Conceptions of Government in Afghanistan

Ann Jones, writing in The Nation, laments the decline of women’s rights in Afghanistan.  She argues that despite U.S. intentions, “equal rights for Afghan women have been illusory all along.” She cites the Afghan constitution’s inability to limit sharia law, which subjects women’s rights to mullah interpretation, and President Karzai‘s decision to swap his support for the Shiite Personal Status Law or, as it became known in the Western press, the Marital Rape Law, in exchange for Shiite votes.  Ultimately, while women’s rights are central to Afghan stability, she explains that aid is being delivered primarily by the U.S. military, which has not made women a priority. Therefore, President Obama‘s decision about troop levels, whether for or against an increase, will not bode well for women’s safety or empowerment.

Joseph Trevithick has published an editorial arguing that there is a fundamental misconception between American and Afghan approaches to government.  While the current Afghan system is tribal-oriented, lacks national identity, and is susceptible to corruption, Trevithick believes the U.S. must continue to work with the Afghans to fight terrorism and that the Afghan government should seek international aid to build up its institutions.

Discussing the election runoff, Mathew Yglesias writes about his disappointment that opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah, whom Yglesias admires for his commitment to a parliamentary system, cannot be the U.S. favored candidate because his election would signal a massive Taliban resurgence.

Lastly, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has published a Q&A with Gilles Dorronsoro providing an in-depth look into who are the Taliban.