Hi everyone!
I want to bring your attention to a situation in Afghanistan that can use everyone's help. Over the past several weeks there have been confirmed reports that at least 28 children have died of hunger and cold in a string of refugee camps in and around Kabul. Afghanistan is in the midst of one of the coldest and snowiest winters in its recent history. Temperatures have consistently fallen below 5 degrees Fahrenheit with no warm-up predicted for several more days. People living in these camps have inadequate housing, clothing, food, and fuel. And for reasons that no one has really been able explain the plight of these refugees has long been neglected until now. The story was brought to light last week in a New York Times article that profiled a refugee named Sayyid Mohammad who has recently lost eight of his nine children to the cold. Since the article ran, Mr. Mohammad was visited by officials sent from President Karzai who pledged official assistance and an audience with the president. An audience with Mr. Karzai is all well and good, but unless promises turn into deeds, the situation won't improve and more young lives will be lost.
Thankfully, donations are starting to pour in from all over the world. I've listed below several relief organizations and their websites that are actively working to alleviate the tragic situation in Afghanistan's refugee camps. We're already behind the eight-ball but it's never too late to make a contribution.
Lamia Afghan Foundation
http://www.lamia-afghanfoundation.org
Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150517/k.8737/Afghanistan.htm
World Food Programme
http://www.wfp.org/countries/afghanistan
Afghan Red Crescent Society
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/asia-pacific/afghan-red-crescent-society/
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
http://www.unocha.org
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Battle of Algiers: History Repeating Itself
Hi everyone!
I've been reading a lot lately about the Algerian war for independence from France. I'm nearly finished with Martin Evans' exhaustive (and exhausting) history of the war, "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" published this month by Oxford University Press, and watched Gillo Pontecarvo's classic 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers." What strikes me are the similarities between what took place in Algeria from 1954-1962 and what is going on in the Middle East today.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Algerian War, it was waged for the most part by the FLN (the National Liberation Front), based in Tunisia and comprised of Algerian nationalists, against France who had first colonized Algeria in 1830. What began as a series of loosely connected guerilla strikes in the Algerian countryside morphed into better coordinated terrorist attacks in Algiers and other metropolitan areas.
The colonization of Algiers had never been particularly easy for the French. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when France more-or-less successfully put down initial Algerian resistance. After World War Two, as Britain was divesting itself of its colonial territories and France was facing certain defeat in Indochina, the French government decided it was necessary to reaffirm its presence in Algeria. In fact, they even went so far as to annex the North African country as a district of France, making it as integral a part of the country as, say, Normandy or Brittany.
In its formative days, the Algerian resistance was by no means unified. The dominance of the FLN only came after particularly bloody internecine warfare between the FLN and the ALN (the National Liberation Army) that left many thousands of Algerians and whole towns massacred.
The Battle of Algiers solidified the FLN's central role in the conflict, both from a political as well as military standpoint. It began in 1957 as an eight-day general strike after the French and anti-Muslim European activists bombed a neighborhood in the Casbah, the city's densely populated Arab area, that resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. This gave rise to a series of coordinated attacks on French government employees and bomb attacks on public places--restaurants, cafes, and a casino--frequented by the Europeans.
This strategy of terrorism strongly resembles the tactics we have seen--and continue to see--from the likes of al Qaeda, for example. Prior to the Battle of Algiers and its aftermath, most of Algeria's nationalist groups restricted their efforts to combating the French occupying forces. Starting in 1957, however, these tactics changed with the intent of stoking terror in the lives of the European community at large. The attacks on public gathering places were carried out by women who were able to change their appearance enough so that they could pass through checkpoints set up throughout the city that separated the European areas from those inhabited by Algerians. We know from recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that identical tactics are being used against not only U.S. and coalition forces but on native citizens from opposing religious groups.
Another element that strikes me is France's military response. The French, under the command of General Massu, put together a chart that attempted to breakdown the FLN hierarchy. (The Bush administration did a similar thing with playing cards.) The FLN, much like al Qaeda today, organized themselves into separate sects comprised of a leader and one or two seconds-in-command. These individual sects, while working under the FLN umbrella, were divided to such an extent that one sect simply didn't know 1) from whom their orders were being given and 2) who were actually involved in other parallel sects. This made it extremely difficult for anyone to be traced and captured by the French. Interrogations of captured FLN foot soldiers resulted in very little real information because these foot soldiers were kept in ignorance of the FLN hierarchy-at-large. And, finally, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French occupying forces utilized torture as an integral means of disseminating information.
While the FLN ultimately lost the Battle of Algiers--it would take another 3-4 years of bloody conflict before they won Algerian independence in 1962--where they succeeded was in solidifying native Algerian support, something the French simply failed to do in their subsequent 'winning hearts and minds campaign.'
In the thirty years that ensued from 1962-1992, Algeria enjoyed independence but as time went on and a series of governments--led by resistance leaders Ben Bella, Boumediene, and Mohammed Boudiaf respectively--rose and fell from power, the Algerian people became increasingly disillusioned with the way their country was being run. In 1992, Mohammed Boudiaf cancelled general elections that were poised to be won by a hardline Islamist party, and was promptly assassinated. This led to a devastating civil war between Islamists and more moderate Muslims, the effects of which are still being felt today.
My point in all this is that history really does seem to repeat itself. There is very little difference between the tactics used in Algeria by the FLN in the 1950s and '60s--and the French military response--to those being employed by al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently the opposition in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the throes of the so-called Arab Spring.
Pontecarvo's film "The Battle of Algiers" plays like a documentary in its look, tone, and overall feel. The experience of watching it today is eerie. Throughout, I found myself thinking that this could easily be a newsreel of Baghdad--albeit shot with a black-and-white camera--or any other country in today's Arab World. As a blueprint for today's Islamic insurgency, it is incredibly prescient and hauntingly relevant.
Ciao.
I've been reading a lot lately about the Algerian war for independence from France. I'm nearly finished with Martin Evans' exhaustive (and exhausting) history of the war, "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" published this month by Oxford University Press, and watched Gillo Pontecarvo's classic 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers." What strikes me are the similarities between what took place in Algeria from 1954-1962 and what is going on in the Middle East today.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Algerian War, it was waged for the most part by the FLN (the National Liberation Front), based in Tunisia and comprised of Algerian nationalists, against France who had first colonized Algeria in 1830. What began as a series of loosely connected guerilla strikes in the Algerian countryside morphed into better coordinated terrorist attacks in Algiers and other metropolitan areas.
The colonization of Algiers had never been particularly easy for the French. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when France more-or-less successfully put down initial Algerian resistance. After World War Two, as Britain was divesting itself of its colonial territories and France was facing certain defeat in Indochina, the French government decided it was necessary to reaffirm its presence in Algeria. In fact, they even went so far as to annex the North African country as a district of France, making it as integral a part of the country as, say, Normandy or Brittany.
In its formative days, the Algerian resistance was by no means unified. The dominance of the FLN only came after particularly bloody internecine warfare between the FLN and the ALN (the National Liberation Army) that left many thousands of Algerians and whole towns massacred.
The Battle of Algiers solidified the FLN's central role in the conflict, both from a political as well as military standpoint. It began in 1957 as an eight-day general strike after the French and anti-Muslim European activists bombed a neighborhood in the Casbah, the city's densely populated Arab area, that resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. This gave rise to a series of coordinated attacks on French government employees and bomb attacks on public places--restaurants, cafes, and a casino--frequented by the Europeans.
This strategy of terrorism strongly resembles the tactics we have seen--and continue to see--from the likes of al Qaeda, for example. Prior to the Battle of Algiers and its aftermath, most of Algeria's nationalist groups restricted their efforts to combating the French occupying forces. Starting in 1957, however, these tactics changed with the intent of stoking terror in the lives of the European community at large. The attacks on public gathering places were carried out by women who were able to change their appearance enough so that they could pass through checkpoints set up throughout the city that separated the European areas from those inhabited by Algerians. We know from recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that identical tactics are being used against not only U.S. and coalition forces but on native citizens from opposing religious groups.
Another element that strikes me is France's military response. The French, under the command of General Massu, put together a chart that attempted to breakdown the FLN hierarchy. (The Bush administration did a similar thing with playing cards.) The FLN, much like al Qaeda today, organized themselves into separate sects comprised of a leader and one or two seconds-in-command. These individual sects, while working under the FLN umbrella, were divided to such an extent that one sect simply didn't know 1) from whom their orders were being given and 2) who were actually involved in other parallel sects. This made it extremely difficult for anyone to be traced and captured by the French. Interrogations of captured FLN foot soldiers resulted in very little real information because these foot soldiers were kept in ignorance of the FLN hierarchy-at-large. And, finally, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French occupying forces utilized torture as an integral means of disseminating information.
While the FLN ultimately lost the Battle of Algiers--it would take another 3-4 years of bloody conflict before they won Algerian independence in 1962--where they succeeded was in solidifying native Algerian support, something the French simply failed to do in their subsequent 'winning hearts and minds campaign.'
In the thirty years that ensued from 1962-1992, Algeria enjoyed independence but as time went on and a series of governments--led by resistance leaders Ben Bella, Boumediene, and Mohammed Boudiaf respectively--rose and fell from power, the Algerian people became increasingly disillusioned with the way their country was being run. In 1992, Mohammed Boudiaf cancelled general elections that were poised to be won by a hardline Islamist party, and was promptly assassinated. This led to a devastating civil war between Islamists and more moderate Muslims, the effects of which are still being felt today.
My point in all this is that history really does seem to repeat itself. There is very little difference between the tactics used in Algeria by the FLN in the 1950s and '60s--and the French military response--to those being employed by al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently the opposition in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the throes of the so-called Arab Spring.
Pontecarvo's film "The Battle of Algiers" plays like a documentary in its look, tone, and overall feel. The experience of watching it today is eerie. Throughout, I found myself thinking that this could easily be a newsreel of Baghdad--albeit shot with a black-and-white camera--or any other country in today's Arab World. As a blueprint for today's Islamic insurgency, it is incredibly prescient and hauntingly relevant.
Ciao.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The U.S. in Afghanistan: Whatever Happened to Being an Officer and a Gentleman?
Hi everyone!
Disturbing news out of Afghanistan today...it appears that last week's release of video documenting American soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses is not an isolated incident. This is bad in and of itself; however, what is more shocking--though not particularly surprising--is the response this video has apparently generated among many American servicemen, many of whom have cheered the video and have posted supportive (and racist) comments about this incident on various social networking sites.
But this points to a much greater problem, and one that causes me to reconsider the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and whether or not we should indeed be negotiating a peace settlement with the Taliban. A lengthy article in today's New York Times details a history of animosity between U.S. soldiers and their Afghan counterparts. It documents various incidents dating back to 2007 that have remained classified, providing more information about a series of attacks on U.S. soldiers by Afghan soldiers who are supposed to be working together to eliminate the insurgent threat.
Official reports claim that these incidents are isolated cases and do not reflect a broader trend of Afghan soldiers killing or otherwise harming members of the American-led International Security Assistance Force. According to an ISAF spokesperson: "We train and are partnered with Afghan personnel every day and we are not seeing any issues or concerns with our relationships."
But classified reports say otherwise. Apparently, there have been at least three dozen attacks on ISAF forces by Afghan soldiers since 2007. From May 2007 to May 2011, this report states that at least 58 ISAF members were killed in 26 separate attacks, the majority of which occurred post-October 2009, comprising 6 percent of all ISAF deaths in this time period.
So what's the impetus behind these attacks? Well, last week's video provides a pretty vivid example. An ever-increasing level of animosity between U.S. and Afghan soldiers is creating a climate that seems to be pushing both sides to extreme behavior. Afghan soldiers accuse their American 'brothers-in-arms' of being rude, ignorant, and disrespectful of their country and Islam. The Americans, on the other hand, accuse the Afghans of being cowardly, undisciplined, and addicted to drugs.
What we have here is a classic example of culture clash, supplemented in no small part by a sense of colonial superiority on the part of the U.S. military. If we haven't been able to resolve these interpersonal/cultural conflicts over the past ten years, chances are we never will. I also don't doubt that there's an overwhelming sense of frustration among ISAF forces, given the fact that after ten years, the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of being vanquished while the Afghan population (and the Karzai government) are expressing fatigue at the continued presence of U.S. and coalition soldiers. Any student of Afghan history can point to the fact that no invading/occupying force has ever been able to successfully control Afghanistan. Why bother?
Which leads me to re-evaluate my previous position against allowing the Taliban to open an office in Qatar from which to launch peace talks. Perhaps, after all, it's time to let Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter, because everyone knows Pakistan holds the winning hand in this part of the world) get on with it. The Karzai administration doesn't want ISAF forces in his country. He's always been a sketchy ally at best and is now claiming that the U.S. is cutting Afghanistan out of negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai does have a point. He says that any deal that isn't headed by the Afghan government is doomed to fail. He's right. So maybe it's time to cut our losses and bring the troops home.
I don't deny that the Taliban is a terrorist organization or that once ISAF pulls out in 2014 Afghanistan won't devolve into a narco-terrorist state as it was from the mid-90s to 2011. But if the majority of Afghans want us out, then it's time to leave. Frankly, though, I don't blame them. Desecrating the dead--regardless of who they might be--is despicable. It serves no purpose other than to confirm (or reconfirm) for many in the world that the U.S. is little more than a nation of ignorant, uncouth rednecks.
Whatever happened to that phrase, "an officer and a gentleman"? If that video and the support for it expressed in social media is any indication, our armed forces are woefully lacking in both.
Ciao.
Disturbing news out of Afghanistan today...it appears that last week's release of video documenting American soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses is not an isolated incident. This is bad in and of itself; however, what is more shocking--though not particularly surprising--is the response this video has apparently generated among many American servicemen, many of whom have cheered the video and have posted supportive (and racist) comments about this incident on various social networking sites.
But this points to a much greater problem, and one that causes me to reconsider the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and whether or not we should indeed be negotiating a peace settlement with the Taliban. A lengthy article in today's New York Times details a history of animosity between U.S. soldiers and their Afghan counterparts. It documents various incidents dating back to 2007 that have remained classified, providing more information about a series of attacks on U.S. soldiers by Afghan soldiers who are supposed to be working together to eliminate the insurgent threat.
Official reports claim that these incidents are isolated cases and do not reflect a broader trend of Afghan soldiers killing or otherwise harming members of the American-led International Security Assistance Force. According to an ISAF spokesperson: "We train and are partnered with Afghan personnel every day and we are not seeing any issues or concerns with our relationships."
But classified reports say otherwise. Apparently, there have been at least three dozen attacks on ISAF forces by Afghan soldiers since 2007. From May 2007 to May 2011, this report states that at least 58 ISAF members were killed in 26 separate attacks, the majority of which occurred post-October 2009, comprising 6 percent of all ISAF deaths in this time period.
So what's the impetus behind these attacks? Well, last week's video provides a pretty vivid example. An ever-increasing level of animosity between U.S. and Afghan soldiers is creating a climate that seems to be pushing both sides to extreme behavior. Afghan soldiers accuse their American 'brothers-in-arms' of being rude, ignorant, and disrespectful of their country and Islam. The Americans, on the other hand, accuse the Afghans of being cowardly, undisciplined, and addicted to drugs.
What we have here is a classic example of culture clash, supplemented in no small part by a sense of colonial superiority on the part of the U.S. military. If we haven't been able to resolve these interpersonal/cultural conflicts over the past ten years, chances are we never will. I also don't doubt that there's an overwhelming sense of frustration among ISAF forces, given the fact that after ten years, the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of being vanquished while the Afghan population (and the Karzai government) are expressing fatigue at the continued presence of U.S. and coalition soldiers. Any student of Afghan history can point to the fact that no invading/occupying force has ever been able to successfully control Afghanistan. Why bother?
Which leads me to re-evaluate my previous position against allowing the Taliban to open an office in Qatar from which to launch peace talks. Perhaps, after all, it's time to let Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter, because everyone knows Pakistan holds the winning hand in this part of the world) get on with it. The Karzai administration doesn't want ISAF forces in his country. He's always been a sketchy ally at best and is now claiming that the U.S. is cutting Afghanistan out of negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai does have a point. He says that any deal that isn't headed by the Afghan government is doomed to fail. He's right. So maybe it's time to cut our losses and bring the troops home.
I don't deny that the Taliban is a terrorist organization or that once ISAF pulls out in 2014 Afghanistan won't devolve into a narco-terrorist state as it was from the mid-90s to 2011. But if the majority of Afghans want us out, then it's time to leave. Frankly, though, I don't blame them. Desecrating the dead--regardless of who they might be--is despicable. It serves no purpose other than to confirm (or reconfirm) for many in the world that the U.S. is little more than a nation of ignorant, uncouth rednecks.
Whatever happened to that phrase, "an officer and a gentleman"? If that video and the support for it expressed in social media is any indication, our armed forces are woefully lacking in both.
Ciao.
Friday, January 13, 2012
"Have a nice day, buddy."
Hi everyone!
I'm sure by now you've probably read about or seen footage of the video posted on YouTube the other day of the American marines urinating on three dead insurgents in Afghanistan, one of whom is heard on the video saying: "Have a nice day, buddy." The video was most likely taken some time last spring or summer in Helmand Province. No one knows for sure who took the video or posted it online, but investigators have identified the marines as part of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, who have since returned to their base in Camp Lejeune, N.C. or have been posted elsewhere.
While it would be unfair of me to categorically condemn the U.S. Marines for the actions of a few individuals, I think it does betray a certain lack of sensitivity training on the part of the U.S. armed forces. This latest incident does not a exist in a vacuum. Over the past ten years of war--both in Afghanistan and Iraq--we have unfortunately born witness to a series of acts by our servicemen and women that not only push the boundaries of decent humanity, but thoroughly undermine the so-called good those men and women are there to perform.
Not since the horrendous abuses documented at Abu Ghraib has there been such an outcry against the behaviors of our forces fighting overseas. While there is something to be said for the adverse psychological effects of warfare--the extent of which I can only surmise--what this video and similar occurrences calls into question is not an issue of combat stress but basic dignity and humanity. Ever since the U.S. and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and then Iraq in March 2003, we have been waging not only a more-or-less traditional war on the ground, but a war for the hearts and minds of the people most affected by our presence there: native Afghans and Iraqis, both of whom were already sensitive to the negative perceptions the world has had of Islam, especially since 9/11.
Again, I cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to lose a close friend or acquaintance to an IED or a sniper's bullet, nor can I say that I wouldn't be driven a little crazy by the unrelenting stress and fear that these men and women have to contend with on a minute-to-minute basis. Still, have these people lost all sense of right and wrong? Do they not inherently know that pissing on the corpses of enemy combatants is not something to be taken lightly, that it offends human sensibility, not to mention that it goes against internationally agreed-upon protocol for the humane treatment of war dead and prisoners? I was interested to read that if caught, the perpetrators of this latest act could be convicted as war criminals.
I realize that the argument can be made that the "enemy" has committed acts of horrific violence against not only our troops but civilians--who can forget the video of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's beheading in 2002 at the hands of al-Qaeda--but we are not supposed to be upholding the tenet of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If we do, this makes us no better from a moral standpoint than those against whom we are at war. If anything, it undermines our purpose over there. It gives the Taliban and the Islamic insurgency-at-large further ammunition against us, which is the last thing we need.
I don't believe the War on Terror will ever truly be won. I do believe, however, that our servicemen and women should be upholding the values upon which the U.S. and other Western democracies are founded. If we lose sight of our humanity, then the war truly is lost.
"Have a nice day, buddy" ... indeed.
Ciao.
I'm sure by now you've probably read about or seen footage of the video posted on YouTube the other day of the American marines urinating on three dead insurgents in Afghanistan, one of whom is heard on the video saying: "Have a nice day, buddy." The video was most likely taken some time last spring or summer in Helmand Province. No one knows for sure who took the video or posted it online, but investigators have identified the marines as part of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, who have since returned to their base in Camp Lejeune, N.C. or have been posted elsewhere.
While it would be unfair of me to categorically condemn the U.S. Marines for the actions of a few individuals, I think it does betray a certain lack of sensitivity training on the part of the U.S. armed forces. This latest incident does not a exist in a vacuum. Over the past ten years of war--both in Afghanistan and Iraq--we have unfortunately born witness to a series of acts by our servicemen and women that not only push the boundaries of decent humanity, but thoroughly undermine the so-called good those men and women are there to perform.
Not since the horrendous abuses documented at Abu Ghraib has there been such an outcry against the behaviors of our forces fighting overseas. While there is something to be said for the adverse psychological effects of warfare--the extent of which I can only surmise--what this video and similar occurrences calls into question is not an issue of combat stress but basic dignity and humanity. Ever since the U.S. and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and then Iraq in March 2003, we have been waging not only a more-or-less traditional war on the ground, but a war for the hearts and minds of the people most affected by our presence there: native Afghans and Iraqis, both of whom were already sensitive to the negative perceptions the world has had of Islam, especially since 9/11.
Again, I cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to lose a close friend or acquaintance to an IED or a sniper's bullet, nor can I say that I wouldn't be driven a little crazy by the unrelenting stress and fear that these men and women have to contend with on a minute-to-minute basis. Still, have these people lost all sense of right and wrong? Do they not inherently know that pissing on the corpses of enemy combatants is not something to be taken lightly, that it offends human sensibility, not to mention that it goes against internationally agreed-upon protocol for the humane treatment of war dead and prisoners? I was interested to read that if caught, the perpetrators of this latest act could be convicted as war criminals.
I realize that the argument can be made that the "enemy" has committed acts of horrific violence against not only our troops but civilians--who can forget the video of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's beheading in 2002 at the hands of al-Qaeda--but we are not supposed to be upholding the tenet of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If we do, this makes us no better from a moral standpoint than those against whom we are at war. If anything, it undermines our purpose over there. It gives the Taliban and the Islamic insurgency-at-large further ammunition against us, which is the last thing we need.
I don't believe the War on Terror will ever truly be won. I do believe, however, that our servicemen and women should be upholding the values upon which the U.S. and other Western democracies are founded. If we lose sight of our humanity, then the war truly is lost.
"Have a nice day, buddy" ... indeed.
Ciao.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Taliban Inc. -- The Legitimization of a Terrorist Organization
Hi everyone!
So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?
In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.
So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case, and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?
I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.
Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.
Ciao.
So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?
In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.
So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case, and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?
I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.
Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.
Ciao.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Sahar Gul
Hi everyone!
Whew! Just got home from two weeks in the mountains of Colorado with the family...didn't have much fresh powder, but it's so beautiful up there, it doesn't matter.
Now back to business...
The other day I profiled the work of an inspiring young Afghani man, Mr. Sayyid Hashemi, who is working with the Afghani government to improve the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. Today I want to bring your attention to an example of the types of behaviors and conditions many young Afghanis face on a daily basis--particularly young girls and women--that unfortunately, more often than not goes unreported.
Fifteen year-old Sahar Gul was rescued last week from an insidious plot by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to sell her into prostitution. The girl was found in the basement of her in-law's house, where she had been kept a prisoner for six months. During this time, as reported in today's New York Times, Sahar was subjected to repeated abuse and torture, which allegedly included the ripping out of her fingernails, burning her with hot irons, and breaking her fingers.
According to the article, Sahar was married around seven months ago. Her husband, whose name the article doesn't mention, is a soldier in the Afghan Army. An arrest warrant has been issued for his capture. The article goes on to say that Sahar's in-laws were involved in "criminal activities" that may have included selling alcohol and prostitution. Sahar resisted her in-law's insistence that she become a prostitute, whereupon they subsequently locked her in the basement and tortured her.
Apparently, this case has sent shockwaves through the Karzai administration. And well it should. In a tribal society where women are often treated as less than second-class citizens, where as a regular occurrence girls as young as seven and eight are married to much older men, Sahar's story is probably not all that uncommon.
If there is one fortunate thing to come out of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is the fact that stories like Sahar's now have a better chance of coming to the attention of international human rights advocates as well as the media. It also calls to attention the fact that much still has to be done. It may very well prove to be an impossible task to reform and "modernize" the practices of an ancient society that has never taken well to outside intervention. And while I believe that there is something to be said for letting a country be in charge of its sovereignty, there is absolutely no place in the 21st century for this kind of barbarity to be allowed to continue.
Until human rights abuses are completely eradicated from the world -- knowing full well that this is probably an impossibility -- it is our duty as human beings to bring to light stories such as Sahar's, and work to eradicate the subjugation of women and children throughout the world.
As this blog continues to evolve, I will work to bring to light both the good and the bad and remind all of us that, as citizens of the world regardless of religion or political affiliation, it is our responsibility to come together to help those who are simply not in a position to help themselves.
Our prayers are with you Sahar.
Ciao.
Whew! Just got home from two weeks in the mountains of Colorado with the family...didn't have much fresh powder, but it's so beautiful up there, it doesn't matter.
Now back to business...
The other day I profiled the work of an inspiring young Afghani man, Mr. Sayyid Hashemi, who is working with the Afghani government to improve the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. Today I want to bring your attention to an example of the types of behaviors and conditions many young Afghanis face on a daily basis--particularly young girls and women--that unfortunately, more often than not goes unreported.
Fifteen year-old Sahar Gul was rescued last week from an insidious plot by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to sell her into prostitution. The girl was found in the basement of her in-law's house, where she had been kept a prisoner for six months. During this time, as reported in today's New York Times, Sahar was subjected to repeated abuse and torture, which allegedly included the ripping out of her fingernails, burning her with hot irons, and breaking her fingers.
According to the article, Sahar was married around seven months ago. Her husband, whose name the article doesn't mention, is a soldier in the Afghan Army. An arrest warrant has been issued for his capture. The article goes on to say that Sahar's in-laws were involved in "criminal activities" that may have included selling alcohol and prostitution. Sahar resisted her in-law's insistence that she become a prostitute, whereupon they subsequently locked her in the basement and tortured her.
Apparently, this case has sent shockwaves through the Karzai administration. And well it should. In a tribal society where women are often treated as less than second-class citizens, where as a regular occurrence girls as young as seven and eight are married to much older men, Sahar's story is probably not all that uncommon.
If there is one fortunate thing to come out of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is the fact that stories like Sahar's now have a better chance of coming to the attention of international human rights advocates as well as the media. It also calls to attention the fact that much still has to be done. It may very well prove to be an impossible task to reform and "modernize" the practices of an ancient society that has never taken well to outside intervention. And while I believe that there is something to be said for letting a country be in charge of its sovereignty, there is absolutely no place in the 21st century for this kind of barbarity to be allowed to continue.
Until human rights abuses are completely eradicated from the world -- knowing full well that this is probably an impossibility -- it is our duty as human beings to bring to light stories such as Sahar's, and work to eradicate the subjugation of women and children throughout the world.
As this blog continues to evolve, I will work to bring to light both the good and the bad and remind all of us that, as citizens of the world regardless of religion or political affiliation, it is our responsibility to come together to help those who are simply not in a position to help themselves.
Our prayers are with you Sahar.
Ciao.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Saving Afghanistan's children -- one orphanage at a time
Happy New Year, everyone!
I'd like to start 2012 off by highlighting the important work of one Afghani man -- Sayyid Abdullah Hashemi -- in improving the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. (2011 UNICEF estimate.) Mr. Hashemi is the director of the National Directorate of Orphanages within Afghanistan's Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and the Disabled.
An article in today's New York Times profiles the challenges Mr. Hashemi has faced over the seven months since he took over this position. In a country steeped in official and unofficial corruption at all levels of society, the very fact that Mr. Hashemi is unafraid to travel throughout the war-torn country visiting orphanages and demanding that changes be made is remarkable in and of itself. But what makes him all the more inspiring is that he is dogged in his determination. Mr. Hashemi was once an orphan himself so he knows first-hand the plight of Afghani children and the terrible conditions in which most of them live. According to the article, his father was killed fighting for the mujahideen against the Soviets when he was a young boy. As a result, Mr. Hashemi's mission has been to make sure that orphans grow up in an environment that not only feeds and shelters them, but gives them the tools and skills they need to help make them productive citizens.
The article mentions two government-run orphanages in particular, both in Kabul. Before Mr. Hashemi assumed his directorate position, these orphanages were notorious for their truly inhumane living conditions. In fact, the Tahya-e-Maskan orphanage gained notoriety for the poisoning of several of its children who almost died as a result of drinking bad milk. Today, however, under Mr. Hashemi's tutelage, this same orphanage is now run as a school where classes such as computer science and English are taught and students are going on to pass university entrance exams.
Mr. Hashemi continues to come up against bureaucratic challenges and governmental ineptitude on a daily basis. Government money that is allotted to the orphanages for basic necessities is distributed through the local provincial governments who more often than not keep this money for themselves with barely a trickle of the amount actually going to the orphanages. Mr. Hashemi complains of visiting orphanages where children are left long hours without adult supervision, where food is scarce, and abuse rampant. He's fired staff only to have his actions challenged by local government officials -- not to mention the fired employees -- who claim he has no authority to make improvements because these decisions are supposed to be made at the local, not national, level.
What strikes me most about Mr. Hashemi is his tenacity. He is utterly realistic about the uphill battle he faces and yet because he cares so much about these orphaned children he continues to push for reform and improvement. All too often we turn on the news or read the papers and see nothing but negatives coming from this part of the world--the Taliban still control vast swaths of the country, the government of Hamid Karzai is corrupt and funded by the cultivation of the opium trade, etc etc etc. On this first day of the new year, I was heartened to learn of the genuine good that is being done and not only by foreign NGOs or occupying troops, but by an Afghani national concerned with the well-being and future of his country's youngest generation.
Even if Mr. Hashemi can help effect positive change in the life of only one orphaned Afghani child, that is one more than might have been helped otherwise. No small task indeed.
Happy New Year to you, Sayyid Hashemi.
Ciao.
I'd like to start 2012 off by highlighting the important work of one Afghani man -- Sayyid Abdullah Hashemi -- in improving the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. (2011 UNICEF estimate.) Mr. Hashemi is the director of the National Directorate of Orphanages within Afghanistan's Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and the Disabled.
An article in today's New York Times profiles the challenges Mr. Hashemi has faced over the seven months since he took over this position. In a country steeped in official and unofficial corruption at all levels of society, the very fact that Mr. Hashemi is unafraid to travel throughout the war-torn country visiting orphanages and demanding that changes be made is remarkable in and of itself. But what makes him all the more inspiring is that he is dogged in his determination. Mr. Hashemi was once an orphan himself so he knows first-hand the plight of Afghani children and the terrible conditions in which most of them live. According to the article, his father was killed fighting for the mujahideen against the Soviets when he was a young boy. As a result, Mr. Hashemi's mission has been to make sure that orphans grow up in an environment that not only feeds and shelters them, but gives them the tools and skills they need to help make them productive citizens.
The article mentions two government-run orphanages in particular, both in Kabul. Before Mr. Hashemi assumed his directorate position, these orphanages were notorious for their truly inhumane living conditions. In fact, the Tahya-e-Maskan orphanage gained notoriety for the poisoning of several of its children who almost died as a result of drinking bad milk. Today, however, under Mr. Hashemi's tutelage, this same orphanage is now run as a school where classes such as computer science and English are taught and students are going on to pass university entrance exams.
Mr. Hashemi continues to come up against bureaucratic challenges and governmental ineptitude on a daily basis. Government money that is allotted to the orphanages for basic necessities is distributed through the local provincial governments who more often than not keep this money for themselves with barely a trickle of the amount actually going to the orphanages. Mr. Hashemi complains of visiting orphanages where children are left long hours without adult supervision, where food is scarce, and abuse rampant. He's fired staff only to have his actions challenged by local government officials -- not to mention the fired employees -- who claim he has no authority to make improvements because these decisions are supposed to be made at the local, not national, level.
What strikes me most about Mr. Hashemi is his tenacity. He is utterly realistic about the uphill battle he faces and yet because he cares so much about these orphaned children he continues to push for reform and improvement. All too often we turn on the news or read the papers and see nothing but negatives coming from this part of the world--the Taliban still control vast swaths of the country, the government of Hamid Karzai is corrupt and funded by the cultivation of the opium trade, etc etc etc. On this first day of the new year, I was heartened to learn of the genuine good that is being done and not only by foreign NGOs or occupying troops, but by an Afghani national concerned with the well-being and future of his country's youngest generation.
Even if Mr. Hashemi can help effect positive change in the life of only one orphaned Afghani child, that is one more than might have been helped otherwise. No small task indeed.
Happy New Year to you, Sayyid Hashemi.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)