Yes. But ultimately it comes down to this. Trying to go and affect rapid change on a culture and society is no easy task. It is difficult to predict and control, and almost certainly full of unintended sideeffects and costs.
To jump into any attempt to affect change without really REALLY carefully considering what the actual goals are, what the acceptable costs on the sides of all parties are, and even what tools and strategies are available or possible is literally how you end up with Afghanistan.
For example, say we decided to go in there and change things. Do we go and punish those who partook in this? What happens if the potential backlash from imposing punishment is too way to even consider it? How then do you answer the cries of the victims asking for justice? Yes, you could answer with all sincerity and truthfulness that you cannot go after their tormentors for the good of all future people. But it still sucks, and if you're not careful, you can find yourself not just in a shitty situation, but also causing all sorts of unintended problems where you're trying to fix things.
These are clearly not easy issues, and I do not mean to say that these problems or issues should always deter from action. What I do mean to say is that "OMG, that's terrible, can't we do -SOMETHING- about that?" is a fine, and acceptable first response. But if that becomes your guiding philosophy, then you're going to have a harddd time.
Forcing cultures to change their barbaric ways has been done successfully in the past. A quote, from Charles Napier (Britain's Commander in Chief of India), on the topic of burning women:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
To jump into any attempt to affect change without really REALLY carefully considering what the actual goals are, what the acceptable costs on the sides of all parties are, and even what tools and strategies are available or possible is literally how you end up with Afghanistan.
For example, say we decided to go in there and change things. Do we go and punish those who partook in this? What happens if the potential backlash from imposing punishment is too way to even consider it? How then do you answer the cries of the victims asking for justice? Yes, you could answer with all sincerity and truthfulness that you cannot go after their tormentors for the good of all future people. But it still sucks, and if you're not careful, you can find yourself not just in a shitty situation, but also causing all sorts of unintended problems where you're trying to fix things.
These are clearly not easy issues, and I do not mean to say that these problems or issues should always deter from action. What I do mean to say is that "OMG, that's terrible, can't we do -SOMETHING- about that?" is a fine, and acceptable first response. But if that becomes your guiding philosophy, then you're going to have a harddd time.