there, somebody please let me know. #somalia
11/03/09
11/03/09
In terms of women's groups, there's a well-respected organization called "Save Somali Women and Children" - www.sswcsom.org - that is doing amazing work, but I don't know about ways to donate to them. #somalia
11/03/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
It's a fucked up place, mainly due to being run by various violent factions, but I actually seem to recall someone trying this recently and people being like, "uh, I can't watch soccer? Pass." Also, dancing, music, and poetry are part & parcel of this culture.
I'm more curious as to whether the "Islamic" fundamentalist factions are trying to assert their power because there is currently a massive power struggle over who exactly gets to hold that white British couple hostage.
11/03/09
11/03/09
Then again, I could be wrong since my family was from the northern part of the country which was somewhat more quiet and they all seemed to have gotten this info third hand.
11/03/09
11/03/09
Also, this point cannot be stated enough: Somalia is a clan oriented society in which governs the manner in which the vast majority of people conduct their dealings, and the various, changing groups that wield power are violent, driven by resources/greed, and lack even a passing relationship with Islam, Sharia or Wahabism (which truthfully is what this article is referring to). Could there be Wabaism oppressing people there? Of course. In terms of the myriad of fucked up things in that society, it's just another janked piece of the puzzle. #somalia
11/03/09
EDIT [edition.cnn.com]
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/04/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
Being that the only people who ever say this to me are white males, that tends to shut them up pretty quickly. #somalia
11/03/09
I love when people say they don't want ANY government. Usually these are middle-class to well-off Americans. I can understand less government, but no government?
I suggest someone drop their butts in a country where there is no working/central government and see how they like it. #somalia
11/03/09
11/03/09
Libertarians claim they don't want any government interference at all. (What most of the jackasses that claim to be libertarian in the US mean is that they do want all of the benefits, like schools and roads and fire departments, but they don't want to pay taxes.) #somalia
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09