As the United States reviews its policies in Afghanistan they should pay close attention not only to events on the central stage, but also to small details of everyday life, such as the Afghanistan’s National Woman’s Soccer Team.
A review of our policy on Afghanistan is due this month. As I have already indicated, I think this is a war that is bound to fail if the current logic of engagement does not include a planned withdrawal. The longer American and NATO troops stay there in large numbers with great visibility, I think, the stronger the support for those who fight against occupation. But a rapid and complete disengagement will lead to a battle between the Taliban and the highly ineffective and corrupt government of Hamid Karzai, in which the victor is not known but the victims are the Afghan people.
It is truly a dilemma.
In the face of the dilemma, I think it is important to pay close attention to the facts on the ground. Last week, in The New York Times there is a report on an instance of what I mean by “the politics of small things,” a report on a national women’s soccer team.
They play under great restrictions. Their fathers, brothers and uncles frequently disapprove of their activities. They actually have to practice on a NATO helicopter landing field, because outside the military zone, they are too vulnerable to attack. They take great pride in their physical accomplishments. Most recently, they actually defeated the women’s team of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. Khalida Popal, an official of the Afghan women’s soccer federation and long a team member, noted that “We wanted to show them Afghans are friendly people, not like the stupid people they are fighting.”
These women also reveal to us and to themselves the power of Afghan women to fight for themselves against great odds, and the importance of their struggle. And as is the case of other instances of the politics of small things, such as the poetry café in Damascus I discussed in a previous post, Afghanistan with its national women’s soccer team is a different place than it would be without these women playing and competing. As I write this post, the Times reports, they are showing this difference in their first international competition, in Bangladesh in a tournament sponsored by the South Asian Football Federation.
This is a real dilemma, and I don’t see a way out. The answer as you suggest may be a real cultural turn, but once you get out of the major cities, the task of making a significant cultural change is daunting. I don’t really see how enough security forces can be put in place to set the conditions for a cultural change. If we leave too early, the well-armed Taliban forces its way back into power, and the tribal culture continues. If we stay too long (whatever that is), we will never have enough security forces on the ground to make a real difference. I think that the documentary Restrepo demonstrates how difficult and dangerous it is to work in isolated areas. I doubt that there is any support for deploying the small units that are most effective in “winning hearts and minds.” Larger unit maneuvers work well in the most populated areas, but this also antagonizes the locals due to the large amounts of “collateral damage” associated with them. For every, innocent person injured or killed, we create an exponential number of supporters of the opposition. I love the idea of the type of change that is occurring with the Afghan women; but unfortunately they may bear the brunt of the backlash after we either downsize or leave. We’ve seen it before.
Perhaps an alternate title: US Fights for Right to Play Soccer in War Zone
The truth is the war in Afghanistan has been extremely destructive to Afgan society, civilian life, and the plight of women in general. Am I the only person the remember Laura Bush’s bizzarre appeal advocating war in order to help Afgan women?
November 17th 2001:
“Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment . . .”
“The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.”
“Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women’s fingernails for wearing nail polish.”
The plight of women in Afghanistan has always been a coy political tool to advocate war and nothing more. Michael’s statement “I don’t really see how enough security forces can be put in place to set the conditions for a cultural change” is extremely telling- perhaps he might simply say- ‘security forces cannot create cultural change.’
I too have see the documentary Restrepo, and I recommend it to anyone who still believes that the US military ‘liberated’ Afghanistan or that ‘Afghanistan with its national women’s soccer team is a different place than it would be without these women playing and competing.’
Netflix Instant-watch-
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Restrepo/70129360
Perhaps I have gone too far, I do agree that Afghanistan is a ‘different place;’ a place that has become a war-zone, a developing country occupied by the most powerful nation in the world, a place where soldiers call in air strikes on mud brick houses with no running water . . .
Reportedly, Richard Holbrook’s last words were, “You’ve got to stop this war.” Sooner, rather than later, would be preferable, and there is no denying that the US military, and politicians, have made a mess of Afghanistan.
But I believe that Dr. Goldfarb has pointed out one of the few bright spots in Aghanistan, and something which might not have happened had the US not invaded, and something which may not survive after the US leaves. (One could always hope for the power of cultural persistance though.) And I don’t think he’s making a case for the war necessarily, but being an eternal optimist, is characteristically looking for some glimmer of light in what is otherwise a dismal situation.
I’m glad there is now a women’s soccer team in Afghanistan, but it should have been the result of a bottom-up fight (that is, as in Poland, an indigenous mobilization againt a despotic regime, not something imposed from above); such a development would have made something like this more sustainable, because it would have emerged from a possibly more stable and legitimate social order.
This is a nice anecdote about the woman’s soccer team. But the situation for women is dire, as bad as it was under the Taliban who were routed from power almost a decade ago. A UN report released last week on human rights abuses women face in Afghanistan makes for harrowing reading: http://denisfitz.tumblr.com/page/2
Dear Professor,
Thank you for your article and thoughts. We have too few serious scholars researching and writing on Afghanistan. I apologize, in advance, if this note seems fragmented, but there are just too many issues to discuss.
Though I would have to agree that women have regained new means of re-entering social and political life in Afghanistan, I believe there is too much ignored by the strong focus on women and women’s rights. Laura Bush’s comments, as noted above, were extremely difficult for me to handle when they were made as part of a grand justification for the war. As if the killings of civilian and seizure of power by the “Taliban” was completely acceptable before. (By this last statement, I do not mean that I would have been in favor of any sort of military action before.)
In addition, too many emphasize this image of a Westernizing/Westernized Afghanistan in the 1950s and 1960s when people were dancing, going to the cinema, and women were wearing miniskirts. As if these are the images of a free and just society–a glorious past. Afghan bodies, especially women’s bodies, are too often the focus of the discourse of freedom and liberation pushed by the occupying forces and back in the US.
Prior to 9/11, Afghanistan was ignored and continued to deteriorate under the so-called Taliban. One intervention occurred with the planned destruction of the ancient Buddhas in Bamiyan; unfortunately, they were joyously destroyed by the “Islamic” regime and to the disappointment of many Afghans (especially people like my parents, living in exile since the Soviet invasion and occupation and the United States’ first foray into Afghanistan).
The struggles faced by Afghan men are ignored and effaced because, as we know, Afghan men are terrorists. However, their mere “inclusion” in society and presence in public life is also a matter of life and death. Those without beards, for instance, risk imprisonment or even immediate execution. Men and boys brave all sorts of dangers to work for whatever meager wages they can manage.
Why don’t we actually speak more about the Bible verses marked on the sides of American weapons or on the targeting sights? Why don’t we speak of the American boys handed guns with the knowledge that they will most likely be shooting people? What does such an act do to American society? Why does the government offer the poor and disenfranchised a chance at an education only if they go to war? Are there those who believe that Afghan children, who have grown up and are growing up through nearly four decades of war, will forget invasion, occupation, and death?
I guess what I am trying to say is that a women’s soccer team is an important step, but is the least of my worries at this point. Afghans are not happy–not with the US and the coalition forces nor with the “Taliban.” However, with the atrocities being committed on all sides, the situation is considered even more hopeless and dire by many Afghans. Whereas life was difficult, not to say impossible, under the previous regime, Afghans now face additional dangers and threats to their lives. This, in itself, is one reason why “winning” hearts and minds is an impossible task that the United States needs to recognize–whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, or Pakistan.
We should also recall that the Afghan monarchy was first uprooted and the country cast into chaos as a part of the Cold War rivalries between the US and Soviets (not to mention the [failed] British invasions of the country in the 19th century). As a result, Afghanistan was ripped apart from its core with Afghans comprising the largest refugee population in the world. I should make it clear, if it is not already, I am firmly against wars of whatever nature. In addition, I am also against both the “Taliban” (also foreign invaders for the most part) and the Coalition’s presence in Afghanistan. Of course, I do not have any answers of what to do next, as each party has made it difficult to take a path besides an endless war.
In the end, perhaps it is better that these girls get to play soccer on a launchpad that is used by helicopters that may sprinkle bombs across the Afghan landscape…rather than on the Afghan soccer stadium turned into a grand execution platform. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSP12564220080913
I understand Mariam’s frustration. I have a few questions for Mariam: what do you consider the most achievable, desirable end state for Afghanistan; what is the realistic time frame for this; please explain why in your opinion it is desirable and achievable; and please offer your opinion on which actions have the best chances of helping attain it. I know that there a lot of different opinions on these issues, but I would like to understand your perspective.
Dear Michael,
As you said in your last post, “This is a real dilemma.” The only way “out” that I see is a withdrawal of all external intervention in Afghan (Central Asian and Arab) affairs–this includes the so-called Taliban. Also I was not suggesting a “cultural turn,” at least not for Afghans.
For Afghanistan to recover, there needs to be a political and military withdrawal of American and coalition forces. The destruction of the Taliban–politically and culturally–will take place, I have no doubt.
By “we,” I am assuming you mean Americans. To this, as I have noted in my previous post, I would say that Americans have stayed far too long in Afghanistan beginning in the 1970s and after the Soviet withdrawal. Let us also remember that the Taliban was created by the Pakistani intelligence services and also funded by the United States. Many view a stable, independent Afghanistan as a threat. This opinion has indeed made Afghanistan the “threat” that they feared by leaving the country vulnerable to all sorts of religious, political, and cultural indoctrination from many different parties.
I have much hope in Afghans, and I do not think the Taliban would have survived very much longer, had the US and coalition forces not invaded. There were a great many Afghans who were resisting–whether armed or otherwise.
Also, I do not understand what you mean by “tribal culture” and why it should not continue. One should be careful not to denigrate other forms of culture nor to equate Afghan tribal culture with the sort transported to Afghanistan, esp. from the Arabian peninsula. “Tribal cultures” are not monolithic and unchanging.
Like many, I do not view the Taliban as an indigenous group. As for what I view as “tribal culture,” I think of the centuries-old political system and division of power. Such a system prevented the monarchy from absolutist rule while also protecting those living in the peripheries.
Though I have not seen Restrepo, I must express my frustration with this new genre of war documentaries with filmmakers following military units around. Of course the “locals” are upset by armed foreigners occupying their country. Of course it is “difficult and dangerous to ‘work’ in isolated areas.” However, I would not call what soldiers do “work.” After all, it would be neither difficult nor dangerous if these young men and women stayed in their own country or visited “exotic” places without guns and the always present threat to kill the “locals.” I also have a problem with the usage of the term “collateral damage.” I am sure that the dead Afghan men, women, children and their families deserve another term–or even their names recognized in the New York Times or anywhere at all for that matter. I think the least of worries is the enlisting for the Taliban by killing innocent people. Those innocent dead should be the first concern.
There are too many stories of family and my family’s acquaintances killed by Americans, Soviets, and Taliban. This is not to mention the dispersal of Afghans; Afghans just want to be left alone. My family’s house was not shelled by Taliban, but by the Americans and coalition forces. Fortunately no one was hurt that time.
Mariam,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.
I can see the benefits of all external entities leaving Afghanistan; but I continue to wonder how this will come about. In other conflicts, when one side left, a power vacuum was created that was filled by the other side. Is it possible to prevent this in Afghanistan? I can visualize what might bring about the withdrawal of American and coalition forces, but it unclear to me what will bring about the political and cultural destruction of the Taliban. It is well armed, and at least from the outside, seems determined.
I understand the power politics that has taken place in the past, but it is difficult for me to see any strategic advantage for large numbers of American and coalition forces to stay in Afghanistan other than being a foil against the Taliban. The central government seems weak and may not be able to standup to the Taliban. American and coalition forces can probably pursue counter terrorist activities without having large numbers of people in Afghanistan.
My impression is that there is a huge difference in Afghanistan between the institutions in urban and rural areas. Insurgent movements in other conflicts have been more effective in controlling rural areas than urban areas., but when the central government loses control of rural areas, urban areas seem to become more vulnerable.
My sense is that outside of the metropolitan areas, the tribal system has been very strong politically and culturally. One article I read on this is “Backgrounder: A tribal Strategy for Afghanistan” by Greg Bruno, November 7, 2008, Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/17686/tribal_strategy_for_afghanistan.html
As for Restrepo, I think that you might find it interesting in terms of its form and content. What makes this so interesting to me is that it allows people to see through the camera’s lens war in its most elemental form. It is a canvas that can be used for understanding what waging this type of war actually looks and feels like from a perspective frequently ignored. This same technique could be used to present other perspectives. As for the language of the war, the front stage language tends to be very antiseptic, and the back stage language tends to be very crude. Perhaps you could provide some terms that you feel work better to describe the most elemental aspects of war. Maybe you have already.
One of the benefits of airing documentaries such as Restrepo is that it provides visibility the war, and as acts as a catalyst for discussion. I’m afraid that many Americans would like to forget about Afghanistan, just like we have about other unpopular wars.
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your additional comments. Perhaps over winter break I will try and watch “Restrepo.”
Take care
People interested in this topic might want to look at the website of MEDA (Mennonite Economic Development Associates) which is managing a project in rural Pakistan for women who are raising farm products including milk to sell to raise their families’ standard of living. The Canadian Government is providing $700 for each $100 donated to MEDA for this microcredit project which combines resources of the Canadian government with the MEDA expertise. Specifically, it is the Canadian International Development Agency that is basically funding this. The project faces challenges of women in rural Pakistan operating in businesses that are similar to some of the soccer article challenges.