A Shameful Neglect

It's time to stop pretending that America's in Afghanistan to help women.

Afghanistan's iniquities are grotesque. At Kabul University last week, zealots -- all men -- protested a law that would abolish child marriage, forced marriage, marital rape, and the odious practice, called ba'ad, of giving girls away to settle offenses or debts. Meanwhile, in jails all over the country, 600 women, the highest number since the fall of the Taliban, await trial on charges of such moral transgressions as having been raped or running away from abusive homes.

It is tempting to wring our hands at such obscene bigotry, to pity Afghanistan's women and vilify its men. Instead, we must look squarely at our own complicity in the shameful circumstances of Afghan women, billions of international aid dollars and 12 years after U.S. warplanes first bombed their ill-starred land.

I have been traveling to Afghanistan since 2001, mostly to its hardscrabble hinterland, where the majority of Afghans live. Over the years, I have cooked rice and traded jewelry with Afghan women, cradled their anemic children, and fallen asleep under communal blankets in their cramped mud-brick homes. I have seen firsthand that the aid we give ostensibly to improve their lives almost never makes it to these women. Today, just as 12 years ago, most of them still have no clean drinking water, sanitation, or electricity; the nearest clinic is still often a half day's walk away, and the only readily available palliative is opium. Afghan mothers still watch their infants die at the highest rate in the world, mostly of waterborne diseases such as bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis, and typhoid.

Instead of fixing women's lives, our humanitarian aid subsidizes Afghanistan's kleptocrats, erects miniature Versailles in Kabul and Dubai for the families of the elite, and buys the loyalty of sectarian warlords-turned-politicians, some of whom are implicated in sectarian war crimes that include rape. Yet, for the most part, the U.S. taxpayers look the other way as the country's amoral government steals or hands out as political kickbacks the money that was meant to help Afghan women -- all in the name of containing what we consider the greater evil, the Taliban insurgency. In other words, we have made a trade-off. We have joined a kind of a collective ba'ad, a political deal for which the Afghan women are the price.

To be sure, a lot of well-meaning Westerners and courageous Afghans have worked very hard to improve women's conditions, and there has been some headway as far as women's rights are concerned. The number of girls signed up for school rose from just 5,000 before the U.S.-led invasion to 2.2 million. In Kabul and a handful of other cities, some women have swapped their polyester burqas for headscarves. Some even have taken jobs outside their homes. But here, too, progress has been uneven. A fifth of the girls enrolled in school never attend classes, and most of the rest drop out after fourth grade. Few Afghan parents prioritize education for their daughters because few Afghan women participate in the country's feudal economy, and because Afghan society, by and large, does not welcome education for girls or emancipation of women. To get an idea about what the general Afghan public thinks of emancipation, consider this: the post-2001 neologism "khanum free" -- "free woman," with the adjective transliterated from the English -- means "a loose woman," "a prostitute." In villages, women almost never appear barefaced in front of strangers.

Doffing their burqas is the least of these women's worry. Their real problem is the intangible and seemingly irremovable shroud of endless violence. It stunts infrastructure and perpetuates insecurity and fear. It deprives women of the basic human rights we take for granted: to have enough food and drinking water that doesn't fester with disease; to see all of their children live past the age of five. The absence of basic necessities and the violence that has concussed Afghanistan almost continuously since the beginning of recorded history are the main reasons the country has the fifth-lowest life expectancy in the world. The war Westerners often claim to be fighting in the name of Afghan women instead helps prolong their hardship -- with little or no compensation. And now, as the deadline for the international troop pullout approaches, the country is spinning toward a full-blown civil war. A handful of hardline men shouting slogans at Kabul University fades in comparison.

How to help Afghan women? The road to their wellbeing begins with food security, health care that works, and a government that protects them against sectarian violence. Right now, none of these exist. I wish I could offer an adequate solution to the tragic circumstances of the women of Afghanistan's back-of-beyond. There does not appear to be one. Hurling yet more aid dollars into a intemperate funnel that will never reach their villages is not the answer: there is little reason to believe that we can count that such funding would be spent on creating enough mobile clinics to pay regular visits to remote villages; build roads that would allow the women and their families easy access to market; facilitate sanitation projects that would curb major waterborne diseases. The impending troop withdrawal means that women's security will likely go from bad to worse.

Is it possible to ensure that some of the funding we now hand to Karzai and Co. -- an estimated $15.7 billion in 2010-2011, according to the CIA (and that's not counting the infamous ghost money) -- is distributed among the small non-profits that actually are trying to make life in Afghanistan livable, organizations that create mobile clinics to pay regular visits to remote villages, build roads that allow villagers easier access to market, facilitate sanitation projects that curb major waterborne diseases? This could be a start, but only if these organizations continue to work in Afghanistan after NATO troops leave. That, too, is in question now: this week an attack against the International Committee for Red Cross led the organization to suspend its operations in the country for the first time in almost 30 years. But wringing our hands at Afghan women's abysmal state and shaky social status is not a way out. It is a navel-gazing conversation that avoids looking squarely at our role in perpetuating the very dire condition we condemn.

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images


Kerry's Syrian Quagmire

As the secretary of state tries to get the rebels and the regime to the negotiating table, a State Department official says it would take "sarin gas being lobbed at Tel Aviv" for Washington to take military action.

Even as Secretary of State John Kerry pushes for all parties in the Syrian civil war to gather around a table in Geneva, he was forced to implore his supposed partners in peace to refrain from taking steps that could worsen the bloodshed. On May 31he called on his Russian co-hosts in the talks to hold back from delivering advanced missile systems to the Syrian government. Delivery of the S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system, said Kerry, was "not helpful."

Yet the move from the Russians is only the latest signal that peace talks between the Syrian opposition and President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which the United States hopes to hold in July, face slim odds at best. Many in Washington are already wagering that political and military realities will overtake the diplomatic overture Kerry announced early this month. The secretary of state's plans received another blow on May 30, when the Syrian opposition said it would boycott talks so long as Hezbollah forces were fighting alongside the Syrian military and "massacres" were occurring.

"The opposition is in no place tactically or politically to enter into Geneva right now, so they should not be pushed," said one State Department official, who referred to the timing of the talks as a "mystery." "It is a long shot to get them there -- and if we get them there I think it will further divide the opposition." 

The one thing the opposition agrees upon is their need for a guarantee that if Assad does not step down before talks -- an eventuality no one expects -- he will step aside as a consequence of them. And if the Syrian president remains determined to fight to the end, opposition leaders expect the international community to provide them with weapons to defeat him on the battlefield. As of now, however, President Barack Obama's administration does not look at all prepared to take that step.

"From the administration perspective... the only thing that will work in this situation is the 'negotiated settlement,' and so that is where this White House wants to keep it," said a second State Department official. "There appears to be no interest in doing any next steps, and so this is sort of a fallback because the next step is not something that they are willing to envision." 

No Plan B has emerged in discussions with Washington diplomats about what to do should the peace talks fail to end the savage two-year conflict. The other options before the White House, according to this official, "are all problematic, they are all not easy and from where I sit there really is not interest in being involved. Period."

Ideas that have been floated by opposition supporters include the creation and enforcement of a no-fly zone and a push to arm the rebels. In the meantime, State Department officials working on the event say they are putting all they have into Geneva. 

"The idea is we exhaust every possibility," said a third State Department official who was not authorized to speak on the record. "We are facing this enormous confluence of bad things happening but a limited arsenal."

This official said the best-case scenario was that the opposition showed up to the Geneva talks, Assad agreed to step down, and the two sides managed to outline the solution for a political transition. The worst-case scenario, however, was that "we lose the patient [Syria] on the ground and they bleed out. Everything we do in the Middle East is tied up in Syria right now." 

Veteran diplomats watching from the sidelines say that even if Geneva fails, Kerry is doing what any good secretary of state should.

"It is a long, uncertain shot, but it is better than doing nothing," said former Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who served as America's top diplomat in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Diplomatic sources confirmed Crocker was among those recently asked to serve as America's envoy to the Syrian opposition, but was unable to accept the position given professional commitments made while still ambassador to Afghanistan. "If it fails it will at least tell us what won't work and perhaps open up the door to what might, although this is a pretty desperate situation." 

Other diplomats find it hard to imagine how a failed Geneva conference could do anything but make an already nightmarish situation ever worse.

"It is a policy of containment, non-intervention at all costs," said the first State Department official. "Short of sarin gas being lobbed at Tel Aviv, we are not going to intervene."