NYT story about abuse of Afghani children

Someone linked me an old article about this disgusting "bachi bazi" practice with an alarming revelation: The Taliban had banned the practice and largely eradicated it until our invasion, but it came storming back in the years after the Taliban govt fell. And apparently some of these tribal groups that are the worst practitioners are the ones who've been our friends and allies the last 14 years (and thus presumably those whose support we must keep to prevent the Taliban from re-taking the country).

Amazing the unintended bad consequences that seem to flow from our every action in the Mideast. In essence we inadvertently chased out the anti-pedophiles to invite in the pro-pedophiles here. Toppling the Taliban govt sure seemed like a grand idea, but not so much when you learn it means getting in bed with, and turning the country over to, people who practice institutionalized pedophilia as part of their culture. There are no right answers in that part of the world.

 

So basically, it's the pedophiles vs. the woman abusers.

Maybe we should have just gone in there with the intention of conquering them all, making seven extra states, and instilling the U.S. Constitution as law. You know, impose our values.

 

Basically. Which side do you choose when both sides are reprehensible? Answer: whichever one best serves US interests, which is why we now find we ourselves teamed up with pedophiles and telling our soldiers not to take moral action to stop child imprisonment and rape.

Of course the other option is not to go to these places at all.

 

Sometimes that's not an option.

 

Banned doesn't mean eradicated, and the article you linked to doesn't say it was largely eradicated under the Taliban.

 

Charlie Wilson didn't give a fuck as I recall.

 

[

I never said they entirely eradicated it. Instead, I said they "largely" did, which is the clear implication of the article repeatedly acknowledging that it is now "back" in the years since the Taliban's fall, for example noting that "Under Taliban rule, it was banned, but it has crept back and is now widespread, flourishing also in the cities, including the capital, Kabul, and a common feature of weddings, especially in the north." I don't know how something can now be "back" without previously being ..at least largely ...gone.

And I'd point out that story does not stand alone, as a quick googling revealed. For example, this passage from this Wa Po piece noting:

“Like it or not, there was better rule of law under the Taliban,” said Dee Brillenburg Wurth, a child-protection expert at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, who has sought to persuade the government to address the problem. “They saw it as a sin, and they stopped a lot of it.”

And, sadly, that piece further contrasted that to its present treatment: "The 2010 report said members of Afghanistan’s security forces, who receive training and weapons from the U.S.-led coalition, sexually abused boys “in an environment of criminal impunity.”

Likewise, as this FP.com article notes:

"The Taliban had a deep aversion towards bacha bazi, outlawing the practice when they instituted strict nationwide sharia law. According to some accounts, including the hallmark Times of London article "Kandahar Comes out of the Closet" in 2002, one of the original provocations for the Taliban’s rise to power in the early 1990s was their outrage over pedophilia. Once they came to power, bacha bazi became taboo, and the men who still engaged in the practice did so in secret."

Sounds like the Taliban at least "largely" ended it to me. But if you'd like to quibble with my word choice, that is fine, because it does not change the point. Fact is, appears far more boys are getting raped in Afghanistan today compared to when the Taliban was in charge. And, as shameful as it may be to acknowledge, also appears we (and the puppet govt we installed) have been far more permissive about allowing it than the Taliban was.