I'm anyways skeptical of those who refer to "the media" or "the West" as a single entity.<p>"Much of the press saw U.S. troops as defending a pro-Western populace against a deeply unpopular Taliban insurgency. But Blue quickly realized that, in the insurgent heartlands, which lie in rural areas, the story was much more nuanced. To begin with, U.S.-occupied Afghanistan had been a divided realm; Afghans living in areas of relative calm tended to oppose the Taliban, but those living in war-racked regions often saw the Taliban as a better alternative to the corrupt U.S.-backed government. The Western media missed this story."<p>Is there an example of such a story (that describes near universal support for the US backed Afghan government and ignores the attitudes of rural areas) from any of the newspapers he mentions (WSJ, New York Times, Washington Post)?<p>I tried searching for "NYTimes rural Afghanistan 2019" and this is what I got:<p>"As American diplomats push for a peace deal with the Taliban to end the 17-year war, a strong voice of protest, largely coming from urban centers, has been cautioning against a rushed deal that could endanger some of the gains of past years. Those include women’s right to work and education, as well as an independent news media.<p>On the other hand, however, is the nearly half of the country that is caught between the two sides of the seesawing conflict. The constant fighting has deprived these rural Afghans of most of the improvements — schools and institutions — at the center of concerns over peace negotiations. And the voices of those Afghans are notably underrepresented in the debate."
>Yet nowhere in any standard interpretation of religious law does it state that women may not work or get an education.<p>Women are not allowed to work outside the home according to the Quran, there are exceptions but this is not generally allowed.[1]<p>Anand Gopal is very anti-US so he seems to be sugar coating things a bit.<p>[1]<a href="https://islamqa.info/en/answers/106815/guidelines-on-women-working-outside-the-home" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://islamqa.info/en/answers/106815/guidelines-on-women-w...</a>
I'm surprised this was absent from the article:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi</a><p>Bacha bazi is the systematic rape and abuse of young boys by Afghan men. The Taliban banned it and killed rapists when they found them. This was one source of the Taliban's initial popularity. The US hired child rapists to be Afghan army and police commanders. When they engaged in bacha bazi, US troops were told not to interferee. Numerous US soldiers were discharged or relieved for beating Afghan "allies" who kept little boys as sex slaves. Some boys were even raped on US military bases. This is all documented on the Wiki article and has been common knowledge among those who care to know for more than a decade.
In Afghanistan, it's not just a conflict between the West and the Taliban. It's also a tug-of-war between tribal traditions and religious rules. Surprisingly, the women, often seen as sidelined, might be the ones to watch as they navigate and challenge both systems.
That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. And while it doesn't sound great, it sounds way better than the tribal customs they're used to.<p>Based on my limited experience with human people is that any position that relies on the individual acting in good faith and not being corrupt will immediately attract people who are unbelievably corruptable.<p>So that's probably not great long term.<p>Subsequently, I don't know if it's me being paranoid, a new spin being allowed, or just seeing behind the actual veil now, but I've been seeing more "maybe the taliban aren't so bad" stories lately. Interesting.
More good reporting on Taliban Afghanistan: <a href="https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/02/23/the-west-lives-on-in-the-talibans-afghanistan/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/02/23/the-west-lives-on-in...</a>
A Talib courtroom. This is not representative of sharia courtrooms generally. This akin to looking at a drumhead courts marshal and describing it as a "Christian" commonlaw court.<p>The common law could learn a lot from Sharia law, just not the punishments. (Although even those harsh punishments are rather similar to common law punishments of not long ago.)
Want a trial in your own language? Want a codified standard of proof for specific crimes? You won't get those under the common law. You would in Sharia.
I do agree with the fundamental assertion that American politicians and news organizations refused to accept the reality of religious fundamentalism in this part of the world. But it seems pretty ironic coming from The New Yorker who have been a big part of driving this confused worldview.
Afghanistan is very messed up: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi</a>
Seems to be missing something quite important:<p><pre><code> The Western media missed this story. Part of the reason was that the war-torn
countryside had been difficult—though not impossible—for foreign reporters to
access, so the scale of the crimes committed by U.S. forces and their allies
went undocumented.
</code></pre>
Sure, that's "part" of the story. The rest of the story is that if you make the crimes of the US forces public, then the US government will fuck you and your family over, and by extension the people around you.<p>Even if you're a non-US national living in a completely separate, supposedly "allied" country.<p>The most prominent example of course is Julian Assange.