Goldstein bases a large portion of her piece around the argument of women's rights activists who explain that leaving Afghan women is not part of the deal. Using Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech as a springboard, organizations like the Feminist Majority Foundation are raising their voices in support for continued engagement in the country for the benefit of women. Not everyone is an enthusiastic about our prospects. Goldstein explains:

Other progressives, though, say the women's rights activists are naïve, and have failed to grapple with the fact that feminism was never more than a rhetorical ploy in debates about the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, whose real goal has always been to root out al Qaeda. They also point to the occupation's high cost in dollar terms, as well as the American public's limited tolerance for foreign wars. A recent Pew poll found that isolationist sentiment is at a four-decade high.

Even if the administration was willing to commit to a nation-building project in Afghanistan, it would be with an Afghan partner whose own record on women's issues is mixed at best. Though President Hamid Karzai recently signed the new Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women-which ups the penalties for rape, domestic violence, and child marriage-he also supported, earlier this year, the Shia Family Law, which subjected women in the Shia minority group to a number of discriminatory laws, including rules regarding when they can and cannot leave home unaccompanied by a man. Karzai has also made political alliances with warlords who hold regressive opinions on women's rights.

There is good reason to be worried about women. According to the Human Rights Watch:

Eight years after the Taliban were ousted from power, rapists are often protected from prosecution, women can still be arrested for running away from home, and girls have far less access to schools than boys, the report says.

With the insurgency strengthening in the south and making inroads into the north, the few gains made for women's rights since the US-led invasion of 2001 could be further eroded if Hamid Karzai's government and the international community push for peace talks with factions of the fundamentalist movement.

Elenor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Helen Cho, a board member for the Feminist Majority foundation, co-penned a piece in the Huffington Post, arguing that securing women's rights would call for a lot more investment in the region.

[M]ake no mistake. Afghanistan is in terrible shape. The Taliban have gradually returned. Nothing is as it should be, which is why we are asking for no less than a Marshall Plan to rebuild Afghanistan, the same way we did for Germany and Japan after World War II. Afghanistan's water, sewage, electrical, and their once proud hospital systems have been all but destroyed by 30 years of war. We bombed it. We have an obligation to rebuild it.

Though we'd prefer that all U.S. funding be spent on development aid, we cannot in good conscience advocate the immediate military pullout that some are suggesting. The 2009 UN Humanitarian Action Plan noted that in 2008, "Approximately 40% of the country, including much of the South, remains inaccessible for most humanitarian organizations." Last year, 92 aid workers were abducted and 36 were killed, double the number from 2007. In recent public opinion polls, Afghans put security in their top three concerns right after food. Without stabilizing the country, there can be no significant redevelopment effort.

In March, President Obama announced a significant change in the Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy. He shifted the focus from Iraq to this troubled region not a moment too soon. The Taliban had taken over the Swat Valley in Pakistan and were within 100 miles of its capital. In case anyone was wondering if the Taliban had changed its ways, they promptly closed girls' schools, began flogging young women publicly, and committed other atrocities. In Afghanistan, the Taliban nailed a 70-year-old woman to a tree for allegedly talking with the enemy.

The new administration's strategy recognizes the need for development and reconstruction. The military appears to be changing its priorities, announcing that protection of civilians is their first priority. Virtually everyone knows that a military solution alone won't work. Yet, we cannot ignore that security and the Taliban are among Afghans' top concerns.

Linda Bereystein, investigative journalist, points to a different perspective on her blog.

Westerners usually frame the debate over U.S./NATO policy in Afghanistan is usually framed as a choice between handing the country back to the Taliban or propping up the Karzai regime. The latter is assumed to be a dramatically better option for women's rights.

Karzai pays lip service to women's rights, but jettisons them whenever they need to make a compromise to stay in power. It should be noted that the Karzai government was responsible for the infamous Shia Family Law which legalized marital rape within Shia marriages.

Last month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, told Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast that the situation for Afghan women is every bit as bad under Karzai as it was under the Taliban. Joya is also concerned that civilian casualties are fueling popular support for the Taliban.

RAWA and its grassroots allies think that pro-democracy forces could transform the country on their own without U.S. military occupation. That's a point of view we seldom hear in U.S. media.

I don't know how realistic it is to think that pro-democracy forces could prevail against warlords and the Taliban, but the question hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as the issue of whether the U.S. could force reform at gunpoint. Maybe RAWA and its allies would have a better shot at power if the occupation wasn't shoveling billions of dollars to the most reactionary elements in society.

Over on GritTV, a woman known as Zoya, representing RAWA, outlines many of the issues with our current strategy in Afghanistan. After 30 years of war, Zoya discusses how the US occupation is still undermining Afghanistan, by propping up some terrorist groups to pursue others. After regretfully admitting the most realistic options for many women if Afghanistan were either leaving the country or suicide, Zoya explains why she was motivated to join RAWA and describes how Afghanistan needs a resolution.

Zoya:

These videos that your are showing about the rape and domestic violence against women, [is happening] under the domination of the United States. It's a time when thousands of troops are present. It's a time that [troops and groups from] more than 40 foreign countries are inside the country. [...]These things are [still] happening daily. This is the proof that America cannot do anything. The only solution - that RAWA was always saying - is that domestic violence [always depends] on political situations. It very much depends and relates to that. So as long as we don't have a democratic government, who cares for women's rights, how can we expect rights and the liberation of women?

Zoya explains that there are other alternatives to occupation, like helping to disarm the various factions that are fighting for dominance. She challenges Americans to rise up and tell the government to stop supporting warlords and criminals. She believes this is the best way to help, saying:

If you cannot to help us, leave us. But if you want to help us, the first help is to take all these fundamentalist, these viruses that the United States government created for Afghanistan.

Why Feminists Love the Surge [The Daily Beast]
Plight of Afghan women may worsen as war effort is stepped up, warns report [The Guardian]
Why Is the Feminist Majority Foundation Refusing to Abandon the Women and Girls of Afghanistan? [Huffington Post]
Not all feminists love escalation in Afghanistan [Majikethise]
GRITtv: A Voice from RAWA: Zoya on Afghanistan [Free Speech TV]

Earlier: Obama's Speech On Afghanistan Measured, Expected

According to reports, Obama will be adding somewhere around 30,000 more troops and asking for more time to make sure the country is stable before looking at a time table for withdrawal.

Obama will emphasize that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own, and he will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

In the capital of Kabul, some Afghans said they were worried that the troop increase was too much like an occupation - a scenario particularly worrisome to Afghans who still remember living through an oppressive Soviet regime.

The additional troops are there to assist with the stabilization of the country while the Administration steps up its efforts to repair infrastructure. Nation-building is slow going, often producing results that are hard to measure. The Washington Post spoke with experts on nation building, who explain:

Diplomats and officials involved in past nation-building efforts generally agree that the process works best when warring factions are ready to make peace. Elections, while important to lend legitimacy to a new government, should not be rushed — creating lasting institutions is more important. The international community must have realistic, if modest, goals. Regional experts need to be consulted, and neighboring countries should be brought on board.

And nation-building should be done primarily by the people of the country involved, with the outside world there to assist, diplomats said.

Above all, there must be resources.

"More manpower and more money produces better, faster results," said former U.S. diplomat James F. Dobbins, now with the Rand Corp., who has had firsthand experience in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. "There is a correlation between the commitment and the achievement."

He added: "Lesson one was decisive force. Employ a force decisive enough and impressive enough to deter any violent resistance."

Most of the experts admit that in order to have a successful strategy, most of the nations' factions must be committed to moving forward:

Many of the officials involved in past nation-building missions called it a critical yet common mistake for outsiders to impose their views on a country, without regard for the country's unique circumstances, and before all the internal factions have reached agreement.

That is the main problem in Afghanistan, said many with familiarity there.

Not surprisingly, the opposition to the troop increase is mounting before Obama has even said a word.

Other Democrats are skeptical about investing any more time and money into Afghanistan without clearly defined goals:

Democratic Rep. John Murtha - just back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan - said Monday that he never got a clear definition of what constitutes an "achievable victory" for the United States and fears that American commanders are assuming more time for the war effort than voters at home will allow.

"I am still very nervous about this whole thing," Murtha told POLITICO. "If you had 10 years, it might work; if you had five, you could make a difference. But you don't have that long." [...]

"What is victory? It's a good question," said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.). "I'm not as prone to jumping into wars as I used to be. He spent two months deciding," Berman said of Obama. "I think I can spend a few weeks."

Dick Cheney, who seems to have forgotten that he and Bush spent their time in office wreaking havoc on international relations and fighting wars just for the hell of it, has decided, for some strange reason, that his opinion still counts. He talks to the Politico, insinuating that Obama is a punk:

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president's "agonizing" about Afghanistan strategy "has consequences for your forces in the field."

"I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p' political reasons, where he's trying to balance off different competing groups in society," Cheney said.

"Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they've been asked to do?"

Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable - if not impossible - national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration's unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.

But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Of course not. Because Bush/Cheney didn't do anything wrong. The denial continues:

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."

"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries - especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... - see that as a sign of weakness."

Party differences aside, both the Democrats and the Republicans are teaming up on one thing: no one wants to pay the cost of sending more troops.

The hefty price tag of the pending Afghan troop increase is already drawing opposition from many Congressional Democrats, deepening Mr. Obama's estrangement from his own party over the conflict.

Some Democrats are coalescing around a new proposal to levy a war tax to help fund the conflict. The proposal by Wisconsin Democratic Rep. David Obey, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, would impose a 1% tax on most Americans that rises to 5% for wealthier citizens. The administration has yet to weigh in on Mr. Obey's proposal, which would likely have a difficult time getting passed.

"If the president intends to go in over our objections, he should have to bear the burden of asking for a tax to pay for it," said Rep. Mike Honda (D., Calif.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee who supports the new tax. "You're talking about $30 billion or $40 billion per year in new spending. It's expensive."

Congressional Republicans have pressed Mr. Obama to fully heed his commanders' requests for more troops and military resources. Republicans, who oppose the idea of a war tax, generally favor borrowing the additional money necessary for the Afghan surge or reallocating other government funds.

Obama, Karzai hold hour-long video conference [AP/MSNBC]
A test for the blocks needed to rebuild a nation [Washington Post]
Democrats 'nervous' about Afghanistan plan [Politico]
Dick Cheney slams President Obama for projecting ‘weakness' [Politico]
Fight Looms on How to Pay for New War Plan [WSJ]

[The Hague, October 26. Image via Getty]

Bosnian mothers and relatives of war victims protest October 26, 2009 in The Hague outside the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the start of the planned tial of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic, who boycotted the start of his UN genocide trial. Neither Karadzic nor any of his legal advisors were present at the ICTYwhen judge O-Gon Kwon started the hearing, which lasted less than 15 minutes. AFP PHOTO / RICK NEDERSTIGT - netherlands out - belgium out - (Photo credit should read RICK NEDERSTIGT/AFP/Getty Images)

Angie Holan Politifact
In response to: How Much Healthcare Can We Buy With a Trillion Bucks?

My question is - what about the fear that including government into health care will ultimately increase our mortality rate by instituting rationing and cutbacks? Will doctors flee to maintain their high incomes?

This is a big fear among people who oppose the plan. At PolitiFact, we don't take sides on predictions about what will happen if the legislation is passed. We did, however, report an item specifically on rationing. We found there's a lot of rationing in the system right now, and rationing will continue under the Democratic bill. In most cases, rationing is used as a "scare word" for the common sense idea that we have to make decisions somehow about how to allocate limited resources. Read more on how both sides talk about rationing here: 'Rationing' and other scare words in health debate.

Can you please clarify what the $1 trillion means - an addition to what we are already spending, or a comparison cost to what we are spending? My understanding is that the proposed plan cost figures are replacements for the status quo - making this a significant COST SAVINGS.

Nope, the bills will not save us money, at least not according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office.The $1 trillion over 10 years includes all the new costs associated with the bill. It does not replace old costs for old health care spending. However, that $1 trillion number does NOT count new taxes and spending cuts that are part of the bill. When you count those offsets, the overall impact on the public debt would be $239 billion over 10 years, which is a lot less than $1 trillion.

Many Democrats say they want to make the bill deficit neutral, which means they want to find money in some other part of the budget to wipe away that $239 billion. If they get that done, it means the bill would be "deficit neutral," which means it's sort of a break-even venture.

I should add that the Obama administration believes the bill will save more money than those numbers reflect, but again we'll all have to wait and see if they're right.

One more thing: Congress might significantly re-write the bill in the weeks ahead, and all those numbers might change. So stay tuned!

They say the public option will be paid by premiums and subsidies for low-incomes. What happens if/when those aren't sufficient? Are they going to let the public option truly compete and possibly fail —or are they going to vote to set aside the rules they created and bail it out?

Another question about the future that's difficult to answer! It's a good question, though. Critics fear that if Congress even sets up the public option, then later Congress will go back and change the rules to let the public option take-over the system. Just to emphasize, that's a fear of what will happen in the future. It is not part of the plan now. President Obama has said the public option say it will have to be self-supporting, paid for by the premiums of its customers.

What do you know about the non-profit and co-op health insurance organizations that exist right now? Do they have a lower cost of care and overhead than for profit insurance agencies?

My reporting shows that even government-run programs like Medicare are also seeing rapidly growing costs. So not-for-profit health plans have problems with growing costs, too. It's not just a problem of private insurers taking profits. Some of this has to do with new medical technologies and procedures that make people healthier but still are expensive. We hope to do more reporting on co-ops and nonprofits in the weeks ahead as more details come out.

Without a government-run option, how will people who haven't been able to get private insurance (i.e. people with pre-existing conditions who aren't covered by an employer) get coverage? I've read about nonprofit cooperatives but that information was incredibly vague.

Yes, the information is very vague about co-ops and how they would be part of a national health plan. We should get more details on this when Congress comes back and the Senate Finance Committee releases a plan, if they decide to go with co-ops.

One thing I would like to know is, in light of unemployment being what it is these days, are people talking at all about making it easier for people who lose their jobs to keep their health coverage? I lost a job that had provided my insurance last October. COBRA would have eaten up my entire unemployment check and then some, so it was not an option AT ALL. I just don't get how it's good to keep the employer-provided insurance system in place, because when we lose our jobs, we lose our coverage right when we can least afford to be paying out of pocket.

The health care plan in Congress tries to address this by making the individual market more efficient, so people can buy affordable policies on their own through a national insurance exchange. There may be other details to help people who lose jobs, but I haven't noticed any changes to COBRA provisions in the bills. Just an fyi, the stimulus bill passed earlier this year had money to help people who are laid off pay for health care coverage under COBRA.

Without a public option on the exchange, how can we predict any price decrease for the cost of healthcare? Aren't we just in the same boat in regards to cost?

Actually, there are other things in the bill that seek to control costs, but most of them have to do with Medicare, the government-run health insurance plan for the elderly. Those measures include things like providing incentives for good outcomes, or incentives for doctors to collaborate more on treating patients. The reform advocates hope that those changes will affect the way everyone receives treatment, not just the elderly. But it's hard to say how much those Medicare incentives will affect the overall system. That's a big unknown.

Patricia DeGennaro
NYU/World Policy Institute
In Response to: On Women, War, and the Elections with Afghanistan

That_little_attention_whore wrote "Development or aid workers are there to stop the suffering of people and improve their livelihoods. They are independent of politics and policies. The military is not."

I dunno, I feel like USAID has been plenty politicized. Plus, the current administration has included development as a component of foreign policy....

@That_little_attention_whore
You do have a point that aid is also political. However, non-governmental organizations, which get money from private sources most often pride themselves in being impartial, neutral and independent which means, for example, they don't just give aid to "win hearts and minds," they give it too all people regardless of what the military may considering winning or losing, which is solely based on national interests not humanitarian need.

bluebear wrote "I have a question. Why exactly does the Taliban view themselves as the legitimate government? meaning what justifications would they give to support this? if any."

The Taliban gained control of almost 80% of Afghanistan after a brutal civil war that followed the Soviet occupation of the country. They were deposed not by another Afghan leader or tribe, but by an invading foreign force who they feel has no right to decide who governs. Although through brutal means, they stopped the civil war, basically irradiated poppy, and, in their mind, brought peace and security to the people (many women may disagree here, but this is what they think). Afghanistan has a history of coups, but it is not accepted by any means to be overthrown by an outside power. This is why they view themselves as legitimate and they succeed in maintaining at least some support by people who agree with this way of thinking.

I asked "And a more general question came up in light of a different discussion: how much AID to Afghanistan is routed back to the US?"

Oxfam reported that in 2008 that "40% of aid to Afghanistan has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and consultant salaries." Most of this is through USAID contractors who contract out to smaller contractors and so on. In Afghanistan aid agencies also pay millions to foreign security companies and some ex patriot salaries are estimated to be close to $500,000. US aid went to five top US companies – some private – who from what I saw hire too many friends and pay them high salaries to do little but go home with a larger bank account. Keep in mind though, there are some successes. Small and under the radar non-governmental organization, whose use funds they acquire from private sources not governments, do some very good things like build women's hospitals and orphanages for so many children that lost their families through war.

Official Site [Politifact]
Tricia's Take [Patricia DeGennaro's Blog]
'Rationing' and other scare words in health debate [Politifact]
Major donors failing Afghanistan due to $10bn aid shortfall [Oxfam International]

Earlier:
How Much Healthcare Can We Buy with a Trillion Bucks?
On Women, War, & the Elections in Afghanistan

Here's a little more information on Malou:

Malou Innocent is a Foreign Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute. Her primary research interests are Middle East and Persian Gulf security issues and U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. Prior to joining Cato, she worked as a public policy intern at the District Office of California Congressman Pete Stark. Innocent has published reviews and articles on national security and international affairs in scholarly and policy journals such as Survival, Congressional Quarterly, and Harvard International Review, as well as in publications such as Armed Forces Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal Asia, the Huffington Post, the Guardian, WashingtonPost.com, and the Washington Times. Innocent has appeared as a guest analyst on BBC News, Fox News Channel, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, CNBC Asia, and Reuters. She earned dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Mass Communications and Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master of Arts degree in International Relations from the University of Chicago.

I asked Malou to chat with us to get some perspective on something that is a little difficult to understand - the issues behind why we are still in Afghanistan, why the war still continues, and why withdrawal may be the best course for all the nations involved. Often, when we are watching this coverage on television or listening to updates on the news, we only hear of the carnage - we hear much less of the context, which would help the public to understand why we are choosing a particular course of action and whether or not these actions are effective. So, without further ado, here's Malou:

LatoyaPeterson: Today, we are chatting with Malou Innocent from the Cato Institute. Welcome Malou!

MalouInnocent: Hi Latoya, thank you for having me.

LatoyaPeterson: Malou, can you please talk a little bit about your expertise and work for the Cato Institute?

MalouInnocent: I am a foreign policy analyst for Cato and my research is mainly focused on Middle East and Persian Gulf security issues, as well as U.S. foreign policy toward Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China. Overall, Cato's foreign policy is guided by the principle that when government grows too powerful—and correspondingly too meddlesome—it begins to encroach on our individual freedoms at home and threaten peaceful relations abroad.

LatoyaPeterson: Why is increasing governmental power a threat?

MalouInnocent: In the capacity of international affairs, policymakers have typically been more inclined to intervene; yet (and this is my overarching grouse) is that while democracy, liberty, and freedom are the principles that define the United States of America, historically, these have not always been the principles that have guided its foreign policy. From time to time, especially during the Cold War but also the so-called "war on terror," America's national security interests have led it to cooperate with some of the world's most repressive regimes and unsavory political movements, the latest manifestation being our invasion and occupation of Iraq, while during the 1980s we turned a blind-eye to Saddam's atrocities. It's that discrepancy that sometimes harms our efforts to do good in the world.

LatoyaPeterson: Excellent synopsis. And I find it interesting that the more I talk to experts like yourself and Patricia DeGennaro, who we spoke with yesterday, the more we hear that an aggressive foreign policy where we try to remake and shape the interests of other nations simply does not work. Let's focus in specifically on the situation in Afghanistan.

LatoyaPeterson: I read quite a few of your articles online, and it seems that your position for the last few years has been a clear case for withdrawal. Can you elaborate a bit on how you came to the conclusion that this war is un-winnable?

MalouInnocent: After eight years since the fall of the Taliban regime, the country (and the mission) is still plagued by several problems: an intractable cross-border insurgency, pervasive corruption on the local and national levels, a dysfunctional international alliance, and the list goes on and on. U.S. policymakers and defense officials have good intentions. They want to disrupt and defeat al Qaeda (which is a limited and achievable objective) but the broader mission to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a terrorist sanctuary is based on the dubious assumption that terrorists thrive in failed states. Does this therefore mean that America must deploy tens of thousands of troops for several decades to stabilize, liberalize, and democratize foreign countries, Afghanistan included? I don't think Americans signed up for that type of mission, so the administration should be straight up about our goals. We can continue to monitor al Qaeda in the region, and keep ongoing relations with the regional players; but going after the Taliban (a guerilla-jihadi movement distinct from al Qaeda) or forging ahead with a robust nation-building effort is too grandiose of a policy.

LatoyaPeterson: Where do you think the US should refocus our efforts, if we are ill-equipped to handle nation building? If we are not assisting in stabilizing the region, how will we be able to receive accurate intelligence as well as the type of nation-to-nation trust that allows for peaceful relationships?

MalouInnocent: I think within the next 18 to 24 months, the administration will find itself at a crossroads: either scale down the foreign troop presence with the recognition that we must narrow our objectives, or continue down the road of "mission creep," with periodic troop increases. I hold out hope that President Obama proceeds with the former.

LatoyaPeterson: And what about reaching out for assistance with other nations in the region?

MalouInnocent: That's an important question, and one that I feel gets rarely asked. I think many times, whether it's health care, Afghanistan policy, what-have-you, the political discourse sets up a binary: reform or no reform, withdrawal or no to withdrawal. I think there can be a middle ground. Economic aid and assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan can continue, but just like Ms. DeGennaro mentioned yesterday, the foreign aid and funding is atrocious.

LatoyaPeterson: You mentioned Pakistan, and I notice that Pakistan tends to factor very heavily in your analysis of the situation in Afghanistan. What is the situation in Pakistan and how does that influence our approach in Afghanistan?

MalouInnocent: For example, the U.S. government has shoveled billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. Certainly in Pakistan's tribal areas and restive areas of Afghanistan, non-military aid directed to education and comprehensive study programs can help to mitigate the spread of militancy among younger generations. But a coherent distribution mechanism must be in place or else no one in Pakistan or Afghanistan will benefit. Given the problems of corruption and mismanagement afflicting the distribution of aid, why should we expect the distribution of aid to be more effective? I've seen figures pointing to 35-40% of development aid being redirected back to Washington with consultancy fees. That's an unfortunate circumstance but serves to highlight one of the major problems of state-building.

MalouInnocent: As for ongoing relations with Pakistan, policymakers have neglected (or simply ignored) the extent to which leaders in Islamabad fear the rise of an India-leaning government coming to power in Kabul. This has been a persistent fear dating back several decades...

MalouInnocent: The acrimony between India and Pakistan is playing out in Afghanistan. As of only a couple months ago, 80% of the Pakistani military was still on the border with India, not Afghanistan. So I think policymakers must recognize the importance of history, culture, and nationalism, which rarely filter into discussions of policy.

Afghanistan has always been considered Pakistan's strategic backyard, and their leadership has consistently undermined the soverienty of various Afghan governments. In fact, during the Soviet-Afghan War on the 1980s, the Pakistani miltiary leadership wanted to ensure that an Islamic government aligned with Pakistan—rather than a secular government aligned with India, would come to power in Kabul after Soviet forces withdrew. These larger regional dynamics are playing out, which is another reason to scale down our presence in the region: we do not have compelling strategic rationale to thrust our troops into the middle of a proxy war between two nuclear-armed powers.

LatoyaPeterson: Most definitely. I was reading the NYT interview with Hillary Clinton with great interest and noticed some interesting answers to her questions. In particular, when the reporter asked:

Many of the countries where the abuses against women are most prevalent are also countries that have a vital strategic importance to the United States: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India. How can you aggressively advocate for women without jeopardizing those strategic relationships?

It was striking to me that HRC completely sidestepped any discussion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and reframed to discuss India and China. From your viewpoint, why would she have evaded this question?

MalouInnocent: I'm happy you bring that up, Latoya. Clinton dodged a lot of questions during that interview. For example, when the NYT reporter asked: "in much of the world, gender equality is not accepted as a universal human right. How do you overcome that deep-seated cultural resistance?" Now, logically, what other answer could there by other than that our objectives are sometimes incompatible with out ability to achieve them?

I find that many times our policymakers are unwilling to concede our lack of legitimacy to bring about a better outcome in turbulent parts of the world.

LatoyaPeterson: Thanks for acknowledging that! I feel the same way.

MalouInnocent: She also mentioned that she did not see a distinction between economic empowerment and political, social empowerment...

MalouInnocent: but if you look at Saudi Arabia, women make up 70% of those enrolled in universities, yet just 5% of the workforce.

LatoyaPeterson: Good point .

MalouInnocent: The rights of women in Saudi Arabia is severely restricted, yet we still enjoy warm relations with them. Of course, some partnerships are unavoidable, but even then, the United States must be careful not to needlessly compromise its values.

I think Clinton's empathy toward the plight and suffering of women in other countries is genuine, but our policies—as they stand now—sends a mixed message.

LatoyaPeterson: Did you agree with the assertion made by the reporter, that Clinton agreed to, which said:

There are counterterrorism experts who have made the observation that countries that nurture terrorist groups tend to be the same societies that marginalize women. Do you see a link between your campaign on women's issues and our national security?

MalouInnocent: Absolutely. Some analysts have pointed to a causal link (and essentially a feedback loop) between the spread of more conservative interpretations of Salafist Islamic ideology, the marginalization of women in these societies, and the eventual emergence of extremist groups. Egypt in particular is an excellent example.

Pakistan would be another. Most Pakistanis are not radical, but over the past several years there has been a definite shift towards conservatism...

LatoyaPeterson: Why is that shift occuring?

MalouInnocent: Good question. I think in instances such as these, I liken foreign policy to physics: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Bush administration policies after 9/11 cut the world into a clear binary of good and evil, even within his administration he and his underlings took criticism as disloyalty. As a result, groupthink became pervasive, and we began to see an incredibly antagonistic foreign policy. The fact that the CIA outsourced some of the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan to Blackwater, an organization led by a man who allegedly wanted to spread Christianity at the barrel of a gun, was a powerful force of discomfort for many around the world, particularly in the Muslim world. And the fact that the administration lacked introspection to see the problems of their policy was even more disillusioning.

Human beings in general are reactionary creatures. Americans don't like being told what to do, so why would other people be any different? It's the Bush administration's lack of self-awareness about that fact that was so problematic.

LatoyaPeterson: Precisely. So, with that in mind, let's double back to something you mentioned earlier about "our policies—as they stand now—sends a mixed message." Moving forward, what do you think is the best course of action to pursue both in Afghanistan and in our broader international policy?

MalouInnocent: With Afghanistan, I think it's important that we narrow our objectives to something more realistic. We can continue to monitor al Qaeda and ensure it doesn't reestablish a safe haven in Afghanistan through aerial surveillance and by retaining special forces for discreet operations against specific targets. Moreover, I would not see a problem maintaining some level of cooperation with Afghan security forces to help beef up their ability to repel insurgents intent on destabilizing the government. Finally, we must continue to forge relations with Iran. Iran is the pivot point for both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I commend President Obama for his work to forge a rapprochement with Tehran, and for his pragmatism and sound judgment not to interject his own feelings toward the elections in Iran this summer.

LatoyaPeterson: And with our larger, global strategy?

MalouInnocent: Unfortunately for many people within the administration, there's this unquestioned orthodoxy that terrorists thrive in failed states. First, there's reason to doubt whether state failure or poor governance in itself poses a threat. Second, their logic doesn't explain why terrorists set up in countries with the ability to resist external interference (which is one reason why many militants are across the border in Pakistan).

As for our global strategy, I think my last post sort of answers that point: what force do we want to be in the world? Is it our place to be the global nation builder, police force, and constabulary office? Many Americans are beginning to question the war in Afghanistan, but it does not appear that our policies will end there. Some people want to move on to Somalia, and other ungoverned parts of the world. But once again, sometimes our interference can exacerbate foreign conflict. Sometimes, limiting the scope of our commitments is the best policy.

LatoyaPeterson: Thanks for joining us, Malou!

MalouInnocent: Thank you, Latoya, for providing this amazing opportunity. I really enjoyed it.

Malou Innocent [SheSource]
Malou Innocent [The Cato Institute]
The New Gender Agenda [New York Times]
C.I.A. Sought Blackwater's Help To Kill Jihadists [New York Times]

Earlier: On Women, War & The Elections in Afghanistan

Here's a little more about Tricia's background:

Patricia (Tricia) Degennaro is an adjunct assistant professor at New York University's Center for Global Affairs where she teaches courses on US Foreign Policy, International Military Interventions, Civil-Military Affairs, National Security Policy, and the War on Terrorism.

In addition to her work as a professor, she is a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute and a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, Queens University in Kingston, Ontario. Tricia has published several articles on US foreign policy and national security topics. Her focus is to encourage a holistic and integrated international policy that looks beyond war and the use of force.

Tricia capitalizes on over fifteen years of experience in a writer, independent analyst and consultant in international relations and economic development. Within the last year, she has spent a significant amount of time working in Afghanistan on provincial governance and capacity building, parliamentary reform and public policy development in the Office of the President of Afghanistan.

So, without further ado, here's the discussion with Patricia DeGennaro:

LatoyaPeterson: Hey Tricia! Thanks for joining me today.

Patricia DeGennaro: Hi Latoya. Happy to be here!

LatoyaPeterson: Can you tell the readers of Jezebel a little bit about your expertise in Afghanistan?

Patricia DeGennaro: Sure. I have visited the country several times. It is really an amazing place. I have been fortunate enough to work with the governors of a few provinces on capacity building. I also did a short project looking at women and how they are fairing in the Parliament. Then I was in the Afghan President's office for a short time as a policy advisor.

LatoyaPeterson: And what were the major issues that stood out to you during your time there?

Patricia DeGennaro: There are quite a number of issues. First, since 9/11 the international community has poured billions of dollars into the country. There was, however, little coordination with the Afghan people themselves and concentration on what they need as a society so that in itself is a problem. It is a very chaotic development and war initiative. Second, the US is trying to pretend that development and war is the same thing and this blurs lines between "good and bad guys" so to speak. Finally, the country is very poor and we have all seen the way women have been treated there.

LatoyaPeterson: Okay, let's tackle some of these in depth. Why is it important to understand that the money being spent in Afghanistan was poorly coordinated (and I assume poorly distributed)? How does that contribute to the current problems in the region?

Patricia DeGennaro: The idea of helping a country that is poor and suffering is a good one. However when aid flows in it is often targeted based on what donors what to see happen not what needs to be done on the ground. This is the first conflict. The second one is that due to the donor requests, organizations often prefer to operate individually. They don't want to cooperate or even operate as others due. In this respect there are often cultural conflicts withing Western organizations. Finally, government often gives money to a government aid agency - the US has the Agency for International development (USAID) - who then contracts portions of that money to non-profits. These non-profits then may contract to others. Before you know it there are thousands of orgs on the ground and no cooperation or coordination on what should be done.

Patricia DeGennaro: It's a long explanation, but i think you all get the idea of how complex this becomes. And although there are many qualified people, it is hard to operate with a client when that client is a large Western government. The Afghans get lost in the equation and they are the "real" client. Add war to this and you have several more problems because of security concerns.

LatoyaPeterson: Good to know. Now why is the government, as you say, "blurring the lines between good guys and bad guys?" And how is investing in a country's development different from continuing a war?

Patricia DeGennaro: It was clear that the initial attack on Afghanistan was in response to 9/11. After many of us realized the horrendous situation in Afghanistan - the brutal government, the treatment of women and the sever poverty - the initial reaction of the Bush Administration was to "fix' this. The country however was at war with a large US and NATO military presence. As aid workers came in they build large compounds as well and looked just like military bases or invaders so this blurs the lines between who is helping and who is bombing so to speak. Also, in many of the provinces the US put together teams led by the military that do both security and development so the perception is that any development is military.

Patricia DeGennaro: There is a distinct difference between development and war. Militaries are there to complete a mission based on a countries foreign policy interest. Development or aid workers are there to stop the suffering of people and improve their livelihoods. They are independent of politics and policies. The military is not.

LatoyaPeterson: Good explanation. Switching gears a bit, how would you describe the political climate in Afghanistan?

Patricia DeGennaro: That is a very difficult question. Politics in Afghanistan is much different than what we are used to in the west. There are no political parties and no loyalties. Power is based on how many people you can convince that if your in power there interests will be served. Today Afghanistan participated in its second election. I think you will see that whoever wins was able to garner support from people who are very powerful in other areas of the country.

LatoyaPeterson: Of the candidates presented in the election, are there any you are watching closely?

Patricia DeGennaro: I am watching three candidates very closely. Of course, the current president, Hamid Karzai and then two others, his former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah and his former economics minister, Ashraf Ghani.

LatoyaPeterson: What is capturing your interest about each of these candidates?

Patricia DeGennaro: The interesting thing about this election is that Ashraf Ghani is running a less traditionally Afghan campaign. He is speaking to the people, talking about issues and garner grassroots support. In contrast, both Karzai and Abdullah are making deals with mullahs and warlords for influence and positions, which is how Afghanistan has been run for so many years. The problem with the way Karzai and Abdullah are running their campaign is, again, loyalties can switch at anytime and this is very dangerous. Every previous leader has paid for this way with their lives.

LatoyaPeterson: That's interesting. So is that the reason the Taliban are working so hard to disrupt the elections? Because the people are getting involved? Or is that explanation too simplistic?

Patricia DeGennaro: Not exactly. The Taliban are disrupting the election because they view this government as illegitimate. They see themselves as the legitimate government and are fighting for their right to return. In addition, the Taliban see the foreign presence as an occupation, which on the ground it looks like that is exactly what it is, and garner much support to fight against that. No country has ever occupied Afghanistan and most Afghans prefer it to stay that way.

LatoyaPeterson: Interesting. So is the perception of the occupation undermining our efforts there?

Patricia DeGennaro: Absolutely. I always ask people how they would feel if a country, let's say Russia, came in and set up a huge military fortress in Central Park and start driving around and checking houses. Doubtful one American would stand for that. In addition to that the continued military air strikes are making it worse. In a country where people believe in an eye for and eye, there is no forgiving anyone who killed one person in your family. He/she must pay with their own life.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghans also continue to tell me that the behavior of the US (and allies of course) is looking more and more like Soviets. This is not good news. They were pushed out of the country quite quickly through the same irregular warfare that the military is dealing with today.

LatoyaPeterson: So is the best solution to start the withdrawal process? Or is that unfeasible due to the damage war has inflicted on the country?

Patricia DeGennaro: This may be a little controversial, but yes. I think that what's there needs to be cleaned up and/or weeded out. If forces and, for that matter, aid workers stay at all it should be a very light footprint. This seems to be much more affective in that part of the world.

LatoyaPeterson: Now, are there other tensions influencing the country? I was reading an article that hinted at tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Patricia DeGennaro: Of course some kind of repercussions come with destruction. People must be responsible for their actions especially if they've done this much harm.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghanistan and Pakistan have always had tense relations. They share a border called the Durand line that is not recognized by most Afghans. That border was imposed by the British and all agreed that it would be non-existent 10 years after that imposition. It split tribes and families. It also stopped the free flow of many of the tribes that move around the country for their livelihood. After Pakistan was created this boarder stayed.

Tensions are also quite high between the countries because many Afghans blame the Pakistanis for supporting the Taliban.

Many of the Taliban were trained in Pakistani religious schools funded by the Saudis in Pakistan. So Aghans feel they are responsible for much of the brutality they endured under the Taliban

Of course there are more issues going on here, but these are the two most important.

LatoyaPeterson: Fascinating. Before we go, I wanted to talk a little bit about the interview with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the New York Times magazine. In the interview, she mentions that there is a strong link between "societies that nurture terrorism" and societies that oppress women.

LatoyaPeterson: She specifically says:

What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally? It's a projection of the insecurity and the disorientation that a lot of these terrorists and their sympathizers feel about a fast-changing world, where they turn on television sets and see programs with women behaving in ways they can't even imagine. The idea that young women in their own societies would pursue an independent future is deeply threatening to their cultural values.

Does your experience in the field support this assertion?

Patricia DeGennaro: Yes, I read that. I do feel that there are many factors that are contributing to this absolutely unacceptable behavior. Women in Afghanistan are very removed from society so for many men they are an afterthought. I am not sure though that the action of acid in this case and say the uni-bomber in the US really just have to do with the oppression of women. After spending so much time in these parts of the world, I often think that it is a male issue and that the men need to go through the "therapy" and be reintroduced to women.

An example. When Eve Ensler started working in American Indian reservations her initial thoughts were to work with the women who were being beaten and terrorized by the men on the reservation. She later found that the work they started doing with the men is what changed their behavior toward women.

We have to realize that there is never one issue in these problems. There are complex connections between experiences, upbringing, and, in many cases, war. I wrote an article on the Women's Media Center website that talks about more holistic ways to approach things. Often when you approach things from one side it backfires and you end up hurting the very people you want to help - in this case women.

LatoyaPeterson: Great point. Ultimately, what actions do you think need to be taken to help stabilize the county?

Patricia DeGennaro: In Afghanistan, the first thing that needs to happen is an internal reconciliation. The country went through a brutal civil war and there are great divisions between ethnic groups due to the brutality and massacres that happened during this time. Second, they need to figure out their own way with help not imposition of how the outside thinks things should be done. Third, education and health. Eighty percent of Afghans are illiterate. Women's mortality is the highest in the world. One other thing we always forget, healthy bodies and minds develop from good nutrition. If people are not eating well how can they think, work, progress. Hunger is one of the worst issues in a society. Then we can work on next steps like changing the ways of boys and men.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghans have an average of seven children. Think about feeding that many on a dollar a day.

LatoyaPeterson: Great points Tricia! That was my last question - is there anything else you wanted to mention before we wrap up?

Patricia DeGennaro: I would just say that we all need to remember that things are way more complicated than we often think and the real changes in life start from within us.

It was a pleasure to join you all today. Thank you for asking Latoya. I look forward to all the comments.

Patricia DeGennaro [SheSource]
Patrica's Blog [Tricia's Take]
Turnout Seen As Uneven in Afghanistan As Polls Close [NY Times]
Saving Afghan Women From The "Liberators" [Women's Media Center]
Afghanistan Election Drives: 'Men Have Destroyed The Country' [Guardian]

Since when does Clairol advertise using illustrations of enemy aircrafts in the midst of being destroyed? Can you imagine the brand trying to do this in 2009? The copy reads: "There is no room in America for anything but the best."

The war effort hinged on hairpins.

Also, to help win the war, they had to stop making perm rollers. Sacrifices!

"Scoldy Lox" brand: "Help win the war by preventing wastage of hair pins!" Please note her sailor collar.

"A war can teach a girl a lot of things… " Like making do without manicure stuff. "You and I will be giving up our 'home front' tools for the man on the battle front… and we'll be doing it cheerfully, gladly, without grumbling."

A world war cannot stop a girl from getting married. Wartime brides! "The service bride moves fast and packs light, and her beauty program must be geared accordingly… You must show her that an easy-to care for hairstyle requires a short feather cut and a lovely permanent wave."

Honestly, I absolutely adore this hairstyle. Curls! Off the face! And flowers! And check out that no-fuss bouquet.

Two words: Victory cuts! Short, neat curls are obviously a winning formula. (Click "full size" to enlarge.)

The "tucked under" shortie looks almost like an origami project.

All of the "selections for summer nights" are extremely elegant… and extremely precise! The war will not be won with bedhead!

Should you dare to attempt and recreate some of these 'dos at home, instructions are provided. The text is really quite a treat: "Here is a banged feather bob that is sure to win the hearts of level-headed youngsters who know the secret of combining good looks and hard work, with no dire effect on either… The criss-crossed back is as gay as any young head could wish and it is formed so simply that it can easily be recombed. Sleek side wings are an effective foil for the fluffy bangs. For more frivolous moments, this style will lend itself particularly well to the addition of perky little bows or flower ornaments."

This is the Feather Halo, "just a little different from its feathery cousins."

Since our country is indeed at war, you must ask yourself: "Does Your Appearance Promote Morale?" (Click "full size" to enlarge.) Here's how this story begins: "You, a beautician in wartime, are telling your patrons that beauty is a duty today… and that good grooming gives confidence, increases efficiency and fosters a buoyant spirit. And right you are!" When it comes to your hair, check and see: "Is it smartly dressed… becoming… and short? Or does it straggle about your shoulders…?" Your bedraggled, snarled locks mean the terrorists have already won, people!

Earlier: Bangs, Curls, Swingers & Swirls: 1965 Modern Beauty Shop

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" the Secretary of State apparently repeated. "My husband is not secretary of state, I am...If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

Clinton's visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo, part of an 11-day tour of Africa, is intended, according to a spokesman quoted on NPR, to press the government for democratic reform, fight rampant corruption, and to address the virulent rape epidemic that's hit the eastern part of the country in the wake of years of conflict. According to the New York Times, Clinton took aim at illegal mining, saying she was "particularly concerned about the exploitation of natural resources." In the coming days, Clinton will meet with the country's president, visit a hospital in the capital city of Kinshasa founded by NBA player Dikembe Mutumbo, and speak with several rape victims. Her visit is significant, not least because the U.S., after its involvement in Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba's assassination, is regarded with suspicion. She addressed this in the meeting, telling one student, "I can't excuse this past and I won't try," telling the young people to ask, "will I be dragged down by the past or will I decide to do something to have a better future?"

While it's a great sentiment, it may be harder for the Congolese people to take at face value than we might wish: a devastating piece in today's Washington Post reaffirms that the heavily U.S.-backed U.N. peacekeeping efforts have exacerbated the rape problem. Says the piece, "An already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women." The phenomenon, which we've addressed before - and which increasingly targets men as well as women - has forced women to self-impose a curfew to protect themselves from the 60,000 soldiers in the area. Although President Joseph Kabila has declared rhetorical war on the epidemic, the article makes it clear that the vast majority of these crimes will go unpunished by a system that looks the other way - no senior officials have been prosecuted - and that is deeply patriarchal at the best of times.

Clinton is, of course, widely regarded as a female role model - and that even she should be publicly marginalized is a worrisome indication that changing the culture's going to be a very long road. One hopes that her call to young people to "speak out to end the corruption, the violence, the conflict that for too long have eroded the opportunities across this country... Together, you can write a new chapter in Congolese history," will be heeded. According to a report on NPR, Clinton called the rape culture "truly one of mankind's greatest atrocities," something that "the entire society needs to be speaking out against this. It should be a mark of shame anywhere, in any country."

Clinton: I'm Secretary Of State, Not Bill [MSNBC]
Clinton Assails Rampant Sexual Violence In Congo [NPR]
Clinton Heads To A Congo Torn By Violence [NPR]
Clinton to Target Sexual Violence in Congo [Time]
Clinton Presses Congo On Illicit Minerals [NY Times]
Congo's Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation [Washington Post]

Earlier: The Faces Of Congo's Women
War Crimes Against Women, Men, Continue Unabated Abroad

[Arlington, August 4. Image via Getty]

ARLINGTON, VA - AUGUST 04: LyVonne Lightfoot (3rd R) holds a folded American flag while sitting next to her son U.S. Army Spc. Anthony M. Lightfoot's casket during his burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery August 4, 2009 in Arlington, Virginia. Assigned to the 4th Battalion, 25th Field Artillery, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Spc. Lightfoot, 20, of Riverdale, Georgia, joined the Army in January 2008. Spc. Lightfoot and three other soldiers were killed when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb followed by a small arms and rocket-propelled grenade attack in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

[Fort Stewart, Georgia; July 28. Image via Getty]

FORT STEWART, GA - JULY 28: The wife of a U.S. Army soldier with the 293rd Military Police Company watches her husband form up before deploying to Afghanistan July 28, 2009 in Fort Stewart, Georgia. More than 130 soldiers from the company, attached to the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, will spend the next year in Afghanistan training the Afghan National Police. (Photo by Stephen Morton/Getty Images)

[Srinagar, Kashmir; June 30. Image via Getty]

SRINAGAR, KASHMIR - JUNE 30: Shameema 25, and her daughter holds a picture of her missing husband Shabir Ahmad Gassias inside their house on June 30, 2009 in Srinagar in the Indian Administered Kashmir. Shameema mother of two says her husband Shabir Ahmad Gassi a labourer was arrested by Indian soldiers on 22 January, 2000 during a nocturnal raid, just 15 days after she had given birth to a daughter. She still recalls how helpless she felt when her husband screamed, while the Indian Army soldiers interrogated him just outside the house. Kashmir is the most heavily militarized zone in the world. Around seven hundred thousand Indian soldiers are battling with Pakistani trained Kashmiri militants since 1989. The conflict has toll around the deaths of eighty thousand people and eight thousand disappearances. (Photo by Yawar Nazir/Getty Images)

Brooker's "decade in which men don't get to control anything, from the remote control upwards" would produce, according to him,

an instant and massive reduction in armed conflict around the globe. Sure, nations would routinely bitch about each other in secret (and with a new, hair-curling viciousness), but there'd be fewer intercontinental punch-ups and a far smaller bodycount.

The idea that women like to fight and women just like to gossip is obviously totally reductive, but even more wrong-headed is Brooker's claim that all the world's problems are the result of excess testosterone. He writes,

Men are still far too dominant for their own good, and consequently we've made a testosterone-sodden pig's ear of just about everything: politics, the economy, religion, the environment ... you name it, it's in a gigantic man-wrought mess. The world's been one big dick-swinging contest, and we've caught our collective glans in a nearby desk fan.

Insofar as more men than women are in power in the world, and the people in power have a lot to answer for, yes, men have screwed things up. But whenever I hear someone chalking up war, economic collapse, and general worldwide ill-being to masculine posturing, I remember trying to make this argument to my mom when I was about fourteen years old. She sat me down and told me never to try to pin all the problems of the world on men, because this was too simplistic and too easy. I think she's right — female leaders have waged war too, and our whole species is to greedy and violent and self-centered to give half of it a pass.

Not to mention the fact that Brooker's plan basically absolves men of the responsibility to fix anything. They can't, he argues, they're too dumb! He writes,

In truth your suspicions are correct: we're very, very simple. We're lazy and we like blowjobs. That's all there is to us. Literally: that's it. From Sir John Betjeman to Barack Obama, from Copernicus to Liam Gallagher. The core software we run on could fit in the memory of a digital watch circa 1985 without even scraping the sides.

Thus Brooker basically lowers the level of his argument to that of a beer commercial. As long as men and women keep perpetuating this boring stereotypes that men are stupid, simple-minded blowjob-getting machines, men as a whole will never be expected to become the empathetic, intelligent, and egalitarian creatures that they definitely can be. This whole men-are-idiots ethos just sets the bar for men unacceptably low — and the bar for women, who must then compensate for men, unacceptably high. If the world is really half-full of the kind of men Brooker describes, then it's really not worth women's time to try to save it.

Women! You have no concept of the depth of male simplicity. And until you do, our world is doomed [Guardian]

[Jalozi Camp, Pakistan; May 31. Image via Getty]

JALOZAI CAMP, PAKISTAN - MAY 31: A women peers out from a torn curtain near her tent as the wind and dust blows making conditions in the massive tent city become more difficult May 31, 2009 in Jalozai camp, 15 k from Peshawar, Pakistan. According to the NWFP authorities and the UN, at least three million internally displaced persons (IDPs) have now been registered as a result from recent fighting and on-going military operations against the Taliban. The Taliban have fled the Pakistani army's advance on the main town in the Swat Valley, according to the Pakistan military. The refugees have fled from Swat, Buner, and Lower Dir facing extremely harsh living conditions in the searing heat in over crowded camps. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

Since Napoleon Chagnon's landmark 1988 study of the Yanomamo tribe of Venezuela, it's been assumed that aggressive and violent behavior was the key to power, and that men who demonstrated such behaviors ended up the top dogs, with more wives and children. Or, as several headlines insist on cheesily, patronizingly, and oddly putting it, they "get the girl." But a new study of the similarly warlike Waorani of the Amazon basin has strikingly different results. In essence, "Warriors Do Not Always Get The Girl."

The Waorani are rainforest manioc horticulturalists and foragers. Their position in the Amazon is an enviable one that attracts a lot of others, and the Waorani are said to be notorious for killing outsiders vying for resources, with murder also fairly commonplace within the tribe. This appalled the missionaries who encountered the indigenous people in 1959 and quickly set about trying to eradicate the violence of the Waorani's traditional culture, but today it's still the South American tribe with the highest recorded murder rate (in the past five generations 42 percent of deaths of both men and women resulted from murder) and as such an irresistible subject to those anthropologists interested in studying aggression in society. Contrary to old suppositions, says Penn State's Stephen Beckerman, who interviewed people in 23 settlements, the most violent and aggressive members of the tribe have fewer wives and children than Beta males. Oddly, the children of more violent men were found to have shorter life spans.

The reasons for the difference aren't clear - the researchers cite "cultural differences" and "cycles of aggression." But, um, what about the fact that the resources that were the basis of their existence - and the cause of most violence - have been destroyed? After all, their homeland is highly at risk of oil exploration and illegal logging. And isn't some of this just a natural consequence of the eradication of an ancient culture? While portions of the community have held steadfastly to old ways, retreating from society, it's also true that a large number now live as Christians. If the shift means the saving of lives, one can't help but feel ambivalent, but surely anthropology as we and Barbara Pym knew it can't really be studied in a vacuum? But as a green shoot of human nature hope in a violent world? Sure, we'll take what we can get.

Turns Out Tough Guys Get The Girls [NBC]
Warriors Do Not Always Get The Girl [Science Daily]

According to a new survey of 1,244 women in Swaziland, one third had been raped, reports today's New York Times. Previous studies and newspaper stories in Swaziland have focused on rapes that are committed by teachers in school, but 17 percent of the rapists were male relatives or family friends, while 3 percent were teachers or principals.

The study, which was conducted by Unicef and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that the small nation, surrounded by South Africa, has one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world, with 26 percent of the adult population infected. Part of the reason for the high rate of sexual assault may be the persistent myth that a man can be cleansed of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. About 5 percent of those interviewed said they had been raped before the age of 18.

While the systematic assault of women in Congo, the Darfur region of Sudan, Serbia, and Rwanda has been widely reported, the scale of sexual violence in Colombia's four-decade-old conflict is mostly unknown, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Women's organizations say there are thousands of cases of rape by right-wing paramilitaries and leftist guerrillas that are going unreported in the country. "The problem is not yet being seen in its full dimension," says Patricia Buriticá, who heads the Women's Peace Initiative, which helps victims of sexual violence.

Though paramilitary commanders claim the rapes were isolated cases, a 2006 report by the Inter-American Commission of Human rights said, "The actors in Colombia's armed conflict, particularly the paramilitaries and guerrillas, use physical, sexual, and psychological violence against women as a strategy of war." Buriticá says she has interviewed hundreds of women who say that once the groups took over a town, the paramilitaries would use village women as sex slaves. In one province a warlord would summon a different woman every night. "A shop owner refused to send his wife to Giraldo and he was killed the next day," Buriticá says.

Many don't realize how widespread the rapes are because women are afraid to report them, and don't see the crimes as part of the conflict. Buriticá says many women will report the murder or torture of male relatives, but still not reveal what happened to them. "There was one woman who reported a murder and it took two years of therapy to get her to report her own rape," Buriticá says.

Amelia, one of the women who reported her rape, said she finally decided to go to the police because she wanted to embolden other women in Colombia to do the same, "The more we are, the stronger we are," she said, adding that she worries that the fact she had to leave her village to protect herself and her family may make more women afraid to report. "I'm sure the women in my town are talking about the price I had to pay for talking," she says. "I don't think I'll be able to go back home for a very long time."

Sexual Abuse: New Study Documents Rape's Grim Toll [The New York Times]
In Colombia, Rape Now Being Prosecuted As Weapon Of War [The Christian Science Monitor]

'Congo Chic': A Hint Of Glamour In The Shadow Of War [Huffington Post]
Congo Hairstyles Highlight Earthy Chic [GlobalPost]

The first study, on mental health, reveals the effect violence has had on the Iraqi people. On Saturday, the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization released a survey of 4,332 adult Iraqis which found that 17 percent suffered from mental disorders, such as depression, phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety, according to The New York Times. Women were particularly affected, with 19 percent of women reporting mental health problems compared to 14 percent of men. A higher proportion of women suffering from severe depression, phobias, and anxiety - and 70 percent of men and women with mental health issues - reported contemplating suicide.

Another study, conducted by Oxfam and Al-Amal Association, an Iraqi women's organization, conducted interviews with 1,700 women and reports (unsurprisingly) that over the past two years their condition has worsened. The BBC reports that a third of the women surveyed had three hours or less of electricity per day, 25 percent had no daily access to drinking water, and 45 percent said their income was worse in 2008 than in previous years. Almost half said their access to health care had worsened in the past two years, 20 percent are victims of domestic violence, and more than 30 percent had family members die violently. As the Oxfam report puts it: "Iraqi women are suffering a silent emergency', trapped in a downward spiral of poverty, desperation and personal insecurity despite an overall decrease in violence in the country."

The survey also reports that there are an estimated 740,000 widows in Iraq, and three quarters do not receive pensions. These women have great difficulty providing for their children and extended family and are often beaten by family members. Women's rights campaigner Hana Adwar tells the BBC it's hard to convince the widows that they deserve better. "The majority feel that this is the will of God, they have to obey the right of their families," she said.

On Saturday, Time also reported that women's rights in Iraq have actually regressed since the fall of Saddam Hussein and sex trafficking is now rampant in the country. Women's rights advocates in the country estimate that tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children have been sold into sex slavery since 2003. Trafficking takes place within the country and internationally, mostly to Syria, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. Women can easily be taken across the border with forged passports or by being forced to marry and then divorced and put to work when they reach their destination.

Even more disturbingly, it's often impoverished mothers who sell their daughters into slavery. Girls as young as 11 and 12 are sold for anywhere from $2,000 to $30,000. "The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it's like the trade in cattle," says Hinda, an undercover human rights activist. "I've seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters."

According to the 2008 U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report, the Iraqi government is ignoring the problem. The report says the government "offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country."

Iraqi Surveys Start to Unveil the Mental Scars of War, Especially Among Women [NY Times]
Iraqi Women "Lack Basic Services [BBC]
Iraq's Unspeakable Crime: Mothers Pimping Daughters [Time]

Israel claims it had "no choice" but to attack, after a truce with Hamas had expired. "There is a time for calm and a time for fighting, and now the time has come to fight," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says, "It won't be easy and it won't be short." Hamas has vowed revenge for the attacks, releasing this statement: "Hamas will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood." Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, calls the attacks, "a very cruel escalation, a relentless bombardment of a captive civilian population that has already been under siege for months, that has been deprived of basic requirements like food and medicines and fuel and power," while Israeli Maj. Avital Leibovich claims the attacks are necessary "in order to preserve the security situation in Israel." The United States, meanwhile, has released a statement asking that Israel "avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza." [BBC][CNN]