Yesterday, the Washington Post had an article about how the CIA is now bribing warlords and chieftains in Afghanistan with Viagra, as opposed to say, money or guns. My first concern was about the health consequences of unlicensed U.S. government officials just handing out prescription medication to men for whom the potential effects could be grave. Having seen the Viagra commercials a million times, always explaining all of the risks associated with the drug (like any), that’s plain irresponsible.
But then this quote scared the fuck out of me and turned my attention elsewhere:
“You didn’t hand it out to younger guys, but it could be a silver bullet to make connections to the older ones,” said one retired operative familiar with the drug’s use in Afghanistan. Afghan tribal leaders often had four wives — the maximum number allowed by the Koran — and aging village patriarchs were easily sold on the utility of a pill that could “put them back in an authoritative position,” the official said.
A few paragraphs prior in the article, it’s discussed how “sex” has been a popular bribing tactic by the CIA and other intelligence agencies throughout history. The problem is that “sex” in this context, what with their mention of using attractive women as “bait,” very clearly means women’s bodies. And the same thing seems to be absolutely true here.
What does that mean? An authoritative position? Because to me, when I hear that the ability of a man to get an erection around his wife puts him back in an authoritative position, my mind screams rape rape rape rape rape. What else could one possibly mean by equating a man’s capacity for intercourse so closely with authority over a woman? (And any other possible explanation must by its very nature still be deeply misogynistic.)
Now, I’m not going to make a call as to whether any of the chieftains or warlords in question are actually using the drugs to commit rape, marital or otherwise. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether meaningful consent is possible under the circumstances of a polygamous marriage that the wives quite likely had little to no choice in, I haven’t spoken to the women to know. And I’m not going to just assume that anyone is a rapist, especially not solely on their belonging to a certain group. Further, as too many of us have learned personally, there is more than one way to commit rape, and an erection isn’t necessary, anyway.
What I’m concerned about is that regardless of any actual enabling of rape — which would of course make the situation far worse — the CIA seems completely aware of and okay with the prospect of their enabling rape. In fact, they’re the ones who seem to have first jumped to the conclusion, even if they likely wouldn’t use the word “rape” themselves, what with it making their actions seem much too icky.
All of this talk about passing out necessary tools for marital rape and allowing men to regain an authoritative position over their wives also strikes me as particularly ironic seeing as how a major method used to justify this war — other than repeating “9/11” over and over again — was by promising the “liberation” of Afghan women.
Seems like women’s bodies and autonomy are just an all-around popular tool of war for the U.S. government, no matter what stage of the deadly game they’re in.
h/t BFP‘s twitter feed