A Softer but Stronger Touch: Female Marines in Afghanistan

An article in the NY Times mentions a new military strategy to be used in the war in Afghanistan where units of female marines will accompany male squads on patrol as a way of building trust with Afghan women.  These marines will meet with Afghan women in their homes to gather intelligence and learn what the local needs for aid are in order to more properly meet them.  This is a welcome strategy, being more holistic and culturally-sensitive, attempting to reach to all parts of Afghan society instead of focusing solely on the male-dominated traditional leaders.  The article mentions that:

...when one of the teams visited a village in southern Afghanistan, a gray-bearded man opened his home to the women by saying, “Your men come to fight, but we know the women are here to help.”

This brings up issues about traditionally-perceived male aggression, and I am led to ask: why are men typically seen as being untrustworthy and hard-to-crack in matters of communication?  Although men and women communicate and relate to one another in different ways, there should be a time when men can be honest with one another, putting egos aside and engaging in meaningful conversation to reach a common goal.  There are of course times when a soft approach is not feasible and even more dangerous than the aggressive one, but both hard and soft strategies need to be considered in equal light by decision-makers.  In a realist-centered world where force is perceived as legitimate when protecting national interests, the use of force is often seen as the only effective way to protect national interests, usually leading to unnecessary war and death.  These means may lead to nominal peace eventually, but they do little to build long-term relationships and understanding between nations and people groups which could lead to long term peace that does not need to be ensured by force.

Situations like the North Korean nuclear crisis are prime examples where saber-rattling has led to greater harm and has been counterproductive in the pursuit of national security.  Past experience has shown that North Korea has been responsive to diplomatic efforts at negotiation so long as there was communication on an equal level and no isolating proclamations of North Korea belonging to an 'Axis of Evil' as Bush so passionately declared.  (For more on this subject see Roland Bleiker's article in International Affairs, "A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis.")

Back to Afghanistan, it's refreshing to see these deeper efforts being made by the military to connect with local people, learning their personal concerns, and promoting a cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship of understanding between them without having to resort to physical threats.  On a side note, it'd even be nice to see something like this happening locally in the US, where decision makers spend more time with common people to see first hand what they need the government to do for them, rather than keeping to exclusive circles out of reach of constituents.

All of these issues speak to the importance of including every part of society and giving voices to those who are often marginalized, as women often are in conflict situations.  Even if this strategy is just a means to the end of gathering intelligence, it can still foster valuable mutual understanding between both groups.