Now we are there for the sake of abused women?

By now, we've all seen the photo of Bibi Aisha on the cover of Time Magazine and elsewhere, but in case you're making like Bin Ladin and living in a cave, here's a catch-up: she's eighteen years old. Along with her younger sister, she was given to a Taliban family as a blood price, and when she tried running away from the years of abuse, she was found in a shelter, held down by her brother-in-law, and her nose and ears were cut off by her husband. She agreed to show her maimed face to the world via Time, so that we all know what women in her country go through at the hands of the Taliban.

There has since been controversy over this cover story by some who think she is being pimped out for the sake of press, by some who feel that our "special" Western eyes shouldn't have to be exposed to photos of abused women, and by some who think that - in a magazine based in the U.S. - it should be a United States citizen who should be the face of abuse against women, not some Muslim chick from half-way around the world.

The controversy that gets me is in the title of the article, itself - the one that implies that a continued presence by US troops in Afghanistan will help women like Bibi Aisha. "What happens if we leave Afghanistan..." While there has obviously been some positive consequences to the US presence, like education for girls, the Taliban and their brutal power are still alive and well. It's unlikely that they will be eradicated no matter how long the current war goes on.

If we do continue the war in Afghanistan "for the sake of the women", what do we tell those in Iran, in Pakistan, in the Congo, or in Saudi Arabia? What about the women in Cambodia? Do you know that female infanticide still persists in some cultures? Do we go to war for that, too?

Here's the thing: Violence against women has been deemed okay in many cultures for millennia - this is nothing new. Women's groups and human rights groups have been shouting this out for decades. Yet, instead of bringing the subject of the abuse of women up at any other time, with a photo of one of the thousands of women worldwide who are maimed and beaten, raped, tortured and degraded, Time Magazine decided to show us a brutalized Afghan woman at a time when the continuation of the war is in question.

None of this is to say that Bibi Aisha's story shouldn't be told - in fact, it should. I'm glad that Time wrote her story, and I'm glad they put her photo on the cover. It is a tasteful pic that shows her beauty despite what's been done to her. But, what exactly are the intentions of the article in its timing and wording of the headline? How long it will take for the subject to be forgotten, replaced by some reality show inside scoop? Maybe she is being pimped out for press.

The war over violence against women won't be won with more violence. It will be won by keeping it in the headlines, showing the ugly pictures that we never want to see again, and supporting groups that are in the field, actively educating, protecting, and advocating for abused women. Groups like these:

• Amnesty International
• Women for Women
• National Coalition against Domestic Violence
• Global Fund for Women
• The 50 Women Project
• The UN's Division for the Advancement of Women

The war itself is creating more war in the form of domestic violence in the households of veterans, thus increasing violence against women here in the U.S. In light of that, here is some info on support for the men and women fighting the war for...what was it again?

Please don't make it about women.

Thanks to Brittany Jerlat for inspiring the conversation in her piece from Bust.