US intelligence report warns Afghan women's rights at risk after troop withdrawal

[SunsetBeetch]

Washington(CNN)Progress on women's rights in Afghanistan could be at risk with the withdrawal of US and international troops, even if the Taliban doesn't fully take power, according to a newly declassified US intelligence report.

The National Intelligence Council assessed that the progress made over the last two decades "probably owes more to external pressure than domestic support, suggesting it would be at risk after coalition withdrawal, even without Taliban efforts to reverse it."

"Although the Taliban's fall officially ended some policies (restricting the rights of women), many continue in practice even in government-controlled areas," it stated.

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/05/04/politics/intel-report-womens-rights-afghanistan/index.html

Does that mean you are advocating troops remaining?

Where do you draw the lines about when it is necessary or even just acceptable to have an foreign occupying force?

@mpsw

Does that mean you are advocating troops remaining?

Where do you draw the lines about when it is necessary or even just acceptable to have an foreign occupying force?

No. What a weird take.

I think some are just a bit cynical about when the powers-that-be are interested in women's rights.

Invading/occupying foreign countries we don't like? Women's rights! Dictatorships we do like? Don't be islamophobic. Our own women? TERFs.

Not sure that level of reflexive cynicism is justified on MN FWR though. We're not the hub of the military-industrial complex. Not sure about AIBU though.

Women haven't had an easy time even with US troops there. There was the horrific attack on a maternity hospital which was run by MSF last year and in just in March 3 women who worked for a news agency were killed on their way home from work. Malalai Maiwand was murdered in December. Very few girls still attend school and the burqa is still worn by huge numbers of women. The progress has been slow and very bloody.

What is going on in Afghanistan is just horrendous - and the fear women must be feeling as the clock ticks down to the troops pulling out is unbearable. But it's one of the (many situations) that I cannot see a solution to. They've been there for twenty years, and I think they could be there for another twenty years without resolving things. It's so so tragic.

The Peace deal that was negotiated basically ignores women's rights. There was nothing specifically written into the peace negotiations and "women's rights" were left as something to negotiate between the Taliban and Afghan government. The Taliban have said they will give women their rights according to Islam which isn't the same as equal rights.

Whatever happens in Afghanistan, women end up getting a shitty deal, to say the least. I don't know what can be done about it - nobody was ever getting involved to 'liberate women'.

I seem to recall the original publicity around the war was all about protecting women's rights.

I was sceptical.

@ArabellaScott

Whatever happens in Afghanistan, women end up getting a shitty deal, to say the least. I don't know what can be done about it - nobody was ever getting involved to 'liberate women'.

No indeed. Despite the ' Intersectional ' CIA advert.

There would need to be a push to undermine Islamic ideology, and that's too controversial to do. It's far easier to say that Islam is wonderful, and the only problem is that a few extremists have "misunderstood" it.

seem to recall the original publicity around the war was all about protecting women's rights.

I was sceptical.

Me too.

It's interpretation of Islam that's the issue here, not Islam itself. Cultural rather than religious.
The Koran, for example, asks for modest dress. It doesn't mention the burka. Interpretation of this varies greatly around the globe. In Malaysia for example, the burka is hugely unpopular and the hijab more commonly worn and many Muslim women in the UK don't cover their hair at all but dress modestly in trousers and shirts.
Whereas in some places women can't drive or work, others they take part in society with very few limits.
The situation here is the words of the religion are interpreted to serve a purpose. There are very few religions where the original text doesn't contain problematic passages about women, it's just what is chosen to be adhered to and how. If you go to modern day Sicily for example, you'll find women are very much limited because the reading of the Bible supports a limiting traditional role for women. Yet some Christians in the UK view women as equal. Islam has favourable passages about women and problematic ones, just like Christianity.
I've got no problems pointing out that most religions are patriarchal, but let's try and be consistent.
Interestingly, Afghanistan in the 60s wasn't a million miles behind the UK in terms of women's rights. The roll backs have been due to extreme conservative groups being in power. It would take eliminating the groups, replacing them with ones with liberal values and education to change oh so slowly. And they never quite managed that.
Pity the women left in that mess.

www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history

@ArabellaScott

Whatever happens in Afghanistan, women end up getting a shitty deal, to say the least. I don't know what can be done about it - nobody was ever getting involved to 'liberate women'.

This.

I remember the rationale for the war, back in 2001, was to do with deposing the Taliban and denying a base there to Al Qaeda. It's about power politics.

I've got no problems pointing out that most religions are patriarchal, but let's try and be consistent.

Then why blame "interpretation"? Why not rather admit that the religion itself is fundamentally flawed? Of course if you just ignore certain passages they may not be a problem; but they hardly gets the religion out of blame where people do take the texts literally and follow them.

Should have been: "But that hardly gets the religion out of blame..."

The Taliban were a logical progression from the Mujahideen, who were backed by the US against the Soviet Union. Osama Bin Laden and his fighters received arms from the US, particularly heavy machine guns and RPG's.
The US created this mess in Afghanistan. Their foreign policy is very much a "law of unintended consequences".

We're talking about centuries old texts, of course they don't represent modern ideas. I'm happy to acknowledge they were not written in a vacuum and are products of their time and sensibilities.
However, there is a tendancy by British people to ignore that the Koran, just like the Bible, is open to interpretation and people of faith don't necessarily follow everything in them. It says eating meat on a Friday is a sin in the bible, yet funnily enough no one seems to care countless Christians ignore this in favour of their own interpretation.
Saying, well the religion is bad doesn't help women within it.
Take Hibo Wardere: does she do good by spreading the word that the Koran doesn't ask for fgm but calls the body sacred or would you prefer her to concentrate on the passages that could interpret her public speaking as wrong?

And where religion has been nationally scrapped women haven't exactly come out on top. Look at communist China.

I'm an atheist myself, but I can tolerate people of faith who follow a religion peacefully without taking extreme positions.

It says eating meat on a Friday is a sin in the bible, yet funnily enough no one seems to care countless Christians ignore this in favour of their own interpretation.

I don't think the Bible actually says that. Verse for that?

There may however be a Catholic teaching about not eating meat on a Friday during Lent? Obviously other types of Christian would be free to ignore that.

Saying, well the religion is bad doesn't help women within it.

Firstly, the best tactic is often going to be honesty. There might be circumstances where you could argue it's better to lie sometimes, or not mention things, and you will get better results; but that's really very questionable imo.

Secondly, if you try to argue on the level of interpretation, you can be easily defeated. All a conservative traditionalist needs to do, is make a fair case from standard principles of interpretation, and point to historic commentary on the verses in question. So most theologians have interpreted it X.

You're then basically screwed. They can just say that their interpretation is at least as plausible as any liberal alternative, and it's probably going to be better supported in the tradition.

Unless you have an overwhelmingly strong case for how verses should be interpreted (a merely plausible case isn't good enough), religious conservatives would just kick your butt on that level. Even if you could persuade some people that you had a plausible interpretation, OK, many other followers will not be persuaded that it's correct.

Loads of religions and branches of religions have all sorts of dodgy stuff in them.

And loads of people make all sorts of justifications for being awful based on 'interpretation'.

This is not a problem specific to Islam.

Plenty of Muslims all over the world are just well you know. Not horrible etc. Not crazed misogynists.

Example of massive harm to women justified by religion- abortion, RC church.

(I was raised RC before anyone goes down the anti Catholic route).

And I've seen the murders of women in visible jobs reported in the news a fair bit.

So it doesn't look like a great amount of protection is happening anyway.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-56488749

I am also highly sceptical that they actually give a toss about women's rights.

^This is not a problem specific to Islam.^

This was kind of my point. I just don't like that people like to portray Islam as the only religion with misogynist roots.

Around the world plenty of Christian countries have a shit record on women's rights.

This oh well islam is awful stuff is so lacking in actual thought.

Agree ladybuff, it was zincos posts I was thinking of.

seem to recall the original publicity around the war was all about protecting women's rights.

no it wasn't. the US went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to attempt to wipe out al quada and osama bin laden. It was quite clear and very little was said about women's rights.

As it happened there had been a fair bit of publicity (finally) given to the appalling situation of afghan women in US news/journalism in the few years before 9/11. The destruction of the buddhas also gained some attention on what was going on there with the taliban. But the US never pretended that it was going into afghanistan for women.