Gender and the War in Afghanistan

InUnderstanding the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Horwitz describes a strategy used by politicians and the media regarding the justification of war in Afghanistan. The strategy involves “detailing the opponent’s human rights abuses, emphasizing U.S. human rights support” (Horwitz 152). By doing this, the United States begins to assume the role of the “good guy” or the hero, implying that anyone who oppresses human rights is a villain and the United States is good simply by virtue of being the opposite. This also contributes to a sense of American Exceptionalism, the feeling that the United States is morally superior and has not only the right but also the responsibility to intervene in other countries that are in need of a hero to protect their rights. 

A major part of the human rights strategy is its focus on women and children as the oppressed groups in Afghanistan. Women and children are seen and characterized as weaker groups who are in need of protection. The use of women and children as example victims is seen in speeches by the Bush family and, according to Shepherd, “Laura Bush’s speech shows how gendered discourse helped to position war as an appropriate response in Afghanistan” (Shepherd 20). Displaying women and children as the groups in need of help becomes almost a call-to-action, that if the United States is truly a hero, then there is no choice but to intervene. The United States becomes gendered as well as a paternalistic “figure of authority” (Shepherd 20) fighting the “Irrational Barbarian” (Shepherd 20) that would oppress women and children this way. In this way, the United States is adopting a moral superiority, assuming a sense of increased civilization and goodness by virtue of the fact that the United States is claiming to protect those who need help.

According to Stabile and Kumar, “by rendering women the passive grounds for an argument aimed at imperialist domination, the discourse of protection used by politicians and media alike—like the very fundamentalism it purported to attack—denied women any agency in the decision-making processes that affected their everyday lives and futures” (Stabile and Kumar 770). While it is true that the Taliban oppressed women and disallowed them from having rights, Stabile and Kumar imply that the US also inhibited women from having rights and freedoms because the media used women as nothing more than a vessel to justify the desired course of action. According to the article, “as long as women are not permitted to speak for themselves, they provide the perfect grounds for an elaborate ventriloquist act, in which they serve as the passive vehicle for the representation of US interests” (Stabile and Kumar 778).

Overall, the United States chose to use human rights as justification to get involved in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that it is true that the Taliban was oppressive, the United States still acted questionably and used groups and gender as a weapon with which to manipulate public opinion and gain sympathy in support of heroism.