Afghanistan, as Canada and the US has a lot of laws on the books
that are ignored by more people than not. There's an old saw; "You cannot legislate morality" and there's a lot of truth in it. In any event, for this behavior what Afghan law says and what actually transpire are different and the law is effectively irrelevant at this time. It would be nice if that changed -- but external Armed Forces -- yours, ours, anyone elses -- are not the proper instruments to effect that change. Can gentle comments and subtle nudge be made? Yes -- but caution needs to be exercised and an overt push should not be contemplated by anyone military.
With respect to this:
Quote:
"However, what do you make of the devil's advocate position that females have been denied education in a LOT of conservative, traditional rural AFG for a looooooooooong time, and we (the Coalition) seem to be pushing hard to enable that scale of culture change?
Not a 'moral' question. Yet, the same caution I stated above applies; in this case we can just nudge harder. It is not the action but the actor and the degree of effort that is critical. Is the bulk of feminine freedom pressure coming from uniformed or civilian coalition folks and how much local support for the coalition position exists? It's one thing to insist on elimination of age old custom when the issue is overt and acknowledged (female status) and yet another when the issue is denied and hidden (pederasty). Try pressuring one of your friends to stop doing something they hide but you know they do; then try to get a Police Officer to accost them about it...
Rex, as usual, has it pretty well right.
My concern is not to get Private Snuffy (or Lieutenant Heebly, much less Colonel Blimp) caught in a bind that's beyond their power to fix and then criticize them for failing.
Which, as I read the Letters to the Editor in the Toronto Star this morning seems about to happen. Just as I said early on in this thread...
I think that could be greatly ameliorated by an assurance that although it happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
My concern is not to get Private Snuffy (or Lieutenant Heebly, much less Colonel Blimp) caught in a bind that's beyond their power to fix and then criticize them for failing.
Which, as I read the Letters to the Editor in the Toronto Star this morning seems about to happen. Just as I said early on in this thread...
Its made abundantly clear that in regards to locations where coallition forces live it ain't gonna happen.
We can disagree strongly on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
Its made abundantly clear that in regards to locations where coallition forces live it ain't gonna happen.
Unless I'm mistaken, "My concern is not to get Private Snuffy (or Lieutenant Heebly, much less Colonel Blimp) caught in a bind that's beyond their power to fix and then criticize them for failing" if we do what you suggest is going to be over ridden by the fact that "It would be nice if that changed -- but external Armed Forces -- yours, ours, anyone elses -- are not the proper instruments to effect that change. Can gentle comments and subtle nudge be made? Yes -- but caution needs to be exercised and an overt push should not be contemplated by anyone military." I don't like it one bit either -- but that's not the issue.
It is none of any Armed Force's business. We are all human beings and have likes and beliefs but when one wears a uniform those are by necessity subjugated. Your proposal would do great harm to anyones attempts to get popular public support.
I'll defer to your wisdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Unless I'm mistaken, "My concern is not to get Private Snuffy (or Lieutenant Heebly, much less Colonel Blimp) caught in a bind that's beyond their power to fix and then criticize them for failing" if we do what you suggest is going to be over ridden by the fact that "It would be nice if that changed -- but external Armed Forces -- yours, ours, anyone elses -- are not the proper instruments to effect that change. Can gentle comments and subtle nudge be made? Yes -- but caution needs to be exercised and an overt push should not be contemplated by anyone military." I don't like it one bit either -- but that's not the issue.
It is none of any Armed Force's business. We are all human beings and have likes and beliefs but when one wears a uniform those are by necessity subjugated. Your proposal would do great harm to anyones attempts to get popular public support.
While continuing to remain somewhat confused in my youth as to why exactly maintaining a particular standard of acceptable activity strictly within those areas that are notably considered by the locals as "owned" by you is a bad idea.
I'm not wise, just old...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
While continuing to remain somewhat confused in my youth as to why exactly maintaining a particular standard of acceptable activity strictly within those areas that are notably considered by the locals as "owned" by you is a bad idea.
Antisocial behavior in the areas "owned" by you can be discouraged, even prevented -- the first question when you're in someone else's country is just how solid your 'ownership' really is (that is not to say your military control may not be complete...) and the second and more important question is whose Social rules, yours or the locals, you can or should enforce if any. The words 'Host Nation' have a meaning so I'm not at all sure you can own any territory and suggest it would not be smart to imply that you did and also suggest that US laws do not apply to locals of that host nation -- neither does US morality.
The issue is acceptable behavior from a military standpoint -- that's your bailiwick. Morality of the population is emphatically and positively not a military matter and therefor it's way outside your bailiwick. I have seen fairly senior people correctly relieved for such interference with local mores and customs because of the potentially adverse impacts on mission.
Such attempts to interfere are judging and dictating morality for others -- it's what the so-called Taliban do -- and you see where it got them...
One can personally object but as a matter of military policy, one has no right to endanger troops in enforcing personal views on moral matters. One can and should report problems perceived up the chain but when it comes to addressing religious or moral affairs, that really has to be a pure civilian effort -- and as Rex said, the locals really have to do it themselves. One can, of course, express personal discomfort to the locals about such matters but I'd strongly recommend one consider the mission before doing so...
I think we may be more in agreement then it appears at first
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
While continuing to remain somewhat confused in my youth as to why exactly maintaining a particular standard of acceptable activity strictly within those areas that are notably considered by the locals as "owned" by you is a bad idea.
You'll note that I specifically mentioned it in the context of the "eyes of the beholder". Although a force such as ours may not be seen as "owning" anything let alone that we don't particularly want to; there is still an inherent perception by a given populace of responsibility one carries in what happens on their shift. Would it not be almost legitimizing acceptance of said things by quietly standing by and still allowing it to happen.
I remember the old saying- " all it takes is for good men to do nothing "
So rather than dictating anything to others the premise I am coming from is to lead by example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Antisocial behavior in the areas "owned" by you can be discouraged, even prevented -- the first question when you're in someone else's country is just how solid your 'ownership' really is (that is not to say your military control may not be complete...) and the second and more important question is whose Social rules, yours or the locals, you can or should enforce if any. The words 'Host Nation' have a meaning so I'm not at all sure you can own any territory and suggest it would not be smart to imply that you did and also suggest that US laws do not apply to locals of that host nation -- neither does US morality.
Addressed above but to further restate- one does not achieve change through actions against others but rather through ones own actions does change take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The issue is acceptable behavior from a military standpoint -- that's your bailiwick. Morality of the population is emphatically and positively not a military matter and therefor it's way outside your bailiwick. I have seen fairly senior people correctly relieved for such interference with local mores and customs because of the potentially adverse impacts on mission.
Such attempts to interfere are judging and dictating morality for others -- it's what the so-called Taliban do -- and you see where it got them...
Exactly the point, the reason that those such as the Taliban and others so often fail to provide that which they promise is simply in the fact that their actions do not reflect their words. This particularly sticky issue which as Rex pointed out was one of the proposed reasons for their initial rise to power may have been "enforced" on the populace but yet was known to be very prevelant within the leaders of the govt. Thus the unwritten rule of see no evil hear no evil becomes even more ingrained.
As has been noted that is something cultural which will have to change on its own and through its own channels in order for a real difference to be seen. Does that however change the fact that there are major cultural differences for those there fighting which they too hold dear and as such should absolutely not be forced to subordinate their own hard fought for values to local ones simply in order to avoid confrontation. I only say this while strongly of the belief that there can be a balance between avoiding trying to "enforce" morals and living by them without said confrontations.
The answer lies somewhere between doing something or doing nothing. Not sure that either is acceptable but rather an important distinction be made as to what makes where we are supposedly working to enable them to get to any better or at least different than what they already have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
One can personally object but as a matter of military policy, one has no right to endanger troops in enforcing personal views on moral matters. One can and should report problems perceived up the chain but when it comes to addressing religious or moral affairs, that really has to be a pure civilian effort -- and as Rex said, the locals really have to do it themselves. One can, of course, express personal discomfort to the locals about such matters but I'd strongly recommend one consider the mission before doing so...
I completely agree with this I just caveat it with an uninformed imagined notion of what it might be like for someone somewhere there doing their job-
Fighting to protect villagers from the enemy while at the same time they won't even protect their own children from themselves.
Sooner or later that strategic corporal's gonna lose it and then you'll have one heck of a storm to deal with rather than deciding up front to set at least some condition for their operations that allows them to fight without fighting against everything they've ever believed in.
All said from my way too comfortable Armchair while those there have to deal with the reality of it every day. May God bless them all.
The latest from the CN National Investigative Service....
....indicates that:
Quote:
a. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the initial allegations
concerning such incidents contained serious discrepancies, could not be corroborated,
were not reported to the chain of command and ultimately were not substantiated;
b. The investigation determined that CF Military Police in Afghanistan did not receive any
complaints on alleged sexual abuse of Afghan male children; and
c. The investigation found no evidence that any CF members committed any service or
criminal offences in relation to the alleged sexual abuse of Afghan male children
More in news release and backgrounder.
Also, a broader Board of Inquiry is still looking into the bigger picture surrounding the allegations.
The Latest: MSM coverage and Response
In response to recent media coverage of this issue (click here and here for more), Canada's Chief of Defence Staff signed the following letter to the editor (highlights mine):
Quote:
The Canadian Forces are made up of some of the most professional and courageous troops in the world, and Canadians have every reason to be proud of their hard work and efforts in protecting Afghans.
I wish to make it clear that, as the Chief of the Defence Staff, I hold myself and all members of the armed forces to the highest standard of professional conduct. Indeed, the legitimacy of the Canadian military derives from its embodiment of the values, beliefs and laws of the nation we defend. We conduct our operations in compliance with our international legal obligations.
Equally, we expect members of Afghanistan's security forces to meet their legal obligations, both national and international. Canada's military and police personnel in Afghanistan are mentoring their Afghan counterparts about the importance of professional conduct, including compliance with the rule of law.
Only by demonstrating the highest standards of conduct will the Afghan security forces earn the trust of the Afghan people. While the responsibility for complying with their national and international legal obligations rests with the Afghans, I expect members of the Canadian Forces to bring breaches of the law by Afghan security forces to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Once the Board of Inquiry referred to by Mr. Pugliese is completed, its findings and recommendations will be thoroughly reviewed and appropriate action taken.
I have every confidence that the members of the Canadian Forces, in the face of a very challenging security environment, are performing their very best to uphold our values.
General W.J. Natynczyk
Chief of the Defence Staff