by Phyllis Chesler
With the last American soldier now slated to leave Afghanistan by the end of August, the Taliban are already reinstituting their Sharia rules about women never being able to leave their homes naked-faced or without a male minder.
According to Foreign Policy, "a newly declassified U.S. intelligence assessment paints a grim picture for the future of women's rights in Afghanistan." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said Senate assistance for Afghanistan will not be forthcoming "if the Taliban (takes a) governing role that ends civil society advances and rolls back women's rights." U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken went farther when he told CNN that "Afghanistan will become a pariah state" if it does "not respect the gains" made for Afghan girls and women.
Please allow me to say that the Taliban will not care. They view infidel nations as the real pariah states. They wish to live under seventh-century Sharia law as they define it.
As I've written before, the moment the last Western military boot leaves Afghan soil, the Taliban will torch every single shelter for battered women, burn down every schoolhouse for girls, shoot on sight every female broadcaster, politician, police officer, teacher, and physician. Women and girls will again be banished from public view, whether hidden under burqas or kept indoors.
Meanwhile, to our credit, America and the West are on a desperate humanitarian mission to rescue a handful of souls. However, we must realize that in doing so, we may be importing Islamic gender apartheid into our midst.
Do we really want to do that?
The mainly male interpreters who have helped American troops may be somewhat educated in terms of language skills, but really, have they given up — and will they give up — the practice of forced face-veiling, child marriage, cousin marriage, polygamy, child labor, woman-battering, gender segregation, and honor killing? If they engaged in these behaviors back home, won't they do so even more when surrounded by an infidel culture?
Some Afghan refugees in the West have honor murdered their daughters and sisters for refusing to veil properly, and for developing friendships or romantic alliances with infidels.
I am not suggesting that such men are also likely to become terrorists or that Afghan boys will necessarily become radicalized in American mosques or via the internet. But it's a thought, yes?
While we can no longer afford to expend blood and treasure in Afghanistan, how much money can America afford in order to feed, shelter, educate, and provide health care for a demographic that may not want to assimilate?
Do we have an alternative? Actually, we do.
If we are going to rescue Afghans from the barbaric Taliban, why not focus on the women who staffed the shelters for battered women in Kabul and Herat; the female physicians, teachers of girls, naked-faced television journalists, police officers, parliamentarians — or in short, those Afghans who have already rebelled against Islamist misogyny and who are most likely to embrace Western ways? They are the very Afghans most likely to be shot down dead by the Taliban for their "Western" ways.
Let's save them.
First published in the American Thinker.
Lou the cheap beer sommelier
If every person who will be abused or worse by the Taliban in Afghanistan were to be "on the first plane out" we'd have to have a plane the size of Baltimore. As has been shown time and again, we are not nor can we be the savior of the world. And we were unable to save Afghanistan despite 20 years of effort. At this time, we can barely save ourselves from ourselves. While any decent person has a great sympathy and compassion for all women who have the misfortune of living in that country the people on the "first plane out" as American forces withdraw should be all those who assisted American forces in their attempt to create a stable country with freedoms there. The author is clearly aware that Sharia, Democracy, and Women's Rights are not compatible concepts. Hopefully, the feminists of Afghanistan also understand this and will find their way to safety. As this effort at "nation building" appears to have failed after twenty years of untold treasure squandered and far too much American blood spilled it is past time to leave. The author's favoritism toward females as opposed to males is unfortunate and certainly a classic symptom of an over-emphasis on identity politics--and a tired and ugly sort of prejudice. Is it possible that modern feminism is simply prejudice against males? It is. Men are equally as worthy as women for saving, the suggestion by the author that they are not is sexist and gross. If the females of Afghanistan were to be evacuated as suggested by the author who does she suppose will do the evacuating? I can venture a guess: men. Identity politics people tend to view government as a savior and limited in its actions only by the boundaries of our "enlightened" imaginations. The painful truth is difficult for identity politics people to accept-- the world is an ugly, difficult, unfair sort of place and the US government with all its planes and trains and automobiles cannot change the fact.
How about rescuing the innocent, most vulnerable first? Children and women first. Christians and Buddhists and atheists and agnostics especially those who demonstrated anti-Islamist efforts, before Muslims. //. Who will define the details of where the safe harbors will be for the refugees, who will assess who exactly or inexactly will be rescued, who will pay how much to sustain the refugees until they are able and willing to support their selves adequately? How many refugees will India, Pakistan, Bangladesh accept and support? Where does the ‘qualified’ remainder go? Which womens’ groups around the world are arranging for adoption of refugee orphans? //. What lessons have we learned from: the deadly chaos of India/Pakistan formation from British governance, from our abandonment of our South Vietnamese allies, from the world’s neglect of Yazidis. Uighur, Tibetans? Does the WHO have adequate health programs to serve the refugees before they enter the accepting population? How many 10’s of 1000’s of ‘questionable’ refugees will Saudi Arabia, Scotland, and Ireland accept. Who’s on First?