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

[Jack Dalton]

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]

That's super fucked

 

[Ooh-Rah]

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

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

 

[AWP]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

M.

 

[AWP]

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

'Merica.

 

[The Accountant]

Fucking. Horrible.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

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]

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

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

 

[Gunz]

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]

...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]

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.]

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]

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.]

Forget it Jake, it's Chi- Afghanistan.

 

[BrassOverBolt]

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]

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.