Women contractor employees finally get some respect

In some relatively good Friday news: the Pentagon is finally showing a small sign of recognition and respect for U.S. employees of U.S. military contractors (private "security" corporations hired by the U.S. government) who are sexually assaulted.

After pressure from Congress, the Pentagon will set up a system to monitor these assaults, and is developing plans of how to help survivors of assault, whether through medical, legal and other forms of assistance.

Many employees, most of them American, have had enormous trouble having their claims taken seriously. One Texas woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, sued Halliburton Co. and its former subsidiary KBR, after some employees gang raped her in 2005 while she was working for KBR in Iraq and the companies did nothing. Jones, who started a non-profit to support other assault survivors, said 40 former employees have contacted her "alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents -- and claim that Halliburton, KBR or other PMCs have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them," according to the United Press Press International, and there are surely more.

But the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations conducted only 25 sexual assault investigations between 2005 to 2007, according to the New York Times.

Sexual assault, many argue, is hardly given attention within civilian society, and is most definitely a low priority within a military culture with imperial interests. But for all the attention given to comraderie, trust, and military honor, one would think the treatment of women contractors and soldiers within a military environment should be taken far more seriously.

Talking with the Taliban, speaking for women

More folks today have joined the debate of whether the U.S. should talk with the Taliban, most claiming talks would be too dangerous and ineffective. In a New York Times column today on the subject, Richard Bernstein quotes Robert Mnookin, chairman of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law, at length -- in fact, he's the only source he consults for the whole of his column (so much for fair and balanced). Mnookin draws a comparison to Churchill's decision not to talk to Hitler at the height of World War II, and Bush's decision to refuse talks after Sept. 11. Negotiations with the Taliban now would fail and essentially give them more power and control, Mnookin said.

Mnookin also adds, “With control, I have no doubt they would shut down schools for girls and do lots of things that would be disastrous.”

Like hundreds of other political pundits, Mnookin cites the conditions of Afghan women as the first, or best (?), justification of why U.S. military force in Afghanistan must continue and alternative solutions to force must be discounted. One wonders how many Afghan women Mnookin has spoken with; do they share his concern, and does he speak for them? Afghan women do speak out -- in fact, Afghan women are quite strong and willing to organize -- and they say that while they suffered incredibly under the Taliban, all Afghans, especially women, will suffer as long as the U.S. occupation continues -- no solution within the context of a military occuation will prevent that. Mnookin's "saving Afghan women" argument is not only offensive, as it makes them bargaining chips without even a seat at the bargaining table, but also a red herring from the real argument -- whether talks would work to end the occupation more quickly, to strengthen the Afghan army, to supply humanitarian aid and job training, and allow Afghanistan to rebuild itself.

But since Mnookin brought it up: will talks hurt or help Afghan women? The jury's out. If only Goldstein could write his column about that.

(Photo: AP)