fb-pixel Skip to main content

Holding Taliban to their promises will be an uneasy role for US

I agree with the central premise of the editorial “The world must stay engaged with Afghanistan” (Sept. 14) — that women’s and girls’ rights under Taliban rule should be closely attended to by international bodies. However, I would like to comment on certain aspects of the approach.

The editorial, in discussing diplomacy with the Taliban, notes how they have promised the world to uphold women’s rights and have an obligation to protect those rights under international law. Yet a core notion that fuels recruitment within the Taliban is the demonization of the West and how the United States has broken promises to fit its own agenda. Due to this resentment, I believe that the United States would have little impact at the forefront of such a diplomatic effort.


A more realistic approach for upholding women’s rights in Afghanistan would be both to open up more specialized visas that allow Afghan women and girls to attend higher education in different nations and to use economic pressure through the Pakistani government.

Cat Lu


The Taliban can’t be trusted to change their ways

The editorial “The world must stay engaged with Afghanistan” certainly brings up some interesting points. But the Taliban cannot be made to alter their views or be trusted in an agreement. The people of Afghanistan, especially women, will suffer, but the Taliban will not change their cruel religious and fanatical ways. Your editorial sounds great, with all its musts, shoulds, and woulds, but it will be of no consequence in dealings with the Taliban.

Donald Marcus


What a difference 20 years makes

In 2001, our leaders told us that allowing the Taliban to control Afghanistan constituted an unacceptable security risk. After 20 years, trillions of dollars, and countless lives lost, our leaders now tell us that allowing the Taliban to control Afghanistan does not constitute an unacceptable security risk. I would like to ask them the question that prosecutors love to ask: “Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”


Douglas Latto