On the Feminist Peace Network blog and in articles, I have pointed to stories of Afghan women being set on fire or setting themselves on fire to escape horrific personal situations more times than I can count.  There is nothing new in this, but it is nonetheless good to see this feature piece on this atrocity in The New York Times.

What I think is most notable about this piece is that first, it portrays immolation as the intimate, personal violence that it is, there is no attempt to paint this as something perpetrated by the Taliban, nor an effort to paint this as a reason for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Given that Afghan women’s lives have been used all too often as a deliberate call to war, the framing of this piece is quite welcome.

Time Magazine

Leaving aside that the horribly maimed young woman whose haunting eyes pull at our heartstrings from the Time cover was injured last year while U.S. forces were firmly in place in Afghanistan, the New York Observer is now raising questions about the accuracy of the story and also the impartiality of the Time reporter,

But there was more than a question mark missing from the Time story, which stressed potentially disastrous consequences if the U.S. pursues negotiations with the Taliban. The piece lacked a crucial personal disclosure on (reporter Aryn) Baker’s part: Her husband, Tamim Samee, an Afghan-American IT entrepreneur, is a board member of an Afghan government minister’s $100 million project advocating foreign investment in Afghanistan, and has run two companies, Digistan and Ora-Tech, that have solicited and won development contracts with the assistance of the international military, including private sector infrastructure projects favored by U.S.-backed leader Hamid Karzai.

In other words, the Time reporter who wrote a story bolstering the case for war appears to have benefited materially from the NATO invasion. Reached by The Observer, a Time spokesperson revealed that the magazine has just reassigned Baker to a new country as part of a normal rotation, though he declined to say where.

The New York Observer goes on to flesh out this very troubling conflict of interest and should be read in its entirety.  However, it isn’t just Baker’s impartiality that is at stake here.  It is also the accuracy of the story itself in claiming that this woman’s injuries  were inflicted because of the Taliban,

And what about Aisha, a new war emblem? While it’s long been evident that women have suffered unimaginable horrors under customs practiced in Afghanistan, Aisha’s brutal mutilation occurred in 2009, almost eight years into the American invasion.

Meanwhile, in a story light on specifics, there remains some question as to whether the unnamed Afghan judge who ordered Aisha’s mutilation qualifies as a “Taliban commander” in any formal sense. And if Aisha’s is the face of the notoriously cruel Taliban justice system, the Taliban aren’t taking credit. A Taliban press release on August 7 condemned the maiming as “unislamic” and denied that the case was handled by any of its roving judges — to whom many Afghans are now turning, distrustful of Karzai officials.

In the long run, the NATO-backed president, Hamid Karzai, may not be the friend Aisha and other persecuted Afghan women so desperately need. Last August he signed the Shia Personal Status Law, allowing men to starve wives who withhold sex and to punish those who walk outdoors without permission. Under this law — passed by a parliament that is 25 percent female as mandated by the new Afghan consitution — Aisha’s decision to leave home would have been considered a crime.

The veracity and impartiality of this piece need to be fully investigated and Time’s credibility as a ‘news’ magazine needs to be thoroughly questioned.  It is  abundantly clear that the mainstream media in this country did precious little fact checking when they became complicit in selling this war beginning in 2001 and it is also clear that this sort of mis-use of the media is being encouraged by our government. In the absence of journalistic integrity or a government that truly represents the people, our job is to call it out and refuse to accept the ‘truth’ when it is found to be lies and to insist on an end to this unacceptable war.

———-

Here are links to previous posts on the Time Magazine article:

• Time Magazine Once Again Trots Out The Tired And Inexcusable ‘We’re In Afghanistan (And Have To Stay) To Protect Women’ Mantra
• CIA Document Calls For Using Afghan Women As Messengers To Humanize The War
• NYT ‘Article’ On Afghan Women Sounds Familiar
• More On Using Afghan Women To Sell The War
• CEDAW, UNSC 1325 And Afghanistan

Several serious issues have been raised, first that this appears to be a reduction of facts to support the war effort and secondly that it is yet another callous use of women’s lives to justify war. Reading the article in full (and I’ve seen a copy of the print edition), as well as the excerpt online, one is left wondering if the article is simply a piece of military propaganda. Time editor Rick Stengel, in his introduction to the article seeks to frame it as a contribution to the existing debate about the war:

“The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war. Our story and the haunting cover image by the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground. As lawmakers and citizens begin to sort through the information about the war and make up their minds, our job is to provide context and perspective on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues of our time. What you see in these pictures and our story is something that you cannot find in those 91,000 documents: a combination of emotional truth and insight into the way life is lived in that difficult land and the consequences of the important decisions that lie ahead.”

But here is something you can find in one of the WikiLeaks documents, entitled, “CIA Red Cell Special Memorandum:  Afghanistan:  Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission-Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough”. The document, assessing how to shore up support for the war in Germany and France, begins with this summary,

This classified CIA analysis from March outlines possible PR strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. After the Dutch government fell on the issue of Dutch troops in Afghanistan last month, the CIA became worried that similar events could happen in the countries that post the third and fourth largest troop contingents to the ISAF mission. The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany’s standing in NATO. The memo is a recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written by the CIA. It is classified as Confidential/No Foreign Nationals.

It includes sections with the following titles:

• “Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters”
• “…But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash”
• “Tailoring Messaging Could Forestall or At Least Contain Backlash”

And then finally the section headed, “Appeals by President Obama and Afghan Women Might Gain Traction”, which contains the following:

Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission…

…Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences.

With the caveat that the veracity of the Wikileaks documents has not be been proven (although even the government isn’t suggesting otherwise), this is not the first time I’ve heard about this strategy. Nor am I surprised by it since it was one of the original justifications for invading Afghanistan and I rather suspect that lurking out there in the fog of war are more memos and reports that will document the use of women’s lives as an official strategy to call for war. Clearly, it gives additional and very troubling context to the Time piece. Since the get go with this war, journalists have been ‘embedded’ by the military. It would appear that that they still are and not just in war zones.

Whether it is possible that Time  published this piece as a concerted part of a government public relations effort is not clear and I”m not suggesting that it was, although it should certainly be investigated. But what is clear is that such a campaign exists with callous disregard of the human rights of Afghan women or respect for a free press. For that we owe Wikileaks a thank you for their relentless pursuit of truth without regard for national misuse of power and secrecy. Even more important, it is imperative that we take this knowledge that we have been given and use it to re-examine the conduct of this war and our military policy as a whole.

—Lucinda Marshall

———-

Note:  For additional commentary see:

• Greg Mitchell/The Nation
• Antonia Zerbesias/The Toronto Star
• Peter Hart/FAIR
• IrinCarmon/Jezebel

My deep gratitude to those of you who forwarded the Wikileaks document to me.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged that the United States will not abandon Afghan women and girls today as Afghan President Hamid Karzai is visiting the United States.

According to the Associated Press, Clinton told three senior women Afghan officials who were traveling with Karzai that “We will not abandon you, we will stand with you always.” Clinton also said it is “essential that women’s rights and women’s opportunities are not sacrificed or trampled on in the reconciliation process.” Her statements indicate that the US will not support reconciliation with Taliban militants unless they “respect women’s rights,” renounce the Taliban, and abide by the country’s laws, reported the Canadian Press.

Forgive my cynicism but we abandoned Afghan women many years ago, and greatly exacerbated their plight when we cynically used them as a justification to destroy their country and our continued military presence is only making things worse.  This latest statement from Clinton reads like yet another ploy to use the lives of Afghan women as an excuse–this time for not talking to the Taliban.  While I am in no way saying that we should condone the Taliban’s misogyny, our military presence is not the key to addressing that issue.  In fact it is likely making matters worse.

Women’s lives have always been part of the battleground over which opposing forces fight.  However, as Laura Carlsen points out, it has gotten much worse in recent years:

* At the turn of the 20th century, 5% of war casualties were civilians
* In World War I, 15% were civilians
* In World War II, the figure leapt to a 65% civilian death toll, as whole cities were bombed
* By the mid-nineties, 75% of war deaths were civilians
* Today, 90% of the human war toll are civilians-the majority women and children

Forget the complaints of “collateral damage”. As military leaders brag that modern technology has produced the most accurate weapons in history, during war strikes in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, women and children die.

They are not the collateral damage-they are the targets.

As this blog pointed out recently, despite assurances that this is not the case, there is anecdotal evidence that the U.S. military is still using training chants that encourage the killing of innocent women and children.

I went down to the market where all the women shop

I pulled out my machete and I begin to chop

I went down to the park where all the children play

I pulled out my machine gun and I begin to spray.

What was that about not sacrificing or trampling on women’s human rights?

Those of you of a certain age will remember those grade school Armageddon drills where we we were instructed to get under our desks and put our heads between our knees in case of a nuclear attack, a tactic that served no purpose and certainly wouldn’t have saved us if the Commies attacked.

Now the U.S. military has a new version of this callously useless advice that they are using in Marjah, Afghanistan:

Afghan villagers should stay inside and “keep their heads down” when thousands of U.S. Marines launch a massive assault on a densely-populated district in coming days, NATO’s civilian representative to Afghanistan said Tuesday.

The results are predictable, here is Robert Naiman‘s well-worded summary of the results:

“Civilian casualties are inevitable,” said U.S. officials before launching their weekend military assault on Marja in southern Afghanistan, and in this case, they were telling the truth. Yesterday, the New York Times reports, a U.S. rocket strike “hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians… killing at least 10 people, including 5 children.”

What justification has been provided by the government of the United States for its decision to kill these five children?

It will be argued that the government of the United States did not decide to kill these five children specifically, and that’s absolutely true. The U.S. government did not decide to kill these particular children; it only decided to kill some Afghan civilians, chosen randomly from Marja’s civilian population, when it decided to launch its military assault. These five children simply had the misfortune of holding losing tickets in a lottery in which they did not choose to participate…

…NATO forces have decided to advise civilians in Marjah not to leave their homes, although they say they do not know whether the assault will lead to heavy fighting.

These five kids were staying inside, as instructed. It didn’t save them from U.S. rockets. Perhaps they weren’t keeping their heads down.

You can read the rest of Naiman’s commentary here. Suffice it to say, “Duck” is not an acceptable strategy for protecting civilians and should be seen as a gross violation of international law.

Billions of dollars spent killing children. How dare we talk about winning or honor.