# U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys



## Jack Dalton (Sep 21, 2015)

Excerpt:
"While researchers may argue whether this [sexual initiation] can rightly be termed abusive when seen through a lens from within the culture, it is not arguable that it involves a great imbalance of power and/or authority to the disadvantage of the boy involved."

This is terrible. Just further goes to show that not every culture is equally respectable. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/w...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 21, 2015)

That's super fucked


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2015)

Daily Mail got it...things will get interesting now.

Father of Marine says ignoring sexual abuse was factor in son's death


----------



## AWP (Sep 21, 2015)

This is nothing new to anyone who has read up on Afghanistan. There was even an official guide printed and issued to soldiers years ago that covered the topic. That met with outrage and disgust but obviously we did nothing about it. We say it is a "cultural" thing and we aren't there to change their culture, but then we're signing off on raping children. 'Merica.

One other troubling facet is a scenario which I'm told plays out in Robin Sage. An ODA commander witnesses or is privy to a war crime. If he doesn't report it to his boss he's in trouble. If he reports it and the G Chief finds out there are repercussions. Whatcha' gonna' do PL? We're evaluating leaders on their decisions but still figuring out what to do. In the Captain's case he's paying for his choices so how many future commanders will look the other way in their quest for the next pay grade?

It is a moral question for which we don't have any answers, but we like to show the world how much we respect human rights.

The whole thing is ugly.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 21, 2015)

The biting end of this situation is that the US military can NOT change the cultural norms or biases of the host nations in which we operate; we CAN _attempt_ to educate or discourage any practices that are foreign to our cultural sensibilities, in the areas that have been deemed sovereign to our troops (our bases/embassies) but we have no way to change the endemic practices of a foreign culture wholesale and in quick order because it 'offends' our sensibilities, even if it is not fully accepted by the culture itself. 

Although these acts are despicable, the ruling class of the host nation practice them to the chagrin and horror of their people, and claim that right by dint of their interpretation of their cultural/religious/social guidebook; we are damned if we try to change them, and damned if we don't- we are in their country at their invitation and at their whim/pleasure.

This is a set of examples of the rabid sheepdog being as evil and dangerous as the wolf itself.   Especially in the case of Islam, wher ethe  'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are using only barely different interpretations of the same instruction manual, the Q'ran.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 21, 2015)

x SF med said:


> The biting end of this situation is that the US military can NOT change the cultural norms or biases of the host nations in which we operate; we CAN _attempt_ to educate or discourage any practices that are foreign to our cultural sensibilities, in the areas that have been deemed sovereign to our troops (our bases/embassies) but we have no way to change the endemic practices of a foreign culture wholesale and in quick order because it 'offends' our sensibilities, even if it is not fully accepted by the culture itself.
> 
> Although these acts are despicable, the ruling class of the host nation practice them to the chagrin and horror of their people, and claim that right by dint of their interpretation of their cultural/religious/social guidebook; we are damned if we try to change them, and damned if we don't- we are in their country at their invitation and at their whim/pleasure.
> 
> This is a set of examples of the rabid sheepdog being as evil and dangerous as the wolf itself.   Especially in the case of Islam, wher ethe  'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are using only barely different interpretations of the same instruction manual, the Q'ran.


Agree, however, we don't have to pay the pedophile.
We can boot him off of our FOB's or take a team away from an Afghan Installation.
No team, no money.
No team, no radio,
No radio, no A-10.

Of course I'd just tell everyone we won and bring all our troops home.
Let the dickweeds fight it out.


----------



## pardus (Sep 21, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Agree, however, we don't have to pay the pedophile.
> We can boot him off of our FOB's or take a team away from an Afghan Installation.
> No team, no money.
> No team, no radio,
> ...



Then there was no point staying there beyond the first few weeks in which we (USA and Northern Alliance) kicked the Taliban/Al Qaeda out of the country.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 22, 2015)

This fucking makes me sick. Fuck these savages....

M.


----------



## AWP (Sep 22, 2015)

It was a good war that we fucked up and the world is actually worse off because of it.

'Merica.


----------



## The Accountant (Sep 22, 2015)

Fucking. Horrible.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 23, 2015)

Blouse your boots before reading this one, gents - the streaming bullshit runs deep and thick throughout -

The General who is outraged to find gambling in this establishment

An update on Sergeant 1st Class Charles Martland, the Green Beret who claims he is being booted from the Army for coming to the rescue of one of the kids and "assaulting" an Afgan male

The father of a Marine LCPL who's son was gunned down by a one of the kids -
_"According to the father of Lance Corporal Gregory Buckley Jr, 21 - who was gunned down on Helmland Province in 2012 by a 17-year-old Afghan 'tea boy' for local police chief Sarwar Jan - the alleged 'blind eye policy' was the reason his son was killed."_

And of course the always reliable and comforting press release from the State Dept -
_"We continue to encourage the Afghan government and civil society to protect and support victims and their families, while also strongly encouraging justice and accountability under Afghan ltaw for offenders."
_
General denies there is a policy to ignore sexual abuse of Afghan boys


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 23, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Blouse your boots before reading this one, gents - the streaming bullshit runs deep and thick throughout -
> 
> The General who is outraged to find gambling in this establishment
> 
> ...


Damage control, this is something the media won't ignore.
Too bad the GO involved hasn't been outed.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 23, 2015)

You can't tame the savages. You can give them weapons and teach them how to use them but you can't, in your limited capacity and commitment, erase centuries of cultural, religious and moral indoctrination. No matter what kind of rapport you build with your counterparts, chances are you're not going to get them to think and behave like Americans. And when your sense of morality and decency compels you to interfere,  you run right into the realization that whatever the depravity or outrage,  up the chain  only the Big Picture matters.


----------



## Grunt (Sep 23, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...General denies there is a policy to ignore sexual abuse of Afghan boys



I'm sure there isn't a policy until an American throat punches one of them in defense of one of the "rape" victims. If it was up to me, we would throat punch them all, but, no one is asking me for my opinion on how to remedy their age-old issues.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 27, 2016)

Interesting counter-perspective on this situation:



> In the recent outcry from those in support of SFC Charles Martland, who assaulted and Afghan officer because the mother of a child stated that the officer molested her son, there has been many comments made about Army Values. There has been a cry from those who believe that he was acting out of the noblest of virtues. Quite simply, he was not.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 27, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Interesting counter-perspective on this situation:



"His orders precluded his morals from having justification."

Thanks for the post, this is an interesting read, and without being fully cognizant of all the facts I agree with much of the article. One critical point for me remains this: "SFC Martland did not happen upon the act as it occurred. He was told afterwards."
Because this also suggest a "cool down" period.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 27, 2016)

I wasn't aware his reaction was after the fact but I stand with my opinion 3 posts above. The locals are gonna do what they're gonna do and your indignation or outrage at their behavior doesn't mean jack shit in the greater scheme of things. An individual Soldier or Marine is not the arbiter of justice in a foreign country. You may see these motherfuckers perform outrage after
outrage and it's something you can cry in your beer about for the rest of your life. It is what it is. If you witnessed it and did not have the authority to stop it, then it isn't your fault or responsibility. If you did not witness it you need to just forget about it and move the fuck on.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 27, 2016)

Forget it Jake, it's Chi- Afghanistan.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Mar 27, 2016)

While I agree that we should not go to war specifically to spread our morals in other sovereign nations, Why are we there to begin with in a "nation building occupation"? Good luck having an independent and functioning Afghanistan in which there is rule of law if the ANA and ANP can seemingly have carte blanche without consequence. If we are to say "their soil, their rules" then we should not be there and let the chips fall where they may. Alternatively if we just wanted the Taliban out of power it was done earlier on and we should have left it to Karzai and the Northern Alliance back in 2001. If its just about destroying the Enemy then Total War or no war. If you are to go to war do so with a clearly defined objective that makes sense for the long haul or not at all. Yes, every service-member should not necessarily act unilaterally in uniform but neither should bureaucratic principles be the only rule in which you act as a human being IMO.

As far as the authors statement, "His orders precluded his morals from having justification" with that you could justify ANY action or process no matter how heinous. Nuremberg trials anyone?

Though I'm sure many of you on this board have personal experience in these conflicts so I may be preaching to the choir.

-EB


----------



## AWP (Mar 27, 2016)

EchoBravo said:


> While I agree that we should not go to war specifically to spread our morals in other sovereign nations, Why are we there to begin with in a "nation building occupation"? Good luck having an independent and functioning Afghanistan in which there is rule of law if the ANA and ANP can seemingly have carte blanche without consequence. If we are to say "their soil, their rules" then we should not be there and let the chips fall where they may. Alternatively if we just wanted the Taliban out of power it was done earlier on and we should have left it to Karzai and the Northern Alliance back in 2001.



"Nation building" came about years after Kabul fell in 2001. With UBL on the run and the fear of an Al Qaeda/ Taliban return, we had to justify our presence in Afghanistan. One reason we failed there is because we continuously changed our desired end state. "Their soil, their rules" is a valid piece of a COIN strategy but not the whole pie. We can't bring about a "little America" anywhere on the planet, so we have to find a local framework in which to encapsulate American ideals/ beliefs. You can only impress your culture upon another when they are overlapping, not polar opposites. Your last sentence greatly oversimplifies the situation in late 2001- early 2002. Karzai survived and later held on by the slimmest of margins, valiantly trying to screw it all up before the party really started. The Northern Alliance was overextended just taking Kabul and lacked the ethnic makeup to ever rule the country.

Karzai was really a fringe competitor who fumbled his way to power. The CIA had competing Afghans with offices and agents championing one over the other. Karzai was arguably the most vanilla and received the US nod because he was, at the time, bland and malleable.

Our gravest mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq is the notion that we should included even the slimmest margin of minorities as equals. This culture is not even close to accepting such concepts and while it plays well in the West it is science fiction in Asia/ the Middle East.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 27, 2016)

Gardez, 2002, locals complain of boys being kidnapped by local warlord soldiers....asked for help, we looked into it and started doing night patrols in specific areas. Seemed to help....but we never really addressed the issue as much as we could have.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Mar 28, 2016)

Freefalling, I appreciate the insight. 
Perhaps this belongs in the collapse of Afghanistan thread or another on COIN. Do you think that the United States should maintain a sphere of influence with military presence in regions who are polar opposites even if their interests may branch from ours?


----------



## AWP (Mar 28, 2016)

EchoBravo said:


> Freefalling, I appreciate the insight.
> Perhaps this belongs in the collapse of Afghanistan thread or another on COIN. Do you think that the United States should maintain a sphere of influence with military presence in regions who are polar opposites even if their interests may branch from ours?



Absolutely! A nation doesn't exist to benefit the citizens of other nations. If our interests merge that is great, but at times they won't; see also, the UK, Canada, etc. The thread around about Vietnam is a good example of working with old foes (Vietnam) to offset the new hotness (China). On a certain level it may gall us to do so, but people and nations need to look forward and not behind them...or at least they should stop staring.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Mar 28, 2016)

I Agree. Thanks for the time and response


----------



## Gunz (Mar 28, 2016)

EchoBravo said:


> While I agree that we should not go to war specifically to spread our morals in other sovereign nations, Why are we there to begin with in a "nation building occupation"? Good luck having an independent and functioning Afghanistan in which there is rule of law if the ANA and ANP can seemingly have carte blanche without consequence. If we are to say "their soil, their rules" then we should not be there and let the chips fall where they may. Alternatively if we just wanted the Taliban out of power it was done earlier on and we should have left it to Karzai and the Northern Alliance back in 2001. If its just about destroying the Enemy then Total War or no war. If you are to go to war do so with a clearly defined objective that makes sense for the long haul or not at all. Yes, every service-member should not necessarily act unilaterally in uniform but neither should bureaucratic principles be the only rule in which you act as a human being IMO.
> 
> As far as the authors statement, "His orders precluded his morals from having justification" with that you could justify ANY action or process no matter how heinous. Nuremberg trials anyone?
> 
> ...



I have personal experience being embedded with a foreign military and witnessing certain activities which, under the UCMJ, would be subject to prosecution and courts martial, had those activities been carried out by Americans.

When we get involved with foreign conflicts or engage in operations in host countries, quite often the circumstances are so complicated as to preclude any one simple strategy with a single goal. There is no magic bullet to resolve all the facets of a particular conflict, so sometimes we have to settle for partial success in one area.

Nation building, in my opinion, is a natural offshoot of our extended presence in a Third World environment and is facilitated by our political designs and logistical and tactical needs. In other words, if we're going to conduct combat operations someplace for years on end, whether or not it was our original intent, our influence is going to permeate many aspects of that particular society...and not always in a good way.

But some things will always resist foreign influence, like religion, morals, ethics, long standing cultural traditions. You cannot change everything to be how you want it...but that fact can't stop you from proceeding with actions and obligations in your own national interests...if those interests are intimately associated with a foreign intervention.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 28, 2016)

Do they still put the war crimes incident into courses like they did in the 90's? (that was a hypothetical question BTW).

We can't tell people to report war crimes/crimes against humanity; then do nothing when they get reported.

IIRC eliminating child rape was one of the things the Taliban prosecuted, so guys like this would have been strung up.  Not doing anything about the pedophile gives the impression we condone it, how does that work in the hearts and minds scheme of life?

Say mom and the kid get pissed at inaction, and start feeding info to the taliban, or the kid grabs an AK next time he is used as rape date and whacks some of our guys?  Then what, we wring our hands and say they can not be trusted?


----------



## metalmom (Mar 28, 2016)

I was never over there but know the Taliban like their little boys. Not sure about your orders-but if I saw something happening like that I would still want to do something. It is hard to accept that people see this and just carry on. Please know there is no blame,from me- but I am adamant in protecting youth in any country.Maybe if I was over there I would be desensitized or think like you guys.Not all you guys-I see some want to exact change. I have been called a racist by my son-my only child for yrs. I am not. But hate men in certain cultures.  DA SWO=I think they have been picking up their AKs or whatever for so many yrs. As far as I now we-Canucks too-never won the hearts and minds-not really. If m wrong let me know-lol-you will anyway.


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Absolutely! A nation doesn't exist to benefit the citizens of other nations. If our interests merge that is great, but at times they won't; see also, the UK, Canada, etc. The thread around about Vietnam is a good example of working with old foes (Vietnam) to offset the new hotness (China). On a certain level it may gall us to do so, but people and nations need to look forward and not behind them...or at least they should stop staring.



If Cali is paying hoods NOT to engage in crime, why not offer incentives to the Afghan government?


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Absolutely! A nation doesn't exist to benefit the citizens of other nations.



While true, there are times when I wonder if some of our decision-makers understand that.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> If Cali is paying hoods NOT to engage in crime, why not offer incentives to the Afghan government?



That worked out so well with Pakistan...


----------



## Grunt (Mar 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> If Cali is paying hoods NOT to engage in crime, why not offer incentives to the Afghan government?



We shouldn't have to offer them OUR money to change THEIR ways! If they don't want to change bad enough to do it themselves, we shouldn't have to pay them to do it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 28, 2016)

Martland has been reinstated.



> I definitely didn’t see that one coming.
> 
> In a move described as a “stunning reversal” by Fox News, the Army announced today that Sergeant First Class Charles Martland will be allowed to continue his military service after all.  You might recall SFC Martland as part of the Special Forces duo who confronted an Afghan warlord over the alleged abuse of an Afghan “tea boy” (i.e. sex slave).  The confrontation ultimately turned physical, and Martland and his compatriot were reprimanded by the Army.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 29, 2016)

OUTSTANDING!!!!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 29, 2016)

Reinstated is great news, they should also remove the letter of reprimand from his permanent record. With news coverage this has gotten it's pretty clear he was in the right, regardless of policy.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 29, 2016)

Okay, why?

This never happens.  While I am pleased that he will be able to stay in the Army, typically these types of decisions are not reversed...why so in this case?

My typical "follow the money" does not apply, so was there enough internal grumbling within the ranks?  Would that really make a difference?


----------



## Brill (Apr 29, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Okay, why?
> 
> This never happens.  While I am pleased that he will be able to stay in the Army, typically these types of decisions are not reversed...why so in this case?
> 
> My typical "follow the money" does not apply, so *was there enough internal grumbling within the ranks*?  Would that really make a difference?



THAT is the problem: the absence of "intestinal fortitude" to do the right thing for the soldier vice the "right" thing for the next grade.  He should be reinstated and then EVERYONE who recommend dismal immediately have their records scrubbed.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 29, 2016)

Because we don't stop standing for what we believe in regardless of where we find ourselves physically.

Warriors aren't changed by their environment...they remain Warriors and do what's right regardless of whether it's popular or not.

He did what was right...and those that would want to persecute him for it would be viewed as crumbs...IMO!


----------



## CDG (Apr 29, 2016)

It's not our place to throw our belief system on everyone else.  Is it fucked up?  Sure, no arguing that. But it's their country and their culture.   The article with a counter-perspective posted by @Marauder06 was spot on, IMHO.


----------



## moobob (May 3, 2016)

Don't agree with that at all @CDG . The SF unconventional warfare and FID missions do impart American values on the partner force through education on human rights education/war crimes, or intervening by force. We let illegal or immoral acts occur when there is no alternative and we'll have a catastrophic loss of rapport with out partners, like working with indig the initial invasion of a country or early stages of a war. Doing nothing can appear to mean we condone the acts, and that can have huge implications, both on the ground, and at the strategic level.

There is no one answer to how to react to these incidents eg. Just report it, do nothing, just report. As Americans, we have to live by our values, and doing nothing about child rape is the opposite. SFC Martland almost lost his career because of low character individuals trying to protect their own career by not providing top cover for their guys.


----------



## Etype (May 3, 2016)

CDG said:


> It's not our place to throw our belief system on everyone else.  Is it fucked up?  Sure, no arguing that. But it's their country and their culture.   The article with a counter-perspective posted by @Marauder06 was spot on, IMHO.


One of the biggest objectives of the vetting process, which is necessary to spend certain types of US funds, is to ensure the recipient of said funds has not been involved in war crimes or human rights violations.

@moobob is right. In some cases it's even more than a moral requirement, it's a legal requirement.


----------



## CDG (May 3, 2016)

I understand that.  What part of the vetting/teaching/training process involves an individual SF Soldier going hands on with a local national over a crime?


----------



## moobob (May 4, 2016)

I don't agree that the best course of action was to rough the guy up. I don't think it's worth a GOMOR and a relief for cause evaluation. Personally, I think beating someone's ass is a reasonable reaction to someone laughing about child rape, but at worst they should've been pulled back to the B team, counseled, and given time to cool off. SFC Martland is by all accounts an outstanding NCO. Kicking him out because he assaulted someone that ought to be summarily executed is asinine.


----------



## DA SWO (May 4, 2016)

CDG said:


> It's not our place to throw our belief system on everyone else.  Is it fucked up?  Sure, no arguing that. But it's their country and their culture.   The article with a counter-perspective posted by @Marauder06 was spot on, IMHO.


Then be glad the Republicans killed attempts at entering into the World Court Jurisdiction.
We shouldn't be expected to fund folks if their culture is counter to ours, what would the Taliban do to this rapist?
Stupid shit like this helped the Taliban gain control in the first place.


----------



## Etype (May 4, 2016)

CDG said:


> I understand that.  What part of the vetting/teaching/training process involves an individual SF Soldier going hands on with a local national over a crime?


The part where it's your responsibility as a US Service Member to prevent human rights violations.


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2016)

I'm happy SFC Martland was reinstated.

I deleted three paragraphs on why, sometimes, it can be prudent to look the other way when your indigs do something inadvisable simply in order to maintain rapport and cooperation and to avoid getting a bullet in the back your brain during the next contact... especially if you don't have strong support for your actions from _their _chain of command. I also deleted things I've seen counterparts do and even after reporting it, seeing it "quashed in the interests of allied harmony." I'm not talking about child molestation, that would be impossible for any of us to ignore. You can put them in a room and educate them about morality, decency, human rights, the restrictive ROE and the American Way...but if your trying to educate illiterate farmers, tribesmen, bandits and other Third World characters, don't be surprised if the lessons are sometimes forgotten in the field. In Africa, in the present day, battles can be won or lost by witchcraft. If your an advisor and you haven't taken into account your counterpart's beliefs in the supernatural, you might find yourself alone with your dick in your hand during the next attack.

@Frank S. summed it up nicely; in some situations "forget it, Jake...It's Chinatown."


----------



## CDG (May 4, 2016)

Etype said:


> The part where it's your responsibility as a US Service Member to prevent human rights violations.



What did he prevent?  He didn't happen upon the incident and stop it in progress.


----------



## CDG (May 4, 2016)

moobob said:


> I don't agree that the best course of action was to rough the guy up. I don't think it's worth a GOMOR and a relief for cause evaluation. Personally, I think beating someone's ass is a reasonable reaction to someone laughing about child rape, but at worst they should've been pulled back to the B team, counseled, and given time to cool off. SFC Martland is by all accounts an outstanding NCO. Kicking him out because he assaulted someone that ought to be summarily executed is asinine.



I agree that it wasn't worth kicking him out over.


----------

