Our Shameful Afghanistan Legacy « Commentary Magazine http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/23/our-shameful-afghanistan-legacy/ ”More than 120 schoolgirls and three teachers have been poisoned in the second attack in as many months blamed on conservative radicals in the country’s north, Afghan police and education officials said on Wednesday…. Afghanistan’s intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), says the Taliban appear intent on closing schools ahead of a 2014 withdrawal by foreign combat forces”... RRD:I do not believe that we should stay in Afghanistan solely for the sake of Womens Rights,I believe that we should stay in Afghanistan to prevent innocent American men,women & children from being butchered.While there we should give protection to any seeking refuge from misogynists there.Our purpose there is not to fix the countries ills,but neither can we hand over girls fleeing persecution to their killers. However I must ask,in the midst of some leftist's ”defeat dances”,whether any of those who demand that we intervene militarily in Libya,Syria etal,(ala ”the duty to protect” types ),if any of them feel any qualms at all about leaving girls to be murdered & poisoned,in a country which we occupied?
And if so,do they intend to urge Obama to give these girls asylum? And what if the ”first female/feminist” President does not feel like doing so,for fear that the Taliban will ”perceive” him as being ”imperialistic”?
And since it would anger the Taliban for us to interfere with their ”nationalistic” campaign of restoring their ”sisters” to their ”clothes of dignity”--with the result that they may decide to make our surrender of the country to them more difficult. Contrary to Conservative stereotypes I do know of quite a number of Liberal Feminists(of both genders) who are genuinely concerned with the rights of women & girls in Islamic countries.
But I also know of a number who
are simply concerned with having people THINK that they are good,humane liberals,and when the dilettanti say ”be concerned with the well being of people in country X where OUR PRESIDENT wants us to intervene”,then they will be concerned--for as long as it is faddish to do so-- and then when it is fashionable to say ”It's interesting when people die....”,then they will say that.(Assuming that they even acknowledge the reality of what is going on the world)
And yes Conservatives,there are comparable individuals on the right whose concern for certain issues seems to change depending upon the letter after the Presidents name.
And if so,do they intend to urge Obama to give these girls asylum? And what if the ”first female/feminist” President does not feel like doing so,for fear that the Taliban will ”perceive” him as being ”imperialistic”?
And since it would anger the Taliban for us to interfere with their ”nationalistic” campaign of restoring their ”sisters” to their ”clothes of dignity”--with the result that they may decide to make our surrender of the country to them more difficult. Contrary to Conservative stereotypes I do know of quite a number of Liberal Feminists(of both genders) who are genuinely concerned with the rights of women & girls in Islamic countries.
But I also know of a number who
are simply concerned with having people THINK that they are good,humane liberals,and when the dilettanti say ”be concerned with the well being of people in country X where OUR PRESIDENT wants us to intervene”,then they will be concerned--for as long as it is faddish to do so-- and then when it is fashionable to say ”It's interesting when people die....”,then they will say that.(Assuming that they even acknowledge the reality of what is going on the world)
And yes Conservatives,there are comparable individuals on the right whose concern for certain issues seems to change depending upon the letter after the Presidents name.
No comments:
Post a Comment