So, basically, Code Pink bails on its antiwar position:
Code Pink, founded in 2002 to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, is one of the more high-profile women’s antiwar groups being forced to rethink its position as Afghan women explain theirs: Without international troops, they say, armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable
The breaking point reportedly was the response by former Afghan presidential contender and minister in her opponent’s government, Masooda Jalal, to what seemed very much like a leading question put to her by Code Pink co-founder, Medea Benjamin, viz., would she ‘prefer more international troops or more development funds.’ It was averred that the co-founder expected Ms. Jalal to ’support her call for U.S. troop withdrawal in response.’ Ms. Jalhal, an anti-Pashtun Tajik, not surprisingly, replied that both were needed:
It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources.
It appears Code Pink’s stance on troop withdrawal was pretty watered down from the get-go. They were at a conference of women from three countries in the region to determine whether two years were sufficient for U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, entertaining the possibility of an extended tenure in the region. After this recent experience they’ve decided that a deadline should not be set.
While the group hasn’t dropped its call for a pullout, the visit convinced them that setting a deadline isn’t in Afghanistan’s interests, say Ms. Benjamin and fellow cofounder Jodie Evans.
“We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline,” says Benjamin.
The sum total of their position turns out to be stay the course. And it seemed rather preordained given the drift of their interrogatories.
They aver that they are against a surge, but not against what’s there now. However, the White House has been steadily increasing the number of troops committed to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It doesn’t seem possible at this point for Code Pink to make a serious case against a surge given their stance on the need for troops in those areas.
The fact of the matter is, they only talked to those who are on the side of non-Pashtuns. They might’ve spent time conferring with the largest population in Afghanistan to get their views on the presence of foreign troops in their midst, causing untold mayhem in their lives.
More to the point, they might’ve considered what this pro-war posture was likely to do to their own organization.
It just seemed so stage-managed by higher-ups, from beginning to end.
18 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Heaven forbid that the leaders of Code Pink should return from Afghanistan with a slightly contrarian perspective. Strikes me as easy to criticize them for not putting themselves in greater harm’s way to speak to everyone that folks sitting at home think they ought to have spoken to.
Their views can be examined — possibly even learned from — and debated, but calling Medea Benjamin et al “pro-war” just flies in the face of their hard-won hardcore antiwar cred.
Oh, they most definitely chucked their creds out the window. The rank and file could revolt.
Your read of the situation in Afghanistan needs to be reexamined. Ignoring the plight of the people primarily put in harms way, primarily by NATO forces, primarily U.S. forces, is not a small matter for any group serious about ending the war.
I should add, the irony of the Persian groups as the favorite of both the U.S. and Iran.
Thanks for keeping Code Pink’s “we like war sometimes” on the front burner. I wrote about it last week at http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8837
Apparently they didn’t talk to these women representing several Afghan women’s groups and one female member of Parliament in part 5 of Rethink Afghanistan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jAT0FAGBc. It’s pretty clear that the situation for women in Afghanistan has if anything worsened.
I’m surprised that the CodePink founder wouldn’t know by now that those who suffer the most under military occupation are women and children.
I’m not surprised that yet another American has failed to do their research on the country they are discussing and what is going on on the ground. I’m also not surprised that an American, whether on the right or left, would display a paternalistic attitude toward a country in the Global South. Orientalism remains a powerful force.
I would think that you’re forgetting who it is who most suffers under Taliban occupation or maybe you need to do the research about it.
More war means more “fact finding” trips to “trouble spots,” which means more money for Global Exchange.
If only enough middle class white women were able to witness horror, then horror would end?
Medea Benjamin’s carbon footprint is as big as Ralph Nader’s ego.
Sorry, I missed that. Thanks. I like it very much. Well done!
Btw, change is not necessarily a good thing nor is it necessary. Most parts of the world stick to traditions that have lasted for hundreds of years. The change that’s experienced in the west on other hand seems to never end, but there are limits to which the planet can tolerate the rate of change. I recommend James Burke’s now ancient The Day the Universe Changed for some engaging perspective on this topic.
You got that right!
I don’t equate a call for caution in the pace of withdrawl, so we can help fix what we broke, with a call for continued aerial bombardments, drone attacks, civilian suffering, etc. I believe Code Pink is simultaneously calling for changes in what US forces do prior to withdrawal.
I heard Medea Benjamin speak this summer, with PDA head Tim Carpenter, in support of PDA’s Healthcare Not Warfare campaign. I don’t think she was bullshitting about the Not Warfare part.
But I’ll keep an eye on how this unfolds. If I’m wrong, it won’t have been the first time.
I didn’t say that women don’t suffer under the Taliban. They do, and I detest the Taliban as much as anyone else. My point is that our occupation of the country makes things even worse for women there. Women and children suffer the most in war and occupation, which is certainly the case in Afghanistan as it was in Iraq. Furthermore, the Karzai government that we installed in the country has implemented legislation oppressive to women as bad or worse as under the Taliban, including legalizing rape. The judiciary that Karzai installed displays a shockingly bigoted attitude towards women that appears little different from that of the Taliban. Don’t just take it from me, take it from the experts in the video that I linked, including leading Afghan advocates for women who are experiencing the situation there firsthand.
Two opportunist celebrities who used the Green Party to advance themselves and then summarily tossed it after they’d destroyed it, one from the ultraleft, one from the liberal center.
Now that we need an independent political force to challenge the Democrats when they fold like they are on health care, one does not exist, primarily because the Democrats were able to successfully frame Nader as spoiling Gore, and also because the internecine battle of the progocialite celebrities like Medea.
Had the party not been squeezed by both sides, perhaps it would have slowly grown to the extent where independent progressive voices would be at the table. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
You made a very general point about occupation being hard on women and children and suggested that our presence in Afghanistan is responsible for making life more difficult for the women and children there.
I disagree to the extent of saying that the Taliban rule was,is, and would be worse for women and children.
You might notice that Karzai is attempting to roll back some of the rights for women that we insisted upon, but you overlook the basic point. We did attempt and will continue to attempt to make a better future for the Afghani women and children than will be the case if we now leave.
Code Pink doesn’t call for “caution in the pace of withdrawal.” It doesn’t call for any withdrawal at all at this time. One of its leaders explicitly rejected Code Pink’s earlier 2-year timetable for withdrawal as too restrictive, preferring no withdrawal timetable.
Code Pink bugs.
Alank and his tiny friends might grow up. If Medea Benjamin and the folks at Code Pink express thoughts that are too complex for you to understand, I would gently urge you to sit your little tussy down and read them over a few more times.
I don’t want to start a thing here, but you should actually know Medea Benjamin personally, as some of us do, before you make this blissfully uninformed statement.
I’ve known and watched Medea and crew for years and live around the corner from Global Exchange.
I knew Marla. I am reminded of the relationship that John Zerzan had with Jeffrey “free” Luers.
Non-defense of Code Pink’s change of course noted.