Mediaboss Marketing

This summer, Bahar Jalali watched anxiously as the United States withdrew its military from Afghanistan and the Taliban began to reassert control over the country. Women were told to stay home and to cover themselves an early indicator that other rights, protections and services for women would soon be eliminated, including, this week, the right to attend Kabul University.

Ms. Jalali, a visiting associate professor at Loyola University Maryland, is a member of the Afghan diaspora born in Kabul, raised in the United States, but connected still to her home country, where she returned in 2009 to teach at the American University of Afghanistan. She left again in 2016 after surviving a violent attack at the university by the Taliban.

When reports surfaced this summer that, with the Taliban takeover, Afghan women were shredding their education degrees and that safe houses for women were closing their doors, she was distraught.

Then, on Sept. 11, she saw images of hundreds of women in Kabul wearing all black in full veils and long robes in a pro-Taliban demonstration. (The timing of the demonstration on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks along with the presence of Taliban fighters and official Taliban statements released afterward suggest that the demonstration was organized by the Taliban.)

It confirmed my fears that our culture, our heritage is coming under attack, Ms. Jalali, 46, said in a phone interview. One of the biggest concerns that I have, now that the Taliban are back in power, is Afghan sovereignty, Afghan identity, Afghan culture, Afghan heritage. Even before the Taliban came to power, 43 years of war really transformed our culture to the point where very important aspects of it are lost.

Compelled to speak out, she tweeted a photo of herself from 2005, wearing an emerald green dress with delicate embroidery a traditional outfit that she wore for her first wedding. This is Afghan culture, she wrote in the caption.

The tweet went viral, and soon, women across the world started sharing photos of themselves in their own traditional Afghan clothing, often with the hashtag #DoNotTouchMyClothes.

Ms. Jalali shared another photo, of her as a teenager in the United States in the 1990s, wearing a blue-and-gold Afghan kuchi, a dress that the nomads of Afghanistan wore, she said. Kuchi women wear this dress on a daily basis. It is their everyday attire.

Ms. Jalali wasnt expecting her tweets to go viral, but she now hopes that the hashtag can teach the world more about Afghan culture. Im just hoping that the world will see through these dresses that the real Afghan culture is colorful and vibrant and alive and animated and really meant to celebrate life, she said.

Zarifa Ghafari, an activist who became one of Afghanistans first female mayors at age 26 in 2019 and had to flee the country in August, shared a photo on Twitter of the vibrant Afghan clothing she wore earlier this month for the Geneva PeaceTalks. With my traditional colorful dress and a powerful msg from every part of my country representing Afghanistan in particular Afghan women at #GenevaPeaceTalks, she wrote.

It is important to create awareness and to show the true colors of women in Afghanistan, Ms. Ghafari wrote later, in an emailed statement. Taliban are trying to erase womens presence erase them from the walls, from the streets, from schools, from work, from government.

We are so much more than a dress, an outfit, she wrote. But my mother, grand-mother and older generations have worn similar dresses with bright colors. This is our beautiful heritage, our rich culture, our joy of life.

Sophia Moruwat, 25, a dialogue coordinator in Norway who lived in Afghanistan until 2002, also participated. This is how Afghan women dress, she wrote in a tweet accompanying a photo of herself in a bright yellow Afghan kuchi and handmade jewelry, fashioned from melted glass and coins.

In an interview, Ms. Moruwat noted that the term for Afghan traditional clothing is gand.

My gand is my Afghan identity, she said. Its one thing among many that symbolizes being an Afghan. My gand is what has had me stay connected to my country and my culture the past 20 years weve been away from our homeland.

Who are the Taliban? The Taliban arose in 1994 amid the turmoil that came after the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989. They used brutal public punishments, including floggings, amputations and mass executions, to enforce their rules. Heres more on their origin story and their record as rulers.

Who are the Taliban leaders? These arethe top leaders of the Taliban, men who have spent years on the run, in hiding, in jail and dodging American drones. Little is known about them or how they plan to govern, including whether they will be as tolerant as they claim to be. One spokesman told The Timesthat the group wanted to forget its past, but that there would be some restrictions.

Ms. Moruwat said that her own memories, flashbacks and encounters with these terrorists is what made her want to take a stand, adding that her sister was forced into marriage at age 13 and couldnt pursue an education or a career. After years of struggle and oppression, Ms. Moruwats sister was finally able to pursue an education and get a university degree, Ms. Moruwat said.

Seeing the image of women covered from head to toe brought a fire to the already existing fear within me, Ms. Moruwat said. This was a step towards erasing women from society once again.

In the 1990s, during the first Taliban rule, Afghan womens access to education, work and health care were severely restricted. Burqa coverings were mandatory, women werent allowed to be seen in public without men, and almost all female education was banned.

Since the Taliban seized power in August, they have tried to appear more flexible. Still, while schools have reopened for male students, a date for the return of female students has not been announced. In addition to requiring that women wear a hijab in schools, female students will not be allowed to study alongside male students, the Talibans higher education minister, Abdul Baqi Haqqani, announced earlier this month.

Its alarming to me because I feel like women will no longer have a role in society, and wed lose all the progress weve made over the last 20 years since we took back control from the Taliban, said Marjan Yahia, 28, who was born in Kabul and moved to Canada when she was 6.

Ms. Yahia, now a part-time makeup artist and student in Virginia, also joined the social media campaign with an Instagram post that showed her wearing an ornate kuchi with coins and mirrors sewn into it.

It was a gift from her father, who bought it for her during a visit to Afghanistan, Ms. Yahia said. The dress is special to me because it symbolizes freedom, she said. Before the Taliban took rule in Afghanistan, women had the freedom to express themselves through clothing, and its sad to see the freedom be taken away from them.

Follow this link:
#DoNotTouchMyClothes: Afghan Women Protest Taliban Restrictions on Rights - The New York Times

Last season, coach Matt Nagy and the Bears had a six-game losing streak. The season before, they lost four in a row.

Neither compares to their one-game losing streak right now.

After the Bears gained 47 yards on 42 plays last Sunday against the Browns, Nagy took criticism like never before. On Monday, one ESPN analyst wondered whether Nagy was trying to set up rookie quarterback Justin Fields to fail. Another called for his job. Later in the week, a debate show on the network wondered whether Fields should force his way out of town and away from this mess altogether.

Locally, it was worse. The Wieners Circle called for Nagys firing on the famous sign outside its building and passed along the link to a petition online. Bears fans on social media and in their own homes insulted Nagy like, well, he was a customer at The Wieners Circle.

The fire rages outside.

Where Im at right now is inside, Nagy said Friday. Im inside with these guys. Im inside this building. Im inside with everybody thats here together doing this.

In terms of self-preservation, the Bears game Sunday against the winless, historically hapless Lions thought of as a gimme as recently as 10 days ago is the most important of Nagys career. A loss would spin the Bears season further out of control and do nothing to quell concerns that Nagy despite his experience tutoring Patrick Mahomes in 2017 is the wrong person to shepherd Fields career.

More immediately, a loss would send the Bears down the long ramp toward another six-game losing streak, with the Raiders, Packers, Buccaneers and 49ers next on their schedule.

The McCaskeys never have fired a coach in the middle of a season. If Sunday is ugly, perhaps they would reconsider.

Nagy feels the pressure from inside and outside Halas Hall. Thats part of the reason that, for the first time in his head-coaching career, he refused to name a quarterback during game week.

He could have chosen to be bold and stake his reputation on a banged-up Andy Dalton or a still-reeling Fields but decided to act as though the injury report was deciding for him.

If Dalton cant play because of a bone bruise in his left knee and Fields shines, then Nagy made the right call. If Fields struggles, then Nagy was a victim of medical circumstance. If Dalton shines, then it validates him being Nagys starter. If he doesnt, its because of the knee. Nagy probably figures he cant lose unless the Bears lose the game.

Nagy bunkered himself in like never before during the week, playing coy about quarterback and play-caller alike. On Tuesday, he took the bizarre measure of asking his offensive players during a meeting what suggestions they had to fix the offense. Veteran Nick Foles chimed in with an idea; Fields said he didnt.

Either way, it was a bad look for Nagy for his offense to seem so lost so early in the season.

Were going to fight for him this weekend, tight end Cole Kmet said.

Well see.

For three seasons and three games, Nagy has done an impressive job of rallying his players and minimizing whatever rifts existed between a dominant defense and a popgun offense. If he cant hold his team together Sunday if his players wont fight for him its fair to wonder what exactly he does well.

For two-plus seasons, Nagys quarterbacks his area of expertise have been among the worst in the league. And play-calling might not be entirely under his control anymore. While he wouldnt say whether he had ceded that duty to coordinator Bill Lazor, its hard to believe Nagys bosses would accept another week with the same structure.

Nagy said Friday he wanted to keep the play-caller secret, so as not to give away tendencies to the Lions, the biggest walkover opponent the Bears will face all season.

As much as the coaches can take accountability of what happened [last] Sunday, the coaches werent out there playing, running back David Montgomery said. It was on us as an offense, us as a team, to get the job done. The play doesnt make the play; the player makes the play.

Montgomery is as close to Nagy as any player at Halas Hall. They communicate even when both are outside the facility, be it through FaceTime, text messages or phone calls.

He described Nagy last week as the leader we know him to be.

We still have a lot of opportunities and a lot of games to prove what were capable of, Montgomery said. Were still stuck together like glue.

If the Bears dont prove something Sunday, things will fall apart even more.

See original here:
Why Matt Nagy is facing the most important game of his Bears career - Chicago Sun-Times

In August, the world looked on in anguish as chaos erupted in Afghanistan. The United States was hastily withdrawing its forces after occupying the country for nearly twenty years, and the Talibandislodged from power a generation earlierwere swiftly regaining control. Panic swept across Afghanistans cities, and desperate citizens crowded the airport in Kabul in an attempt to flee.

Abdul Wahid Wafa, a longtime journalist from Afghanistan, was stunned but not surprised. For months, he had observed ominous signs of what awaited after the U.S. departure, and had been making plans for his family to leave. I knew that something is going to happen in Afghanistan, he told New Yorker subscribers, on Thursday night. The collapse was very gradual. I can remember that, months ago, I started calling my friends and colleagues, that I see something that completely goes to a wrong direction.

Wafa was speaking from the safety of Houston, where he and his family took shelter last month, following brief stops in Qatar and Mexico. A former Kabul-based reporter for the New York Times, Wafa was taking part in The New Yorker Live, a monthly digital event series for subscribers to the magazine. The panels other participants included Anand Gopal, who recently wrote in The New Yorker about support for the Taliban among Afghanistans rural women, and returned to the country last month, and Eliza Griswold, a contributing writer for the magazine who received a PEN Translation Prize for I Am the Beggar of the World, a collection of Afghan womens folk poetry. David Rohde, the executive editor of newyorker.com, who has reported from Afghanistanand who described his kidnapping there by a faction of the Talibanserved as the moderator.

In the video above, you can watch highlights from the discussion, which covered topics including Donald Trumps unprecedented decision to engage in negotiations with the Taliban; the responsibility that the Biden Administration bears for Afghanistans collapse; how ordinary Americans can aid Afghans; and the Talibans prospects for remaining in power. The event, which can be viewed in full by subscribers, was extended to allow the panelists time to answer questions submitted by members of the audience.

Details of the next edition of The New Yorker Live will be announced after the twenty-second New Yorker Festival, which begins on Monday and is open to both subscribers and non-subscribers. (Subscribers are eligible for discounted tickets.) New Yorker Live programming is available exclusively for subscribers, who can enjoy all past episodes at any time.

Read more from the original source:
The New Yorker Live: The Future of Afghanistan - The New Yorker

After the First World War, a conspiracy theory dubbed Dolchstosslegendeor being stabbed in the back was popularized in Germany to explain its historic military defeat. The myth claimed that the war had actually been lost by weak civilians who had caved to the enemy, signed an armistice, and stabbed in the back a brave German military that would otherwise have won.

There were echoes of that after the war in Vietnam, Stephen Biddle, a Columbia University professor and the author of Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, told me this week, as top U.S. military leaders testified about Americas defeat in its longest war. The loss in Vietnam was all President Lyndon Johnson and the feckless civilians who wouldnt let us do it right. Donald Trump invoked the same conspiratorial idea to explain just about everything that went wrong during his Administration, including his election loss. Stab-in-the-back myths can be poisonous in all sorts of ways, Biddle warned.

A month after the Biden Administration completed the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington is struggling to understand how its vast human, military, financial, and diplomatic investment, made over two decades, simply collapsed, with the Taliban sweeping back into power and the United States scrambling to get out. The rancorous debate over blame threatens to further divide the nation. In two days of testy and occasionally snarky questions, members of the Senate and House challenged the three men who oversaw the wars end to explain it. They were painfully candid. And there were plenty of mea culpas.

We helped build a state, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told a Senate panel on Tuesday. But we could not forge a nation. He questioned whether the United States ever even had the right strategyor, over two decades, whether it had perhaps too many strategies? The United States now has to acknowledge uncomfortable truths, he said. The fact that the Afghan Army that we and our partners trained simply melted awayin many cases without firing a shottook us all by surprise. And it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Americas most senior military officer, bluntly conceded failure at an incredible cost. Strategically the war was lost, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. The enemy is in Kabul.

The testimony revealed a chasm between what President Biden claimed came out of a lengthy consultation with his generals and what the Pentagon advised. The military recommended keeping a residual force of twenty-five hundred U.S. troops in Afghanistan, General Kenneth (Frank) McKenzie, Jr., the head of Central Command, testified. The goal was to prop uppsychologically even more than militarilyPresident Ashraf Ghanis fragile government and Afghan security forces to allow more time for elected leaders in Kabul to negotiate with the Taliban on the makeup of a transitional government. The rivals had been talking since last September, and the Taliban had refused to make major concessions. Under the plan, U.S.-led NATO forces would have been able to hold Bagram (a strategic air base that provided air support to Afghan forces; it was abandoned during the U.S troop drawdown). The timing of a future withdrawal would then depend on conditions, such as a successfully brokered peace, and not tied to an arbitrary date.

The sworn testimony was in stark contrast to the version Biden has offered the American public. Last month, the President claimed that the military never advised him to stay. In an interview, ABCs George Stephanopoulos asked him, So no one toldyour military advisers did not tell you, No, we should just keep twenty-five hundred troops. Its been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that? Biden replied, No. No one said that to me that I can recall. The White House has been scrambling to rectify the discrepancies. These conversations dont happen in black-and-white, like youre in the middle of a movie, the White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. Pressed by Republicans about their conversations with Biden, the Pentagon leaders declined to criticize him. I was present when that discussion occurred and I am confident that the President heard all the recommendations and listened to them very thoughtfully, McKenzie testified. Thats all any commander can ask.

Other themes emerged from the testimony that may prove more important in understanding the scope and consequences of an epic failure by the worlds most powerful nation against a guerrilla insurgency that lacked both armor and air power. The fallout will extend well beyond South Asia. Our credibility with allies and partners around the world, and with adversaries, is being intensely reviewed by them to see which way this is going to go, Milley told the Senate committee. I think that damage is one word that could be used, yes.

A deeper assessment of Americas mistakes, which were many, is still to come. This is a twenty-year war, Milley told the House committee on Wednesday. It wasnt lost in the last twenty days, or even twenty months, for that matter. There is a cumulative effect to a series of strategic decisions that go way back.

Milley cited many decisive factors and pivots: he noted the problem of Pakistan offering sanctuaryfor decades, and continuing to this dayto the Talibans fighters and leadership. The U.S. military was just a thousand metres from Osama bin Ladens hideout in Tora Bora in the first two months of the U.S. intervention in 2001; the Al Qaeda leader slipped away into Pakistan, where he hid for another decade.The general didnt get into politics or diplomacy, but none of the four Presidents who waged the war was able to get Pakistan, a nuclear power which sees the Taliban as an ally against its archrival, India, to contain the extremist movement. The Pentagon leaders admitted to other mistakes: poor U.S. intelligence; endemic Afghan corruption exacerbated as the U.S. poured billions of dollars into the country; the Doha agreement negotiated between the Trump Administration and the Taliban that excluded the elected Afghan government; and especially the U.S. militarys fundamental misreading of the Afghan militarys lack of leadership, morale, and will.

Austin, a former four-star general who served in Afghanistan, was explicit in a stream-of-consciousness list of the mistakes the U.S. made in simply misunderstanding Afghanistan. That we did not fully comprehend the depth of corruption and poor leadership in their senior ranks, he said, that we did not grasp the damaging effect of frequent and unexplained rotations by President Ghani of his commanders, that we did not anticipate the snowball effect caused by the deals that Taliban commanders struck with local leaders in the wake of the Doha agreement, that the Doha agreement itself had a demoralizing effect on Afghan soldiers, and that we failed to fully grasp that there was only so much for whichand for whommany of the Afghan forces would fight. A fatal flaw in U.S. strategy, the Pentagon officials said, was trying to create a military that was a mirror image of the sophisticated U.S. military in a poor South Asian nation with limited literacy. It was costliest for Afghans. Somewhere between sixty thousand and seventy thousand members of the Afghan security forces died in the twenty-year war, compared to more than twenty-four hundred U.S. service members. An estimated forty-six thousand Afghan civilians perished, too. The United States had the technology to track the Afghan military in its fight with the Taliban, Milley said, but failed to grasp how its pullout would affect Afghan morale. You cant measure the human heart with a machine, he said.

See the article here:
Afghanistan and the Haunting Questions of Blame - The New Yorker

Afghanistan. Illustrated | iStock, Library of Congress

The United States will continue "over the horizon" strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said Thursday, a month after the U.S. war in Afghanistan theoretically came to a close. The statement raises an important question: Just how completely did the war end?

When President Biden first announced his withdrawal timeline in May, his administration sent decidedly mixed messages. Biden himself had long favored keeping a residual American force on the ground indefinitely. Reports at the time indicated U.S. airstrikes would continue, a sizable presence of "clandestine Special Operations forces, Pentagon contractors, and covert intelligence operatives" would remain, and many recently exited U.S. forces would set up shop in nearby nations and waters so they could continue training Afghan allies and conducting airstrikes.

Clearly some of that plan has changed following the chaotic U.S. withdrawal and Taliban takeover of Kabul. In recent weeks, Biden has rejected the residual force idea. Hopefully, we're no longer training the military of an Afghan government that no longer exists. But the status of clandestine troops, contractors, and spies is more uncertain. In early September, the Biden administration said only 100 to 200 Americans remained in Afghanistan. But some U.S. contractors aren't American, and if the Special Ops forces and spies were still present, they might not be included in that count. Admitting covert operatives are still in the country kind of ruins the whole "covert" thing.

Then there are these "over the horizon" strikes, which Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby clarified aren't exclusively drone hits, like the recent U.S. strike that killed seven children and no terrorists. "It doesn't even always have to mean aviation," Kirby said. "'Over the horizon,' as [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] defined it, means that the strike, assets, and the target analysis comes from outside the country in which the operation occurs."

Story continues

In other words, plans to restation U.S. forces just outside Afghan borders may be significantly unchanged. (Strangely, those forces may set up shop on Russian military bases.) Some of these strikes if they're not airstrikes may even have U.S. boots once again on Afghan ground. And the strikes will fall under the aegis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That's the very authorization that launched the war in Afghanistan, the war that's supposed to be done.

Jimmy Fallon and Nicole Kidman almost make it through an interview without residual awkwardness from dating miss

7 painfully funny cartoons about America's endless vaccine fights

Largest U.S. police group appears to counter Sen. Tim Scott's argument that Democrats sought to defund police in reform negotiations

Go here to see the original:
A hint the Afghanistan war isn't really over - Yahoo News