U.S. Troops Die For Rapists
American soldiers serving in Vietnam wondered what they were fighting for. U.S. troops in Afghanistan don’t have that problem. They know exactly what they’re fighting for: rapists.
After President Obama’s coming “Afghan surge” there will be 72,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Their primary mission is to prevent Afghans from overthrowing the unpopular regime of Hamid Karzai, the former oil consultant installed by George W. Bush when the U.S. occupation began nearly eight years ago.
America’s media repeatedly claimed that Afghan women would be better off under the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance puppet government headed by Karzai than under the Taliban. But when I went to Afghanistan and asked women what they thought, they had a different story. The defeat of the Taliban brought about the collapse of law and order, making life even more dangerous, especially for women. “Under the Taliban,” a woman told me, “I watched rapists being executed. Now I see them in the government.”
The Afghan women’s rights group RAWA has repeatedly told anyone willing to listen that there hasn’t been much improvement for women and girls since the U.S. occupation began in 2001. But no one–least of all left-of-center Americans eager to embrace the Afghan war–has wanted to hear what they had to say. “Most women still wear the all-encompassing burqa through fear of attack and social pressure, a third of women in Kabul do not leave the house, forbidden from doing so by the male members of the family, and it is still almost impossible for women to get a divorce,” reported The Sunday Herald in 2005.
Liberal Democrats who cling to Afghanistan as “the good war” the U.S. should be fighting are being forced to confront the ugly truth about their ally. Karzai has signed a law that states that “women cannot leave the house without their husbands’ permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex,” reported the British newspaper The Guardian on March 31st.
The Shiite Personal Status act applies only to devotees of the Shia branch of Islam, which account for between 10 and 20 percent of the population. How can a secular democratic state have different laws depending on a citizen’s faith? The answer is: It can’t. Afghanistan isn’t secular or democratic. The “new” Afghanistan’s constitution is based on Sharia law–exactly as it was under the Taliban. But the U.S. media has purposefully failed to report the icky truth about our ally.
The new law requires women to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days unless they are sick or menstruating. “Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife,” reads the law of a nation ostensibly invaded by U.S. troops in part to liberate Afghan women. “As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” it says.
Afghan Senator Humaira Namati calls the rape bill “worse than during the Taliban” and said it was rammed through parliament without debate. “Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam,” she said. Several hundred women protesting the law on the streets of Kabul were viciously assaulted by men as police stood back and watched.
In fairness to the responsible male legislators, they did add a provision to protect Shiite women from “dead bed”: Afghan men have to put out “at least once every four months.”
Karzai signed legalized rape into law in order to appease right-wing legislators in an election year. After international criticism, however, he began backpedaling with the lamest of all possible reasons: he didn’t read the bill before he was for it.
“I was not aware of what I had signed,” Afghan parliamentarian Sabrina Saqib said Karzai told her. The legislation “has so many articles,” Karzai told CNN. “Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law.”
As Karzai BSes for the cameras, hundreds of Afghan women languish in prisons around the country. Their crime? They’re teen brides, some as young as 10, who ran away from much older husbands who purchased them. “In President Hamid Karzai’s Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home,” reports The Sunday Herald.
Nice theocracy you got there, Mullah Karzai.
Remember this column the next time you watch a flag-draped coffin returning from Afghanistan. The young man inside that box didn’t die for nothing. He died to protect rapists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
24 Comments.
I thought that liberals were against the death penalty
RAWA stands for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, and they are the first feminist group ever in the country.
They were started in 1977 by a group of Afghan women, but since then they've had to deal with the Soviet Invasion, the deadly Afghan Civil War, the Taliban, and now the Warlord-Druglord government. They still soldier on as a semi-underground group, but they could use your support. Please go to
http://www.afghanwomensmission.org/
and donate.
So what you are saying is Obama is defending rapists.
…And yet another column demonstrating why Ted Rall is (and should be) largely disregarded.
Susan, they didn't have to "deal" with the Soviets, they were created by one of the Soviet backed factions of the old Afghan Communist Party. That faction lost favour with the Soviets and RAWA then came under pressure from the Russkies.
They have a hell of a job anyway. But I must mention that it was Ted himself who mentioned the Soviet orgins of RAWA. It was probably in "To Afghanistan and Back"
Anonymous 10:28 —
Why should Ted be disregarded? Generally he seems like the only reporter/pundit (God it's strange that those are connected now) willing to call it like it is.
The question is — are you a conservative who has always hated Ted or a liberal who has newly hated Ted since he doesn't love Obama?
What I am saying, G.M., is that Mr. Rall goes out of his way to slander American soldiers — and he does so disingenuously. This has been a trend of his for the last eight or nine years. It is quite important to him that he not only castigate the public policies of our government, which he often does quite acutely, but that he also chastise and attack the individuals who volunteer for these wars which he despises so much. This goes far beyond discouraging them from signing up — the rather lame excuse he uses when he is actually compelled to defend these cartoons and articles. It is important to him that he mock them and their motives, disregard any good that they might have done, and constantly remind them that they are risking their lives in vain. I find this line of attack to be unspeakably repugnant, and it has nothing to do with the political tenor of the speaker.
"The question is — are you a conservative who has always hated Ted or a liberal who has newly hated Ted since he doesn't love Obama?"
LOL – I loved this, it is sooooo true. Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan and his bailout of corrupt and endlessly greedy corporations are two things I like to point to as "Change we can believe in!" – not.
the truth hurts, and most people don't like to be hurt
anyway, even though I don't agree with you on most issues you allways make valid points
The idea that RAWA was created by the Soviets was anti-feminist propaganda. To the typical Afghan male, the very idea that women could start and run an organization by themselves was ridiculous and impossible. Therefore it "must have been" the Soviets who created them.
RAWA was created by a native Afghan woman called Meena in 1977, before the Soviet Invasion. It is a completely indigenous political group.
Anonymous 11:10,
First I would like to thank you for providing a counter argument, and for doing so in a calm, very well written way (and one devoid of personal attacks no less). That is all too rare here.
Whereas I can't argue that Ted has never made claims generally regarded as attacks on the troops themselves (whether it was intentional, or a jab that missed its mark is a conversation for another time, perhaps), I don't see where that was an issue with this particular editorial.
I find no real chastisement or attack directed at the US troops involved in Afghanistan. I see chastisement of the puppet Afghan government, and of the US puppeteers that installed them and continue to prop them up.
But I would like to draw a distinction between the troops (and the good that they feel they are doing) and the administration(s) that use those troops for ill-gains. I think the claim isn't that our troops are trying to protect rapists (in this case), but that our troops, with their noble intentions, are being misused.
And in this case, they truly are dying in vain. It is a sad, dismal reality, but the reality at this time nonetheless. As such, I don't see it as being unpatriotic. I think there is a difference between supporting the troops as foreign policy tools- as a means to an end- (such as the media and legislators 'support' them), and supporting them as human beings that deserve better.
But hey, I'm up for a good argument 🙂
To the typical Afghan male, the very idea that women could start and run an organization by themselves was ridiculous and impossible.What a sexist statement.
to anonymous
thank you for your critical comments.
however, criticizing US uniformed people is arguably the biggest cultural taboo in your highly militarized society.
before they put on their uniform, they're fair game… and military training is designed to be dehumanizing…
most do not know the first thing about the culture they are sent to invade. (or even that the hand sign for stop is not culturally universal which alone led to a lot of carnage at checkpoints)
Beyond ignorance, why would anyone think that US soldiers would behave any more civilized than any other soldiers?
Go read Patrick Cockburn's The Occupation – among others things, he details that the first words of Arabic that many soldiers learned were "show me your titties!"…
Again, what did you expect?
nietzchuck, thank you for the response. I would undoubtedly concede the distinction you make between the personal and the political/the war and troops. My argument is that this line, which is important in any foreign policy debate within a democracy, can be transgressed from the left as well as from the right — and that Mr. Rall does this shamelessly. It would be far too reductive to say that this is about "patriotism", as such, as much as it is about basic human decency. An otherwise legitimate polemic against the utter failure of the US government to protect Afghan women from horrific violence suddenly transforms into an indictment of the troops (maybe, if only, to have a flashy and attractive title). I'll put it to you this way: is it not profoundly arrogant, in your mind, to definitively claim what American G.I.s are dying for over there? Thinking about the answer to this question reveals more than anything the sordid motives of Mr. Rall when he engages in this type of debate.
And to think in the Vietnam war it was pointed out the hypocrasy of fighting an elected government to restore the rule of a monarchy. This is somehow even worse.
And to all the right wingers braying their hatred; "Is he your enemy because he speaks the truth?"
Really, the US government is so much better at hating our men. Case in point, due to political influence of big corporations more and more money is poured into the Osprey. An aborted VTOL attempt by someone who watched too much Johnny Quest as a kid. Hint, you can do anything if you are a cartoon scientist who strangely has far more money than almost any RL scientist and you don't have to face the "Square/Cube" law. What is common place at the 1CM (insect) scale becomes less and less common as the 10CM scale is reached and flapping wings replace vibrating ones, to later at the larger scales be replaced by wings better suited to soaring. Helicopters are used only because they are very useful but have a high fuel and maitenance cost to cope with.
Making a VTOL plane to replace the Vietnam era "Double Prop Helicopter" is ludicrous. Yet, they pour money and lives into this thing. An insurgent spends US$3 or nothing to make a roadside bomb to kill or maim several soldiers and bystanders. The US government spends $60 million to build an Osprey, it goes into the sky and on descent turns the air into jelly and crashes like the brick it resembles, often killing 18 good soldiers. Then they build another one and play with the software and send more people to die in it.
The insurgent making a roadside bomb simply doesn't hate us enough. The US military hates our own men more. And those that survive get to pay for their own treatment and have head wounds be classified 'pre-existing conditions' to deny them benefits. Then they get to be homeless and have the 'right wingers' who love to bray hatred against Rall and others spit in their faces and say "Get a Job, maggot!"
That'd be a neat cartoon, Ted, "They don't hate the troops half as much as the government does". Use it, if you wish, I release the idea to you:-)
A couple of points here.
The first words in Arabic a soldier learns are not "Show me your tittes." Maybe they were in the very early stages of the war. Now the troops have various amounts of training (length depends on the mission and unit) in regards to culture and language.
The reason why American soldiers are expected to act differently than any other soldier is that they are expected to be better. They are not conscripts. There is a certain level of literacy that is required. There are also books and books of regulations in place. Unless the executive gets involved (see torture) those regulations make things pretty good for those the soldier interacts with. Did you know, for example, that first aid must be rendered to a wounded enemy? And yes, this does happen.
While I do not disagree that for a long time the focus of Afghanistan has not been clear, and there have been a lot of needless deaths, I think using the imagery of a dead soldier is wrong. Ted never served, and never will. He will also never understand why it is dead wrong to use such imagery to make a point, so I will not argue it.
Re: Osprey
A quote from Murtha's website:
During the Bush 41 administration, then–Defense secretary Dick Cheney tried no less than four times to eliminate funding for the V-22 Osprey, which flies today. The Marines have close ties on Capitol Hill—none better than Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a combat-decorated 37-year veteran of the U.S. Marines. Last week, Murtha praised Gates's budget. As they say in the Corps, Semper Fi.
Ted:
First of all, this is a great editorial and your work on Afghanistan is almost unparalleled in the mass media.
Second, and this is an angle that REINFORCES your op-ed, not contradicts it, I would like to point out that even Karzai has been a tiny bit better (probably to save his hide) than he's presented in the US media; he says fairly accurate things about the US presence almost every day, and it gets briefly mentioned then downplayed.
Also, before he was entirely installed, the US occupation government in Afghanistan allowed a law to be passed by the mujaheddin in place or whoever was nominally governing Afghanistan, essentially allowing people to be executed for apostasy – converting to another faith from Islam. That had been proposed under Atta but not ratified by the Taliban.
"Ted never 'served', and never will."
Most of that "service" in the post-war era has been painting a target on Americans in service to elite power, rich families, and amoral and nationless corporations. No thanks.
Also, no one group of people has ever threatened me with violence for speaking my mind than the military. By orders of magnitude.
When military assholes tell me they're defending my freedom to whatever, I spit.
Beyond the defense needs of the borders of the US, which would need less than 10% of what we're spending, defense becomes offense, and it generates its own needs by creating endless enemies all over the world as a servant of imperialism for the few.
It's NOT service, it's NOT to "the country," it's NOT for my benefit, and to hell with any self-deluding fascist who says it is.
It's a rare sight to employ illiteracy, non sequiturs and Godwin's law in one post, but, Marion Delgado, you've managed to achieve it. "No one group of people has ever threatened me with violence for speaking my mind than the military. By orders of magnitude." Words to live by, to be sure.
Jack said,
What a sexist statement.The same people who wrote the rape-laws that Ted is describing are the same people who cannot comprehend that Afghan women can start and run their own organizations. I am NOT over-generalizing when I say "typical Afghan male".
There are Afghan men who DO want their daughters educated and independent, but they have to go up against societal attitudes and in many cases physical threats in order to achieve this.
It's not only about the women.
I think I read it somewhere that the use of wachemcallit boys as sex toys by old bearded guys, which was frowned upon or even banned by the Taliban is also on the rise in the Karzai years.
Liberating indeed…
the RAPISTS??? I though we were fighting for the THERAPISTS!!! They LIED to me….AGAIN!!!
I'm a libertarian completely against the "war" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and was opposed to the "war" in Vietnam. But this article is offensive to "young man inside the box" who died "to protect rapists." They didn't die to protect rapists, in fact I can undeniably say that our servicemen and women don't know about this atrocity and people can only fight for a cause they know they are fighting for. For them this is about protecting their buddies in uniform. So next time you write, argue against the war intelligently, not by making my brother into a monster.