Code Pink, fearful of setbacks for women, rethinks call for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan

[Turborama]

Source: LA Times

Known for disruptive tactics and distinctive costumes, Code Pink was founded in 2002 to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It has since broadened its reach, becoming an all-purpose protest group on issues as diverse as Wall Street's executive pay excesses and the Bush administration's Alberto Gonzales.

As for tactics, Code Pink members have been kicked out of many a congressional hearing, including one where a Code Pink protester shoved bloodied hands at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Now the left-wing activist group is rethinking its call for a deadline to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The reason: After a week spent in Kabul talking to female Afghan leaders, the group now understands their fears that a resurgent Taliban would probably target women and girls who have made tremendous progress since U.S. troops routed the fundamentalist militant group in 2002.

"We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban," Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor. "So many people are saying that if the U.S. troops left, the country would collapse. ... A palpable sense of fear that is making us start to reconsider" a deadline for troop withdrawal.

Code Pink says it continues to oppose sending fresh troops to Afghanistan and will advocate for more humanitarian funding. What might get relaxed is its call for an immediate pullout. "We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy, but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline," said Benjamin.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/code-pink-fearful-of-setbacks-for-women-rethinks-call-for-us-troops-to-withdraw-from-afghanistan.html

---

CS Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html">'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout

[comtec]

1. Whlie I agree about the protection of women there

I find this just a TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD hypocritical.
Has no one heard that Afghanistan is where empires go to DIE?!!?!?

[Kolesar]

2. Are you saying that Code Pink does not represent the interests of women?

And hence, their invoking of the interests of women is "hypocritical"??

[comtec]

9. did you even bother to read what I said?

[Kolesar]

10. Three disconnected sentences and a typographical error?

yeah

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Some values apparently trump mens lives.

Hypocritical? Code pink was formed by people whose sons had already died. Given an evaluation of the relative worth of someone else's sons and the quality of life of women in Afghanistan, they're reevaluating their priorities.

[iamjoy]

6. Convenient, Not Hypocritical

When Dubya was in office, being in Afghanistan was all wrong. Now that Obama's in office, maybe there's a point to being there?

After 8 years let's not forget the reason we went into the country was their leadership sheltered and trained the terrorists who carried out the worst terrorist attacks on US soil in our country's history. I mean, that was before the side show of Iraq took center stage. Dubya never cared about the women of Afghanistan, but when things were going "well" it was convenient to use it to score political points with a certain demographic back home.

It seems like every war after WWII has represented a dilemma in which I am not sure whether we fought (are fighting) for our own national security interests or to protect an oppressed group of people. Then I remember that most wars are about our financial interests and talking about oppressed people is only an attempt to get pacifists to acquiesce. I still haven't quite figured out how Afghanistan is about money, though.

[InfiniteThoughts]

7. afghan was the right battle, iraq wasn't ...

or that was my understanding. US went to war with Taliban by supporting the Northern Alliance military group in Oct 2001 BECAUSE AQ, OBL SPONSORED/FUNDED/ENCOURAGED 9/11 attacks. There weren't massive world wide protests when US/UK went to Afghanistan. Even Mid East countries didn't have a formal relationship with Taliban (except pakistan, there was no other country that recognized the legitimacy of Taliban!)

That is exactly opposite to what we saw when US unilaterally invaded Iraq.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Battle?!? We've merely upped the slaughter.

The Taliban are there to STAY. Like it or not, we encouraged their hard-assed perspectives during the 1980s when they were known merely as the Mujahedeen.

U.S. actions in Afghanistan are not failures or mistakes, but crimes. Antiwar activists must see through the veneer of "democracy" and "success" and judge Bush's actions in Afghanistan as what they are: criminal. They are the result of deliberate policy crafted by the Bush administration, which is simply following in the footsteps of Clinton (who first courted the Taliban in an effort to get a pipeline deal and then bombed Afghanistan in), Bush Sr. (who allowed the Mujahedeen to destroy Afghanistan with US-supplied weapons), Reagan (who openly embraced the misogynist, fundamentalist Mujahedeen) and Carter (who began the initial covert operations in the late 1970s).

Empire is being built on the backs of Afghans and it is up to us as antiwar activists to recognize it and address it.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/cc3.php

[Yehonala]

35. Nukes Anyone?

By now, at this point, FDR or Truman would have dropped a nuke and been done with it. They knew better than to waste American lives on a vicious landscape. They didn't send our troops to die in Japan, they just dropped two nukes, broke the back of Imperial Japan, and then called it a day and brought our boys home. I would LOVE to have this done. We can use radiation suits if we need the oil that badly.

Now, the Afghan people could work a tad bit harder at infilirating the terrorists. If Japanese society hadn't had blind faith in the Emperor I think that they would have at some point, somehow war could have been ended earlier. But instead we are letting this drag on by being WAY too nice to the enemy. They are shooting at us from Mosques, let's bomb the mosques.

[ShortnFiery]

3. Code Pink needs to do their research.

Focus on security at the expense of humanitarian goals, and coalition forces will accomplish neither. The first step toward improving people’s lives is a negotiated settlement to end the war.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604

Despite this, politicians, military leaders, and sadly even some misguided American feminist groups continue to use the plight of women in Afghanistan to justify more spending, more troops and more war. People who care for the people of Afghanistan have got to see this for what it is. Women never benefit from bombs and bullets.

When the U.S and its allies chose to put the Karzai regime in place, they conveniently overlooked the fact that it is overrun with the same patriarchal attitudes toward women as the Taliban.

During my recent trip to Afghanistan, I saw the crushing poverty that Afghans must endure. A few brave women from RAWA and the Afghan Women’s Mission pointed out in a recent article that the military establishment claims that it must win the military victory first and then the U.S. will take care of humanitarian needs. But they have it backward. Improve living conditions and security will improve.

[Turborama]

5. Focus on security to achieve humanitarian goals and improve living conditions

Robert Greenwald needs to watch this...

This documentary was filmed undercover by a female reporter in Taliban ruled Afghanistan in 2001 with the help of RAWA. Warning, it is a terrifying, horrifying eye-opener! I'm sure this isn't what they want to go back to, but they will if we pulled out now.

Beneath the Veil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3660316316539768169&ei=06XNSqH_B5HMwgOK2fSAAQ&q=afghanistan+beneath+the+veil&hl=en#


"A few brave women from RAWA and the Afghan Women’s Mission pointed out in a recent article that the military establishment claims that it must win the military victory first and then the U.S. will take care of humanitarian needs."

In fact http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/141165/why_is_a_leading_feminist_organization_lending_its_name_to_support_escalation_in_afghanistan/">it was two women, not "a few".

This is what they said...

First of all, coalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace. Not even the Pentagon uses that language to describe U.S. forces there.

Wrong! This is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3744341">what Obama himself said in February:

"But I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means. We're going to have to use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development"

Code Pink needs to do their research.

They did, they went to Afghanistan and spoke to several women there. Did you even read the two articles in the OP?

Here's http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama/56">some research that I've done.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Here's RAWA's present stand: Troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW! See Video

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/7/voices_from_afghanistan_afghan_womens_activist

Voices from Afghanistan: Afghan Women’s Activist Zoya Speaks Out on Eight Years of Occupation

Zoya is a member of the radical underground organization RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. She fled Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion but later returned to her country to document life under Taliban rule. She has been an outspoken critic of the US and NATO invasion of Afghanistan.

We see the situation of women, as women liberation was used as a justification to occupy Afghanistan. But today we see that women are suffering from different sides, as I said, from one side from the Taliban and from their rules and laws and from their suicide bombs, and from the other side, the US-NATO bombs. And mostly, as we notice, that during the past eight years, they killed more civilians than Taliban and terrorists. Many children, many innocent women were killed. Many times our—they attacked the wedding ceremonies. They attacked the poor people’s houses.

So we see that for the reasons that they occupied Afghanistan, these reasons remain the same, and there’s no positive change. And even the situation is getting more worse.

[Turborama]

39. Warning, this is a terrifying, horrifying eye-opener

I'm sure this isn't what they want to go back to, but they will if we pulled out now.

Beneath the Veil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3660316316539768169&ei=06XNSqH_B5HMwgOK2fSAAQ&q=afghanistan+beneath+the+veil&hl=en#

I watched your video, a few Afghan women and several Americans and Indians filmed who knows when versus a week spent in Afghanistan recently by Code Pink "in which they met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists, and civil society groups".

In that video they say that the women's conditions haven't improved since the Taliban were kicked out of power. How do you think their conditions will change if the Taliban got back to power? I can give you a simple answer to that. Watch the video above.

This is from the same organization that the young Indian guy in the http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604">Brave New Films video you posted works for...

'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout
By Aunohita Mojumdar | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 6, 2009 edition

=snip=

Though Afghans have their grievances against the international troops' presence, chief among them civilian casualties, many fear an abrupt departure would create a dangerous security vacuum to be filled by predatory and rapacious militias. Many women, primary victims of such groups in the past, are adamant that international troops stay until a sufficient number of local forces are trained and the rule of law established. (Read more about Afghan women's concerns http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1218/p07s03-wogn.html">here.)

Full article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html

[anonymous171]

43. You cannot improve living conditions when you are constantly under attack

The situation in Afghanistan is hopeless.

[shadowknows69]

4. You want to defeat the Taliban? Arm and train the women of Afghanistan.

I hope no one takes that in any kind of sexist way, but look at what we witnessed in Iran with unflinchingly brave women standing tall against tyranny while men ran. It is always the group that has the most to gain or lose that will be the fiercest warriors, or healers. I see what Code Pink is saying, but whatever liberation of women can happen in Afghan society it has to be won by the Afghanis. Continued U.S. occupation will ultimately kill as many, if not more, women than we save.

[mopinko]

14. i always said the world would be a different place if

every woman knew how to handle an m16. always supported a draft for both sexes if we were going to have one.

would rather have a world where no one needed violence, but....

[Orangeone]

29. What a plan

I love it when people act like the women in Afghanistan would side with Americans. Don't you think they care about their fathers, husbands and sons?

[Yehonala]

36. I agree

Afghan women have the biggest stake in this. I sincerely wish we could train some women to infilirate them and smash the terrorist scum from within.

[Vinca]

8. Women are abused and oppressed all around the world.

It is physically and financially impossible for this country to cure all the problems.

[ro1942]

17. That's it, plus, we cause more harm than good

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. There also aren't enough young US men to send to die for that purpose.

I find it surprising how vitriolic a reaction I get from other liberals when I argue that americans place a greater value on girls and women than men and boys. This unexamined bias manifests itself in dozens of ways.

Read this article again. Code Pink now believes that US soldiers killed in Afghanistan are justified because Afghani women will suffer if the country is left to run its own affairs.

How can anyone reach another conclusion?

[thunder rising]

11. Afghan women have had 8 full years to form militia and defend their rights..*crickets* let US do it

They'll take everything we give them, but they will not hold it or defend it.

Nope, time to go.

[Romulox]

19. Hey that's SEXIST. Now go and impose a civil society on those Afghanis with a rifle, will you?

(Being sexist is worse than being racist + killing a lot of people.)

[customerserviceguy]

12. I'm not willing to lose ten to fifteen servicemembers a week

just to play kindergarten cop on Afghani men.

What we need is a pill that can be sold on the black market that virtually guarantees that male children will be conceived. The most backwards and sexist of societies will breed themselves out of existence within two generations, or they will learn to honor the females in their midst.

[Odin2005]

13. Wow, CP is being sensible. Good for them.

[harvey007]

15. The Taliban Must Be Crushed

Good for Code Pink. The Taliban must be crushed.

Conventional warfare may not be the solution to the problem, however.

[Romulox]

20. When do you ship out? nt

[ronnie624]

21. Code Pink does not advocate "crushing" the Taliban.

From the second article in the OP:

Code Pink says it will continue to oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan – a move facing heated debate in Washington – and advocate for more funding for aid and humanitarian projects instead.

Would you elaborate on the "solution" you allude to?

[The Stranger]

16. They've gone Neocon -- spreading peace and justice through war and force.

[ShortnFiery]

23. No, Code Pink is presently being influenced by Neo-Liberals - same horrific results but ...

different underlying motivations by the occupiers. :(

[Romulox]

18. Disgusting hypocrites. nt

[earth mom]

24. Wow-Code Pink has totally lost me with this one.

:thumbsdown:

What happened to "Out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW"?!

[TexasObserver]

26. It isn't news that Code Pink is untethered.

Their attention getting idiocy hasn't accomplished one good thing yet. They undermine real protests with their clown act. And now they're suckered into mouthing the same bullshit Bush did for years?

[EFerrari]

27. Misleading headline. Code Pink has not changed it's anti-war position. nt

[Turborama]

41. And the headline doesn't say that they have.

It says they are rethinking their "call for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan".

As does the http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html">Christian Science article.

[TheWraith]

28. Gotta love the purity testers here on DU.

God knows any of us who questioned Code Pink in the past were told we were crazy assholes who didn't understand, and Code Pink was the greatest organization ever.

Now when they're not in as much a hurry to throw Afghanistan back to the wolves, suddenly they're neocons, closet freepers, mentally unbalanced, etc..

[TexasObserver]

33. Not sure about the rest of that you list, but certainly "mentally unbalanced."

Code Pink has never accomplished anything of note. They're ass clowns in pink who think getting media coverage is good, no matter what it is. They've never helped our cause because getting attention for themselves is all they're really about, besides embarrassing their relatives, of course.

[TheWraith]

34. Believe me, I agree.

It's always dismayed me that so many people are ready to defend Code Pink for staging events that, to be blunt, make the entire anti-war side look batshit crazy. Covering yourself in fake blood and screaming bloody murder during a Senate hearing doesn't contribute to the useful dialog. Nor does attacking your own side as "warmongers," which Code Pink has done frequently, when it's the other side of the aisle that's causing the holdups.

[TexasObserver]

40. I never once saw them covered and thought "this helps our side."

[Turborama]

37. Yep

The cognitive dissonance is strong on this one.

[GivePeaceAchance]

32. Hartmann does always say to advance a nation you have to improve womens rights...

I don't know where I stand on that war I think for now it's a matter of things playing out for themselves.

[Hannah Bell]

38. setbacks - like this, they mean?

6 Children and 3 Women Killed During NATO Raid in Afghanistan

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/10/01/6-children-and-3-women-killed-during-nato-raid-in-afghanistan.html

Afghan Women and Children Killed in Marine Airstrike

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/afghan-women-and-children-killed-in-marine-airstrike/

US-led coalition forces killed 76 civilians - including 50 women and 19 children - in a military operation yesterday, the Afghan government said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2603775/Women-and-children-killed-by-coalition-forces-in-Afghanistan.html

Militants, including woman, killed in Afghan ambush - Summary

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/283265,militants-including-woman-killed-in-afghan-ambush--summary.html

8 Afghan women killed in wedding party accident

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+women+killed&start=10&sa=N

[anonymous171]

42. This is a joke right? Code Pink is going soft right when we need them the most.

Fuck Afghanistan, fuck human rights, and fuck Bush/Obama (sorry guys) for getting us involved there and for continuing our involvement there.