Have you seen this?

It’s the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine, and its story details the horrific ordeal of Aisha, an 18-year-old woman who was abused by her in-laws. Although she managed to flee to Kandahar, they found her and took her to a mountainside, where her husband mutilated her.

“When they cut off my nose and ears, I passed out,” Aisha said, describing the attack. “It felt like there was cold water in my nose. I opened my eyes, and I couldn’t even see because of all the blood.”

Aisha is now in the US for reconstructive surgery, courtesy of the Grossman Burn Foundation.

But Aisha’s haunting face isn’t alone on the cover. She shares it with

What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan

No question mark, no room for doubt, no opening for a conversation. Rather, a declaration – and accompanying a noseless face, a conclusion: This is how it will be when we’re not there to save them.

So the point of the article is that negotiating with the Taliban will moot the progress women have made in the past nine years – from education to participation in sports to parliamentary representation. It doesn’t address which women have benefited from this – those in cities? Rural areas? Rich? Poor? Those who’ve returned from abroad? Those in areas actually governed? But fine, ok. I get it.

The problem is that the narrative itself skips conveniently through history. It harkens back to a time when women were independent:

Kabul 40 years ago was considered the playground of Central Asia, a city where girls wore jeans to the university and fashionable women went to parties sporting Chanel miniskirts (p. 23).

The next year mentioned in the story is 1996 – when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan. There is no mention of the decades between, during which women’s independence eroded in the country. This is especially ironic, because the photo of Aisha – her pose, the angle of her face, the shawl around her head – is evocative of that iconic 1985 cover of National Geographic:

At the time this photo was taken, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was in its 5th year, and President Ronald Reagan was extolling the virtues of those brave Afghan freedom fighters, the Mujahideen: a group of guys, I’m told, not known for their tight embrace of women’s rights. Nowhere in TIME’s cover story is there any reference to the initial role that Cold War politics played in the transformation of society in Afghanistan.

Retracing his steps in 2002, the National Geographic photographer who took that picture went back to look for the anonymous girl and eventually found her. Her name is Sharbat Gula. She expressed regret that she had not been able to finish school, and hoped that her daughters would have an education. She also said this when she was asked if she had ever felt safe: “No. But life under the Taliban was better. At least there was peace and order.” Probably not surprising, given the chaos that ensued when the Soviets withdrew and the Mujahideen took over and proceeded to fight each other for control.

The TIME cover’s declaration also misses the transition the US has made from proxy warrior to occupying force. In any armed conflict between a state and a militant group, civilians fall victim to both sides. We’ve seen this again and again in South Asia from localized criminal enterprises like Veerappan to the civil war in Sri Lanka to the Maoists/Operation Green Hunt to the Northwest Frontier Province. “What Happens if We Leave” overlooks this basic point – that we have done and are doing far more damage in Afghanistan than we take responsibility for.

I was relieved to learn that Aisha is getting her nose back, and I hope she is able to re-enter Afghanistan and get her life back as well. But I think the TIME editors made a mess of using her story and her image to justify continuing presence in Afghanistan with those five simplistic words.

Thanks to K & S for comments.