MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your point that the American government didn't have benevolent intentions in Afghanistan.I would take this media run with a large grain of salt first off.
Second there were areas where they allowed women more freedoms Kabul and around us facilities for increased us money, as I said in the beginning though these areas had increased drug usage and prostitution, those were taken away .
Yes I can easily reduce the us policy to that because that was the enacted us policy.
Our Faustian Bargains in Afghanistan
Afghan elections illuminate how ex-warlords’ influence continues to hold back democratic governance and threaten political stability, write Caroline Wadhams, Colin Cookman, and Christina Misunas.www.americanprogress.org
US didn't care it was a money making MiC enterprise more than it was about anything else. Invasion wasn't even necessary as taliban told the us they would hand over bin laden in accordance with Islamic law to a neutral Muslim nation for charge and trial, Bush, Chaney, and rumsfueld rejected that offer and knew he ran off to Pakistan early on in the invasion.
But unless they directly promoted it, even if it was an indirect consequence of the looser social and legal restrictions, I'd argue that more prostitution and drugs is a very small price to pay in comparison to the other basic rights you agree were granted to women in some areas. The important increases in suicide and depression rates attest to that. If life was better under the Talibans, women wouldn't be off'ing themselves.
And since, at least in those areas you describe (such as Kabul and around US facilities), their life improved drastically, I disagree that you can reduce the Afghani policy in regard to women to local tribal law. Maybe in the south of the country and some areas, those would be identical; but it seems we agree progress was made in, at least, parts of the country.