This week’s conviction of former U.S. Marine Cesar Laurean in in the 2007 brutal  murder of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbachand her unborn child almost three years after the crime was committed is long past overdue.  In August, 2008, Ret. Col Ann Wright wrote about the case as but one example among many of misogynist violence in the military,

Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach

Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach had been raped in May 2007 and protective orders had been issued against the alleged perpetrator, fellow Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean. The burned body of Lauterbach and her unborn baby were found in a shallow grave in the backyard of Laurean’s home in January 2008. Laurean fled to Mexico, where he was captured by Mexican authorities. He is currently awaiting extradition to the United States to stand trial. Lauterbach’s mother testified before Congress on July 31, 2008, that the Marine Corps ignored warning signs that Laurean was a danger to her daughter (testimony of Mary Lauterbach to the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov/documents/20080731134039.pdf).

I asked Wright via email for her take on the mind-boggling amount of time it has taken for justice to be served in the Lauterbach murder,

“I think it is very important for women of the military to know why it has taken this long to have a court-martial on such a high  visibility case, which included extradition of Laurean from Mexico where he had fled after he murdered Maria Lauterbach and her baby, burned and buried their bodies.  For women in the military who are a part of the 92% of women who file rape charges and never have their cases even brought to a court of justice so that their pleas can be heard (only 8% of military rape cases ever come to trial in constrast to 30% of allegations in the civilian sector), it is no glimmer of hope that the verdict in this high profile case has taken so long.”

Indeed, this is just another in a much to long list of ways in which the military continues to send the message that women who serve in the military are at more risk of being harmed by their fellow soldiers than by any enemy and that contrary to the expectation that every soldier has, that their comrades have their back, for women, it is decidedly not so.

  • Share/Bookmark

Sunday’s appearance of General David Petraeus on Meet The Press (see below) provided further confirmation not only of the U.S. use of Afghan women’s lives to make a case for war but also media complicity in this strategy.  In the interview, Petraeus referred to what is now understood to be a deeply flawed excuse for journalism in the August 9th edition of Time Magazine that appeared with the picture of a badly maimed Afghan woman with the caption, “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan”.  There is no question mark in the title, it is a statement, despite Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel’s claim that the magazine is not taking sides in the debate about continuing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.  That claim however does not pass the smell test for a number of reasons:

1.  Before we even went into Afghanistan, the lives of Afghan women were being used to make a pitch for the war, even though we had not previously been concerned about their welfare under the Taliban or before the Taliban came into power and the release of the CIA memo earlier this year touting the use of Afghan women to illicit sympathy for the war in Europe makes it clear that stories such as the one that appeared in Time are very useful to the  military’s deliberate efforts to drum up support for the war. That argument is further bolstered by pieces in a similar  vein that were run by New York Times and McClatchy the same week as the Time piece appeared and the NYT piece that appeared the day after Petraeus’ appearance on Meet The Press.

2.  Making matters far worse, as John Gorenfeld at The New York Observer pointed out last week, there are substantial questions about the impartiality of the author, Aryn Baker and also about the accuracy of the piece itself, something confirmed by long time Afghan reporter Ann Jones:

I heard Aisha’s story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world. She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn’t figure at all in this account. The Time story, however, attributes Aisha’s mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power. Profoundly traumatized, Aisha might well muddle her story, but what excuses reporters who seem to inflate the role of the Taliban with every repetition of the case? Some reports have Aisha “sentenced” by a whole Taliban “jirga.”

3.  In a followup piece, Gorenfeld provides additional history regarding the use of the media by the CIA (see also The real story behind Time’s Afghan woman cover: American complicity by Ralph Lopez) and makes the important point that the story of Aisha, the young woman on the cover of Time is not a new one, The Daily Beast reported Aisha’s story last December and Diane Sawyer did a segment on it last March, so one has to ask why Time is just now pointing to this incident which it must be pointed out took place last year when U.S. forces were in Afghanistan, which hardly gives credibility to the idea that our presence is protecting Afghan women.

4.  In addition, it is important to understand that it isn’t only under the Taliban that women in Afghanistan have suffered as James Fergusson writes in The Guardian,

The maltreatment of women is by no means exclusive to the Taliban, nor even to Pashtuns. It is practised all over Afghanistan, including by the state that Nato troops are currently dying to support.

5.  The Time piece  does not make any effort to look at what happens if we stay, how continued U.S. military actions have and will continue to impact women’s human rights in Afghanistan.  It reads far more like propaganda than news and is an unfortunate testament to the sorry state of mainstream media in this country and the damage publications like Time daily commit to freedom of the press.

———-

Here is the relevant excerpt of David Gregory’s interview with General Petraeus on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY:  Did you see that cover of Time magazine in the last couple of weeks, an example of the brutality of the Taliban, with a woman whose nose was cut off of her face, a reminder of what Taliban rule was.  How often do you think about that as there is the prospect of the Taliban returning, reconciling in some way, becoming a part of this country’s future?

GEN. PETRAEUS:  Well, we think about it all the time.  And again, we think about it in the human context, which that photograph so visibly represented and horrifically represented.  We also think about it when it comes to our core objective.  The fact is that it was the Taliban that allowed al-Qaeda to establish its bases and sanctuaries in Afghanistan when it controlled a good bit of the country.  And that gives big pause, needless to say, and that is why, again, this insurgency has to be combated.

MR. GREGORY:  The bottom line question that I’ve been thinking about asking you is, if we win in Afghanistan, what do we win; and if we lose, what do we lose?

GEN. PETRAEUS:  Well, the, the latter is almost easier because, if you lose, it has, I think, some significant repercussions, not just for this country, although they would be enormous, and start with the cover of Time magazine for starters.  Then think about our security interests, and then think about the region and what it could do to the region if, in fact, extremists were able to take over all or part of this country again after what presumably would be a very bloody civil war in which different countries in the region would take sides.  And, again, the prospect is, I think, is pretty frightening.

Here is the interview I did last night with Dennis Bernstein on Pacifica radio station KPFA’s Flashpoints about these issues (the interview starts at about the 9 minute mark):

Flashpoints – August 16, 2010 at 5:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

Many thanks to the Institute for Public Accuracy work which facilitated that interview.

And finally, here are links to my earlier posts on the Feminist Peace Network blog on the Time Magazine piece:

–Lucinda Marshall

  • Share/Bookmark

Over the last several weeks, substantial questions have been raised about the context and slant of the Time Magazine article and cover about the consequences of a U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.  The Feminist Peace Network covered these issues extensively (see below), including looking at a CIA document released by Wikileaks that makes it clear that such stories have  been an actively encouraged U.S. policy used to drum up support for the war.

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:

  • Share/Bookmark

Pretty statement, too bad it is a crock of window dressing–from Critical Role of Women in Peace and Security, an address given by Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues on July 27, 2010:

President Obama’s National Security Strategy recognizes that “…countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women are accorded full and equal rights and opportunity. When those rights and opportunities are denied, countries often lag behind. Furthermore, women and girls often disproportionately bear the burden of crises and conflict. Therefore the United States is working with regional and international organizations to prevent violence against women and girls, especially in conflict zones. We are supporting women’s equal access to justice and their participation in the political process…”

And, Secretary Clinton has often said: “Women’s rights and women’s issues cannot be an afterthought in our foreign policy; they must factor centrally in how we look at the world. We have made women a cornerstone of our foreign policy not only because we think it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s the smart thing to do.

Well yes, it is the right thing and the smart thing to do, but a cornerstone of our foreign policy?  Who knew.  Seems to me that is only true when it is expedient.

The President’s and Secretary’s words are matched by actions.

Really, do tell:

Let me focus on Afghanistan. I want to welcome and recognize Palwasha Hassan, who is here from Afghanistan and who has been a leader in her country. She participated in the Kabul Conference, and we look forward to hearing from her.

At the International Conference on Afghanistan, in London earlier this year, Secretary Clinton emphasized that women need to be involved at every step of the way in the process of building Afghanistan’s future; and she introduced the Women’s Action Plan, which is incorporated into our U.S. Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. As Secretary Clinton said, “the plan includes initiatives focused on women’s security, women’s leadership in the public and private sector; women’s access to judicial institutions, education, and health services; and women’s ability to take advantage of economic opportunities, especially in the agricultural sector.” This is a comprehensive, forward-looking agenda. She also emphasized the role that women must play in the reintegration and reconciliation process as it goes forward.

That’s nice that Clinton said that, but,

Afghan women were not included in the Afghan Government’s official delegation to the London conference and only one Afghan woman was permitted to speak on behalf of civil society as part of the official conference program.

Meanwhile in the U.S. peace movement…David Swanson has a lengthy summary of the recent peace strategy conference held in Albany, NY.  There are 24 points in the summary but the one that caught my eye was this,

21.We call for the equal participation of women in all aspects of the antiwar movement. We propose nonviolent direct actions either in Congressional offices or other appropriate and strategic locations, possibly defense contractors, Federal Buildings, or military bases in the U.S. These actions would be local and coordinated nationally, i.e., the same day for everyone (times may vary). The actions would probably result in arrests for sitting in after offices close. Entering certain facilities could also result in arrests. Participants would be prepared for that possible outcome before joining the action. Nonviolence training would be offered locally, with lists of trainers being made available. The message/demand would be a vote, a congressional action to end the wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Close U.S. bases. Costs of war and financial issues related to social needs neglected because of war spending would need to be studied and statements regarding same be prepared before the actions. Press release would encourage coverage because of the actions being local and nationally coordinated.

One line that doesn’t seem to have any connection whatsoever with the rest of the item somehow doesn’t speak equality or an understanding of of the issue to me.  As those of you who were here when this network began know, my motivation for starting this forum was to provide women with a safe and nuanced space to fully  empower their voices in the peace movement.  If this summary of the Albany conference is indicative of where the peace movement is, devoting one disconnected afterthought of a line to the role of women in the peace movement should tell us that spaces such as the Feminist Peace Network are still badly needed and that we have a long way to go in truly critiquing the peace movement from a gendered lens.

  • Share/Bookmark

There has been much discussion in the last few weeks about the difficulties faced by Afghan women.  The horrible similarities in these two news items illustrates that the war against women knows no boundaries.  If helping the women of Afghanistan was truly a priority, by the same logic, I suppose we will now have to invade Tajikistan.

In Tajikistan:

A Tajik official says the high rate of self-immolation among women in southern Tajikistan is related in most cases to domestic violence perpetrated by men, RFE/RL’s Tajik Service reports.

Suhrob Salomov, an Interior Ministry official in Khatlon Province, told RFE/RL that 108 cases of suicide and attempted suicide by women have been recorded in the province in 2010. He said 52 people have died as a result and tens of others have been injured.

Salomov added that at least 50 percent of the known cases of attempted suicide were related to domestic violence and violence against women.

In Afghanistan:

Former Deputy Health Minister Faizullah Kakar recently completed a study (published in Dari) indicating that rising numbers of women and girls aged 15-40 are attempting suicide in Afghanistan. His findings were presented at a news conference in Kabul on 31 July.

The study, based on Health Ministry records and hospital reports, said an estimated 2,300 women or girls were attempting suicide annually – mainly due to mental illness, domestic violence and/or socio-economic hardship. “This is a several-fold increase on three decades ago,” said Kakar, currently a health adviser to President Hamid Karzai.

  • Share/Bookmark