The U.S. govt may talk about supporting the rights of women in Afghanistan, but the left needs to distinguish rhetoric from reality. During the 70's and 80's big union busting moves, I remember the rhetoric was that "the unions are corrupt and therefore it's no big loss if they are dismantled" -- the unions may have been corrupt, but the only _real_ complaint of Capital is that they're not corrupt enough. They weren't busting the unions because they were corrupt; they were doing it in order to rob the workers of any form of representation and organization.
Now the claim is that the war in Afghanistan is partly about supporting women's rights. Who are they kidding? What women's rights were they thinking about when they funded the fundamentalist Islamic movements in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan? What women's rights are they thinking about when they close those domestic institutions that are charged with protecting those rights? (Your latest email Doug.) What women's rights are they thinking about when they deny brith control and abortion rights to women around the world?
Joanna