1ac myth 1ac -critical Introduction of us armed Forces Aff
Download 0.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- There are other contradictions between the rationale for war of “saving the brown women from the brown men” and the reality of women’s lives there
- The leading women’s rights organization
- RAWA’s statement on the U.S. war in Afghanistan reads, in part: America
- U.S. withdrawal would be better than occupation for Afghan people, including women
! – Killing CiviliansAmerican intervention is based on a false crusade to save women’s rights. Our military occupation has resulted in the death of numerous civilians.Cloud 2004 (Dana L., Associate Prof. And Dir. Graduate Studies – Dept. Comm – UT Austin, Quarterly Journal of Speech, “”To Veil the Threat of Terror”: Afghan Women and the Clash of Civilizations”, 90(3), August, Ebsco P 297-298) There are other contradictions between the rationale for war of “saving the brown women from the brown men” and the reality of women’s lives there. Since the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance has forcibly stopped the fast-growing Union of the Women of Afghanistan from marching in Kabul. The leading women’s rights organization, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), opposed U.S. military action there as well as the war in Iraq, arguing that their feminist movement does not need U.S. “help” in the form of bombs and military occupation. 62 Their continuing opposition belies the U.S. justifications for war based on the humanitarian rescue of oppressed women. RAWA’s statement on the U.S. war in Afghanistan reads, in part: America, by forming an international coalition against Osama and his Taliban-collaborators and in retaliation for the 11th September terrorist attacks, has launched a vast aggression on our country. Despite the claim of the U.S. that only military and terrorist bases of the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be struck and that its actions would be accurately targeted and proportionate, what we have witnessed for the past seven days leaves no doubt that this invasion will shed the blood of numerous women, men, children, young and old of our country. 63 Their predictions were accurate; after the killing of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Afghan women are hardly better off than they were before; they regard the U.S. war as akin to the Taliban regime. 64 The full political case for my belief that U.S. withdrawal would be better than occupation for Afghan people, including women, is beyond the scope of this article. However, accepting the argument that the people of a nation cannot determine the shape of their own society is an example of having been persuaded by the “clash of civilizations” hypothesis and accepting its racialized logic. Further, in the Afghanistan case, it is difficult to dispute that even the women’s movement in Afghanistan has no use for the United States or the occupation. Thus, the appeals to the liberation of women, even profoundly oppressed women, must be understood not as legitimate justification but rather as a pretext for the war and occupation. As McGee noted in his discussion of the ideograph, tightly condensed symbols of a people’s commitments can be quite forceful inducements to public consent to their rulers’ policies. These images as condensed incantations of the ideograph ! clash of civilizations " are no exception. Political discourse has accompanied and invoked the image of Afghan women in the appeal to the ! clash of civilizations " . President George W. Bush encapsulated the ! clash of civilizations " motive in his 2002 State of the Union Address: “The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan’s new government.” 65 Likewise, in his 2004 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush summarized the effects of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan: As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida [ sic ]. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror—and America is honored to be their friend. 66 Here Bush shares the narrative strategy of the Time photographs and constructs a new image of the Afghan people, not as pre-modern Others but as “friends” in his claim that U.S. forces led to freedom. The phrasing suggests that the women before intervention were Others, but that they now have been folded into U.S. identity as friends. Based on his argument, however, only a subdued or compliant population has the prerogative of becoming a friend. Even in friendship, the Afghan people are claimed by the United States without reciprocal power to define the relationship. Bush’s remarks imply that saving the people, and specifically the women, of Afghanistan was the primary motive and outcome of the U.S. intervention. A closer look at the history of U.S. relations in the region reveals more salient reasons for the U.S. war. Well before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the balance of power in Afghanistan had shifted, away from “moderates” in the Taliban, who favored open relations with the United States and the United Nations, toward more nationalist and fundamentalist forces. 67 In this new configuration, the regime was much less open to the idea of allowing the United States to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea, which was a major component of U.S. plans to control the world oil supply. Before this point, the condition of women in Afghanistan and the injustices of Islamic dictatorship had not been of concern to the United States. 68 Thus, there is a contradiction between the rhetoric of moral inferiority and the mercenary motives of the war. 69 Conquest of another nation for economic gain and geopolitical control is the textbook definition of imperialism. 70 Conservative intellectuals in foreign policy circles expressed the imperialist motives of the intervention explicitly, even as U.S. mass culture offered the humanitarian justifications better designed to win public support. In the influential journal Foreign Affairs , Sebastian Mallaby states outright the need for a new U.S. Empire: “A new imperial moment has arrived, and by virtue of its power America is bound to play the leading role.” 71 Huntington also admits to this claim: “Culture, as we have argued, follows power. If non-Western societies are once again to be shaped by Western culture, it will happen only as a result of the expansion, deployment, and impact of Western power. Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism.” 72 As in the time of Rudyard Kipling’s description of the “white man’s burden,” the clashing images of ! the clash of civilizations " are the surface of U.S. imperialism. Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 0.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|