Delayed Justice In Lauterbach Murder Sends A Message To Female Soldiers That The Military Does Not Have Their Back

Gender-Based Violence, Militarism, Misogyny, Rape, Violence Against Women 2 Responses »
Aug 252010

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
Posted by Fempeace at 6:34 am

Media Complicity In The U.S. Exploitation Of Afghan Women's Lives As A Call For War

Afghanistan, Gender-Based Violence, Human Rights, Media, Militarism, Misogyny, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized, Violence Against Women Comments Off
Aug 172010

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
Posted by Fempeace at 9:58 am

Time's Story About Afghan Women--Questions Raised About Author's Vested Interests And Accuracy Of The Story

Afghanistan, Atrocities, Gender-Based Violence, Human Rights, Media, Militarism, Misogyny, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized Comments Off
Aug 132010

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
Posted by Fempeace at 8:31 am

Looks Like We'll Have To Invade Tajikistan To Rescue Women There Too

Afghanistan, Gender-Based Violence, Human Rights, Militarism, Misogyny Comments Off
Aug 092010

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
Posted by Fempeace at 9:13 am Tagged with: , , ,

A Response To The Ms. Critique Of My Comments About Using The Plight Of Afghan Women To Promote The War

Afghanistan, CEDAW, Gender-Based Violence, Human Rights, Militarism, Misogyny, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized, Violence Against Women 2 Responses »
Aug 052010

Earlier this week, Rafia Zakaria wrote a post on the Ms. Magazine blog critiquing the “left’s” (in which she includes the Feminist Peace Network) response to the TIME Magazine cover and article about what happens to Afghan women  if we leave Afghanistan.  This post is in response to the points that she  raises.  She writes,

First to critique TIME‘s cover has been an American Left so committed to troop withdrawal that any pauses for consideration are instantly rejected as ploys to perpetuate occupation. On the Huffington Post, Derrick Crowe, political director of the Brave New Foundation, described the cover as “TIME’s epic distortion of the plight of women in Afghanistan,” calling it “rank propaganda,” and pointing out that Aisha was attacked while U.S forces were still in Afghanistan purportedly providing “security.” The Feminist Peace Network decried the tired use of “protecting Afghan women” as justification for continued occupation.

To begin with, given that I have oft critiqued the misogyny of the left, I don’t know whether to be amused, saddened or honored that this blog is seen by Ms. as representing the  not so monolithic as that left. But as to the point raised, given the CIA memo regarding the use of Afghan women to promote a continued presence in Afghanistan, I think it is fair to say that in fact it is a ploy.  Zakaria continues,

The Left’s framing is clear: Rescuing Afghan women was a pretext crafted handily by the Bush Administration so it could barge its way into Afghanistan and stay there. And that’s certainly true. Also true, as Crowe points out, is that Afghan women have continued to suffer during the American occupation, enduring both traditional patriarchal practices and newly-minted discriminatory laws. Indeed, assessing the performance of the 10-year occupation in the mutilated-yet-expectant features of a young woman serves as an appropriately graphic visual depiction of our failures in Afghanistan.

The problem with these arguments, however, is that they translate our inability to improve things thus far into a prescription for sudden abandonment of the very projects that women just like Aisha made the mistake of believing in: literacy and entrepreneurship initiatives for women, civil society seminars designed to encourage women’s participation and midwifery training projects to reduce Afghanistan’s sky-rocketing rates of maternal mortality. War is horrific, its misery recorded in lurid detail in the tragedy of Aisha’s mutilation. But withdrawing without a plan for safeguarding the women who chose to believe the American promises of empowerment, however deceitfully those promises may have been made, is to live in denial of a tragedy in which we are roundly imputed.

That is a very important point that needs to be addressed.  While advocating withdrawal, I believe it needs to be done in an orderly fashion with substantive attention paid to the protection of the rights and safety of civilians.  However as it stands right now, it appears unlikely that we will leave Afghanistan any time soon, despite how unpopular the war there has become.

The question of abandoning women is a false issue.  We never went there for their protection in the first place and nine years later, we’ve done very little to realize the projects that Ms. Zakaria mentions.  Afghanistan has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world and is the only country in which the rate of suicide for women is higher than it is for men.  Girls’ schools continue to be bombed and women are being excluded from peace talks.

Let’s be very clear that we went into Afghanistan as a response to the 911 bombings to retaliate against Bin Laden and against the Taliban for allowing him a base of operations in Afghanistan, albeit a fully nuanced explanation of our response is of course far more complex than that and well beyond the scope of this blog.  Let’s also be clear that the purpose of the U.S. military is to defend U.S. interests. However misguided a military response may or may not be,  rescuing or empower women has never been at the top of our agenda, if it were, we need to ask questions such as why have we not responded to the desperate plight of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo and why we have not ratified CEDAW.  Continuing with the Zakaria post,

At the same time, I find the sudden elevation of Afghan women’s agency at this juncture to be both self-serving and instrumental in denying just how badly the world has failed them. Saying that women ravaged by war for over three decades, whose capacity for resistance has been depleted by incessant meddling of foreign forces, can now independently empower themselves in the wreckage of the abandoned programs we leave behind is an argument meant only to pacify the travails of our own conscience.

Again, no argument, unquestionably simply abandoning Afghan women is not acceptable.  I also believe that the U.S. bears an enormous amount of responsibility in this regard. However demanding that we live up to that obligation is problematic, and simply saying that we therefore can’t leave Afghanistan is both simplistic and perhaps even further damaging.

While millions of dollars have been poured into reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a huge percentage of that money has been squandered, has ended up in the hands of U.S. contractors, war lords and who knows who else, but the bottom line is it hasn’t done much to help civilians.  This isn’t a working model of how to provide aid and support and certainly not while we continue to  kill civilians.

As I pointed out earlier this week, almost completely forgotten in this discussion is that CEDAW and UNSC 1325 provide substantive tools that can be used to create a productive model of empowerment and that while not being a perfect vehicle either, the United Nations is far better equipped to organize the necessary support that would allow Afghan women a chance at empowerment, and the U.S. should support the utilization of those resources rather than continuing to perpetuate a policy that has amounted to blunder and plunder.

Since the TIME Magazine piece came out, there have been a number of excellent responses.  In addition to the ones that I have already highlighted in previous posts (see below), Michelle Chen writes on Color Lines,

Whatever your stance on the Afghanistan war, photos like this are undoubtedly powerful. But ask whose interests are served by the rationalization of war through perverse appeals to gendered, racialized pity. A moving image can muddle more than it clarifies when the background is underexposed. So if Aisha represents anything about what has happened between when the U.S. invaded her country and when it will leave, then we owe it to her to turn the lens back on ourselves for once.

Priyamvada Gopal ends her well-reasoned analysis in The Guardian with,

The mutilated Afghan woman ultimately fills a symbolic void where there should be ideas for real change. The truth is that the US and allied regimes do not have anything substantial to offer Afghanistan beyond feeding the gargantuan war machine they have unleashed.

And how could they? In the affluent west itself, modernity is now about dismantling welfare systems, increasing inequality (disproportionately disenfranchising women in the process), and subsidising corporate profits. Other ideas once associated with modernity – social justice, economic fairness, peace, all of which would enfranchise Afghan women – have been relegated to the past in the name of progress. This bankrupt version of modernity has little to offer Afghans other than bikini waxes and Oprah-imitators. A radical people’s modernity is called for – and not only for the embattled denizens of Afghanistan.

While being highly problematic in intent and approach, the one thing that can be said about the TIME piece is that it has provoked some excellent and necessary dialog, including the Ms. response even though it is somewhat predictable given that Ms. is now run by the Feminist Majority which early on supported the call to rescue women from the Taliban in the run up to the invasion of Afghanistan.  Certainly referring so generally and disparagingly to the “left”  is both inaccurate and a disservice to many hard-working dedicated activists.

If you have not already, I urge you to read the following earlier FPN posts on this topic and to look at the many links in those posts to other commentary and I invite you to share your comments below (that said, the internet is out in my office and I’ll spare you my rant about the perils of communications deregulation, but I may not be able to respond or post comments in a timely fashion).

–Lucinda Marshall

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted by Fempeace at 2:00 pm Tagged with: , , , , ,
Older Entries