-
Chlid Sex Abuse by AFG Security Forces?
MODS: Couldn't find this elsewhere, but feel free to move/delete if already being discussed.
This summer, a Canadian media outlet ran a story alleging
Quote:
Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault among the civilian population, says a military chaplain who counsels troops returning home with post-traumatic stress disorder....
The next day, speaking at a government committee hearing, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff is quoted saying
Quote:
"If somebody is being seriously abused, we are not going to stand by and see that continue. I expect young men and young women to have their actions mirror their values that they bring with them from Canada"
On 21 Nov 08, the Canadian Forces announced a BOI regarding
Quote:
.... the circumstances surrounding the allegations made last June of assault by Afghan National Security Forces members in the Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in late 2006 or early 2007 (originating) from allegations reported in the media of possible abuse of Afghan minors by Afghan National Security Forces.
To me, if the Coalition is there to help develop professional military and police forces, this is a real problem. However, in spite of major (righteous) public rage over the recent attack involving acid thrown at school girls and teachers, I sense some discomfort around the male abuse issue.
On the con side of dealing with this, is it our business to change something that, to my understanding, has been a cultural norm for a long time? This, from a recent Pakistani blog post (highlighting mine):
Quote:
....homosexuality in Pashtun society has been an open secret, although it might well be exaggerated. According to local tradition, many men live by the credo “Women for duty; boys for pleasure.” Indeed, Afghans often dress up pretty boys as girls, and have them dance in public. According to Afghan tradition, even birds cover their rear with their wings when flying over Kandahar....
On the pro side of dealing with this, though, how can a professional police/military force truly protect citizens whose kids may be subject to "chickenhawking" by said force members? If we're there teaching professional behaviour, shouldn't avoiding such behaviour be part of the plan?
Although I feel something should be done, I'm at a loss about how to deal with it. Or is this even NATO/ISAF/OEF's business?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milnews.ca
On the con side of dealing with this, is it our business to change something that, to my understanding, has been a cultural norm for a long time?
The Taliban's initial seizure of Kandahar in 1994 was (in the usual version of the story), in response to child sexual abuse of boys and girls. This was subsequently severely curtailed under their rule.
Consequently, any such abuses by the ANA and ANP play nicely into the Taliban's current messaging that "security was better under us..."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
The Taliban's initial seizure of Kandahar in 1994 was (in the usual version of the story), in response to child sexual abuse of boys and girls. This was subsequently severely curtailed under their rule.
Consequently, any such abuses by the ANA and ANP play nicely into the Taliban's current messaging that "security was better under us..."
Good point - never thought about how the Taliban would message it.
-
More....
....from Strategy Page:
Quote:
.... Foreign troops operating in southern Afghanistan quickly learn that this is a place where men are men, even if they are sexually attracted to other men, and especially boys. Other Afghans know about this, and a favorite bit of humor on the subject asks, "why do male birds fly over Kandahar flapping only one wing?" The punch line is, "so they can use their other wing to protect their rear end." Naturally, foreign troops are told to be careful with local ways, and not offend Afghans by mocking or criticizing local customs that offend, or amuse, foreign sensibilities.
This puts the Canadian military in an uncomfortable position. To admit to knowledge of these pederast practices would oblige them to intervene to prevent such abuse of children. This, of course, would raise an uproar among Afghans. First of all, Afghans officially deny that such practices exist. Islam forbids it, even though homosexuality and pederasty is common in many Moslem nations. Many powerful men indulge, and will use force to deal with anyone who brings public attention to such activity. But the Canadian public may demand that Canadian troops aggressively seek to halt such activity. Since the Afghan men in question tend to be armed, this will get ugly quickly.
Moreover, the Taliban and drug gangs have continued to recruit teenage boys for service as gunmen. Younger boys have been kidnapped, or bought from their parents, to satisfy the sexual needs of some Taliban and drug gang members. Underage kids are also used as suicide bombers. More boys than girls have been taken for sexual reasons....
-
Some more recent coverage
Shared in the interests of research and discussion....
Chaplain says senior officer aware of rapes by Afghans
Soldier recalls cries from boy brought onto Canadian base
Rick Westhead, Toronto Star, 14 Dec 08
Article link
Quote:
The boy was no more than 12. He wore a wig, lipstick and perfume and was dressed in a flowing robe when an Afghan interpreter escorted him to the entrance of the Canadian base in remote Afghanistan.
It was June 2006 and it was one of Tyrel Braaten's first days at Forward Operating Base Wilson, about 30 kilometres outside Kandahar.
Braaten watched as the local interpreter, who worked for the Canadians, ushered the boy through the security checkpoint and led him inside a nearby building.
The bombardier was bewildered. He asked another interpreter standing next to him who the boy was. The interpreter shrugged that the boy was one of "the bitches."
"I said, `What do you mean?' and he made the motion with his hips, like you know," said Braaten, 24. "I remember saying, `Are we on Mars? Does this s--- go on all the time?'"
The native of Saskatchewan is the latest soldier to come forward alleging in detail how young Afghan boys during his tour in Afghanistan in 2006 were regularly sodomized by Afghan interpreters and soldiers working alongside Canadian soldiers.....
-
I'm sure the media position is that the public has a right to know.
I'm equally sure the media do not care that the issue, while problematic in western terms, is -- at the specific juncture of east and west where it is occurring and noted -- extremely difficult to resolve and that such articles fed to fat, comfortable westerners who are in warm houses and well fed under nominally good government and the rule of law (heh...) will do nothing but excite a lot of babble and outcry that will change nothing and will serve only to put the poor CAF at risk...
-
Tough one, given history, but something needs doing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I'm equally sure the media do not care that the issue, while problematic in western terms, is -- at the specific juncture of east and west where it is occurring and noted -- extremely difficult to resolve
Too true, but I understand (see below) that OMLT members are starting to mention to AFG troops and cops they're training that it's not exactly cool doing this, cultural history or not, to people they're supposed to be seen to protect. Given all the other balls in the air for fighting and training troops, this is at least SOMETHING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
such articles fed to fat, comfortable westerners who are in warm houses and well fed under nominally good government and the rule of law (heh...) will do nothing but excite a lot of babble and outcry that will change nothing and will serve only to put the poor CAF at risk...
The Torch, a Canadian military web log, sums it up reasonably well, I think (offered in the knowledge that there's a Canadian military Board of Inquiry investigating allegations that have not been proven beyond mentions in mainstream media)...
Quote:
....My bottom line: if abuse like this is happening on Canadian FOB's, with Canadian troops turning a blind eye, then it needs to stop. I'm told that the OMLT's and POMLT's are already advising the ANSF that they mentor that regardless of cultural traditions, it's unprofessional conduct from a force whose raison d'etre is the protection of Afghan citizens.
By all means, let's make sure the CF is stopping the abuse where and when it can. But if you're looking to condemn the entire Afghan mission because of these accusations, remember there's still a big baby in that bathwater you're about to toss down the drain. Don't stop fixing anything just because you can't fix everything at once.
-
Something is being done. So sayest thou...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milnews.ca
Too true, but I understand (see below) that OMLT members are starting to mention to AFG troops and cops they're training that it's not exactly cool doing this, cultural history or not, to people they're supposed to be seen to protect. Given all the other balls in the air for fighting and training troops, this is at least SOMETHING.
I'm sure they are and equally sure the same thing is happening in US advised elements. That is all that should be done; to make a big production out of it will simply cause the Afghans to rebel in protest at excessive interference.
It is a cultural thing that will take years to change -- if it is ever changed. We have the same sorts of problems here in the west, we're just more discreet abou it -- or more PC and won't condemn it, one or the other.
Quote:
... I think (offered in the knowledge that there's a Canadian military Board of Inquiry investigating allegations that have not been proven beyond mentions in mainstream media)...
I read The Torch and SOMNIA everyday.
This was really my point:
Quote:
""
By all means, let's make sure the CF is stopping the abuse where and when it can. But if you're looking to condemn the entire Afghan mission because of these accusations, remember there's still a big baby in that bathwater you're about to toss down the drain. Don't stop fixing anything just because you can't fix everything at once.""
Well said. I was railing against (a) the ignorant and self serving media and (b) complacent and possibly well intentioned but also ignorant and self serving whining from those who don't have to either understand or contend with the problem about which they whinge.
-
Children are a commodity in Afghanistan
Yes this abuse by Afg SF may occur and is difficult to deal with. Let me try to place a little context around children in Afg.
IIRC in 2006-2007 there were reports of Afg children disappearing in the border provinces, only to be found in Pakistan minus their organs and President Karzai condemned this "harvesting".
Around the same time the UK press reported that Afg children were appearing in the UK, smuggled in, who needed to be cared for and were placed in (reluctant to act) local authority care at some cost. Shortly afterwards "relatives" would appear to claim the child, who was handed over and a tidy weekly sum paid to the "relative" for care. All the children were young boys and child slavery was suspected.
Afg is a poor country and I suspect poor families sell their children, not knowingly for "harvesting". IIRC an article on farmers selling children after a poor harvest appeared on a SWJ thread.
-
I'm torn, even if it IS a tough nut to crack...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I'm sure they are and equally sure the same thing is happening in US advised elements. That is all that should be done; to make a big production out of it will simply cause the Afghans to rebel in protest at excessive interference.
I wrestle with this one a lot. The idealist in me thinks someone should be doing more, especially in the context of training cops and soldiers who are supposed to be protecting the kids who are being abused. The realist in me, though, knows that aside from OMLTs including this as part of the informal cultural back-and-forth, the Coalition military's plate is already pretty full given the balls already in the air and the timeframe involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
It is a cultural thing that will take years to change -- if it is ever changed. We have the same sorts of problems here in the west, we're just more discreet abou it -- or more PC and won't condemn it, one or the other.
As is this, but I'm noticing a white-hot rage on this one compared to what I encounter on the abuse issue. Have to agree, though, on the "we're not there to impose our culture" - too many historic examples from all sorts of other cultures trying the same thing to be optimistic about the results of such an exercise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
This was really my point:Well said. I was railing against (a) the ignorant and self serving media and (b) complacent and possibly well intentioned but also ignorant and self serving whining from those who don't have to either understand or contend with the problem about which they whinge.
(a) Seen, and (b) as for what people say, what happened/didn't happen and why, I'd like to think the best intentions (yeah, I know, dream big), but am happy to let the BOI get to the bottom of it and share down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
IIRC in 2006-2007 there were reports of Afg children disappearing in the border provinces, only to be found in Pakistan minus their organs and President Karzai condemned this "harvesting".
Around the same time the UK press reported that Afg children were appearing in the UK, smuggled in, who needed to be cared for and were placed in (reluctant to act) local authority care at some cost. Shortly afterwards "relatives" would appear to claim the child, who was handed over and a tidy weekly sum paid to the "relative" for care. All the children were young boys and child slavery was suspected.
Afg is a poor country and I suspect poor families sell their children, not knowingly for "harvesting". IIRC an article on farmers selling children after a poor harvest appeared on a SWJ thread.
Thanks for sharing that - will track that down a bit (since I don't remember).
Thanks for the back-and-forth on this!
-
Just to reiterate a comment that I made in an earlier post—the Taliban's rise to political prominence in Kandahar occurred precisely because they clamped down against child sexual abuse (as well as a number of other acts that were widely considered immoral). While I don't doubt that the (male) child sex trade flourishes, I wouldn't presume that it has widespread local support.
Quote:
It is a cultural thing that will take years to change -- if it is ever changed. We have the same sorts of problems here in the west, we're just more discreet abou it -- or more PC and won't condemn it, one or the other.
Quote:
As is this, but I'm noticing a white-hot rage on this one compared to what I encounter on the abuse issue. Have to agree, though, on the "we're not there to impose our culture" - too many historic examples from all sorts of other cultures trying the same thing to be optimistic about the results of such an exercise.
The real key to addressing this is to determine—not assume—how the locals would react to actions taken to limit such abuses. At the moment, our real information level on that seems to hovering close to zero.
-
True. However
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
The real key to addressing this is to determine—not assume—how the locals would react to actions taken to limit such abuses. At the moment, our real information level on that seems to hovering close to zero.
while the Taliban did and do object to homosexual relations -- officially -- we probably also need to determine if they have different feelings toward our attempting to regulate local morality versus their attempting to regulate local morality. If they object even slightly to our doing so we'd give them a propaganda coup and a half. Not as simple as just what the locals themselves want -- though that is the prime issue.
What they want, not what we want them to want or wish they did want...
-
If memory serves me correct
I remember going into many remote Afghan villages where it seemed every blonde hair, blue eyed Afghan boy had his finger nails dyed. The signifignce to this is that marked them as the village (how to say this politically correct) sex slave I guess is best. This was rampant throughout the country.
On another note I'll never forget the video footage of an overwatch position from SAS folks showing an Afghan male utilizing a stump to put a whole new meaning to the "donkey show". Took weeks before I could keep a straight face whenever I heard a donkey hee-haw, and even now still chuckle sometimes.
One of the most difficult tasks is not to let your own culture and morals reflect upon executing your missions. Not too long ago we our selves were marrying much younger and having children with 13 year olds. It was the acceptable norm back then, as there are things we do now that others think are completely unacceptable.
-
Where's that local shining light when you need them
Sounds like it would be a good idea to look for the local face who has a problem with this too and the legitimacy to push for actions to deal with it.
Before as Rex mentioned the former group realizes an opportunity we'd rather they not have.
-
Would you not then be accused of using said local light
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
Sounds like it would be a good idea to look for the local face who has a problem with this too and the legitimacy to push for actions to deal with it.
Before as Rex mentioned the former group realizes an opportunity we'd rather they not have.
as a western puppet and therefor harming his lightness?
Messing with local beliefs and morals by an Armed Force (as opposed to many other agencies) is a really, really bad idea. The potential for express or implied coercion can have bad connotations. It should be diligently avoided like Wal-Mart says, All ways and Always...
-
What I get for not completing a thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
as a western puppet and therefor harming his lightness?
Messing with local beliefs and morals by an Armed Force (as opposed to many other agencies) is a really, really bad idea. The potential for express or implied coercion can have bad connotations. It should be diligently avoided like Wal-Mart says, All ways and Always...
I originally finished that post with an -
And jump on the bandwagon but decided against it.
That however is actually what I meant. The key to all such things is who's leading the effort. and the enabler's provided them be it support in physical, sociological or otherwise. It still comes back to those who choose such change from withiin their own populace.
While I get where your coming from I still think that in many ways choosing sides is not always as misconstrued by those we are there to help so much as attempts are made by those we're fighting against.
The idea of putting leaders you find on a pedestal because you agree with them should not necessarily be confused with helping to build pedestals for those who might otherwise not have the mike in which to speak.
Probably not a bad idea to knock down some pedestals to make it harder for those who can't sing to actually make it to said mike:wry:
-
Help is is in the eye of the helped...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
...While I get where your coming from I still think that in many ways choosing sides is not always as misconstrued by those we are there to help so much as attempts are made by those we're fighting against.
It will rarely be misconstrued by those "we are there to help" (though you'd be surprised at how often they wish we'd 'help' a little less...); it will always be misrepresented by those we're fighting against.
-
A probation officer's opinion of Afghan Sex Crimes
While many of these "sexual abuse" and "child molestation" incidents meet the criteria to be defined as sex crimes in the United States (and many other parts of the world), they may or may not in Afghanistan and other nations/cultures in the region. The fact is that many of the "laws" we have in the United States are actually legalized moral opinions. We need to tread cautiously when upholding the "law" because it may turn out that we're only upholding a cultural opinion/norm not shared by the "law breaker."
Do I find such behavior repugnant and despicable? Yes. Do I think they are sex crimes? Yes. Can the United States go around protecting the world from itself? No. If the behavior being observed violates local laws, then the United States and other peace keepers need to intervene. If not, then we need to do our best to influence the locals to change. However, we cannot impose our beliefs, customs, and laws upon cultures that do not share them
To do otherwise, no matter how strongly we may feel on the issue, is a sure recipe for the situation to head due south and ensure that we meet the same fate as the Soviets and others who have attempted to control the area.
-
First hand,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rtodhner
While many of these "sexual abuse" and "child molestation" incidents meet the criteria to be defined as sex crimes in the United States (and many other parts of the world), they may or may not in Afghanistan and other nations/cultures in the region. The fact is that many of the "laws" we have in the United States are actually legalized moral opinions. We need to tread cautiously when upholding the "law" because it may turn out that we're only upholding a cultural opinion/norm not shared by the "law breaker."
I'd tell you that every where I went, which covered from Helmand east and Abad south, the locals all denied that there was a pederast in their village, the terp and ANA indentified at least one, and based on the evidence (painted boys, etc.) they were correct more often than not. Coupled with the miracle of ITAS and other night vision, I can tell you it happens with 100% surety.
The locals deny this because of pride and machismo. IOT get involved, we would need to be much more connected to that particular tribe, and know the actual situation. In my experience, there is no way that will ever happen, the tribal mindset is simply too insular.
To heavy-handidly try to enforce the Afghan/Islamic law regarding homosexuality/child abuse would invariably come off wrong. Better would be an information campaign that advocates in the children's favor (think DoS), and turning over hard evidence (we have video of the actual events) to local prosecuter and pressuring action through their system.
Any direct action on our part becomes and change of mission and/or a tar baby.
Believe me, given that ROE authorized use of deadly force to prevent rape, I had a very hard time restraining myself and others. But until we call this a crusade, we will have to stick to our mission.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rtodhner
Do I find such behavior repugnant and despicable? Yes. Do I think they are sex crimes? Yes. Can the United States go around protecting the world from itself? No. If the behavior being observed violates local laws, then the United States and other peace keepers need to intervene. If not, then we need to do our best to influence the locals to change.
Well, according to this reference:
Quote:
....the fundamental attitude of Afghan law towards sexual activity is best expressed in the Civil Code, which is also a product of the 1970’s socialist period. Article 60 of the Civil Code defines marriage as “a contract which legalizes intercourse between a man and a woman….” ....The Penal Code proceeds from the fundamental assumption that sexual activity is by definition illegal, criminal, and punishable. Only the marriage contract removes the criminal nature of sex. This understanding of sex disregards the element of consent that is imperative in classifying the crime of rape in most modern legal systems. In Afghanistan, outside of marriage, both consensual and non-consensual sex are equally punishable, while within marriage, both types of sex are equally permissible....
and according to this one, cited by Stars & Stripes:
Quote:
Afghanistan
Male-Female Sex: 18/Married
Male-Male Sex: Illegal
Female-Female Sex Illegal
any sex between males, consensual or not, age of majority or not, appears to be illegal in AFG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rtodhner
However, we cannot impose our beliefs, customs, and laws upon cultures that do not share them
To do otherwise, no matter how strongly we may feel on the issue, is a sure recipe for the situation to head due south and ensure that we meet the same fate as the Soviets and others who have attempted to control the area.
Too true.
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sapperfitz82
To heavy-handidly try to enforce the Afghan/Islamic law regarding homosexuality/child abuse would invariably come off wrong. Better would be an information campaign that advocates in the children's favor (think DoS), and turning over hard evidence (we have video of the actual events) to local prosecuter and pressuring action through their system.
Agreed, although given the limits of the Afghan justice system—especially in rural areas—this might be a rather faint hope.
The first step is to engage with significant local actors—ANP, justice officials, imams, community and educational leaders, UNICEF, etc.—and scope out what can and cannot be done locally, by whom, what responses would be productive rather than counterproductive, and what resources are needed where. The solution needs to emerge locally. It probably also needs actors on the international community taking on a quiet role of shepherd and facilitator. I also suspect that one deals with this issue first in urban areas, where there is a degree of governance and legal administration, and worry about the hinterland later.
While the cultural and political context varies markedly, the intersection of the child sex trade and armed conflict is hardly unique to Afghanistan. Almost every place it is dealt with, it involves a host of cultural, religious, political, and COIN/stabilization/PKO sensitivities. While no one would claim a massive success rate, there is very substantial experience to draw upon.
I might also add that where these sorts of issues have been addressed in other contexts, the overwhelming majority of those providing the front-line response are locals, not expats or foreign military forces. Outsiders can provide technical and financial assistance, but any longer-term solution requires community mobilization and engagement.
-
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...
-
The light came on....
...when I read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
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...
This paints a good picture. I still think something should be done (a la Rex Brynen's ideas), but I'm a lot clearer on where you're coming from.
-
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.
-
I don't think so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
I think we may be more in agreement then it appears at first.
We seem to disagree on several points-- IMO, that should be okay...
Quote:
...Would it not be almost legitimizing acceptance of said things by quietly standing by and still allowing it to happen.
In the eyes of some beholders, perhaps but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are using force -- actually or by implication -- to impose your moral values on others. Try that on me and you better use a caliber that starts with a 4... ;)
Quote:
I remember the old saying- " all it takes is for good men to do nothing "
I remember that. I also recall being told by my Mother long before I heard that one to keep my nose out of other's business unless it was to preclude death or dismembement...
Platitudes and philosophy abound. We aren't talking platitudes here, we're talking human lives and reality.
Quote:
So rather than dictating anything to others the premise I am coming from is to lead by example.
That's fine -- unless your example consists of telling the village elders that little Achmed needs to be protected from all the other young men in town -- that's none of your business and that's not leading, it's dictating.
Quote:
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.
That's an extremely convoluted paragraph. I'd like to answer your question with a yes or no but that wording requires this: Anyone who cannot subordinate his own 'hard fought for values' (whatever that means) to the mission at hand should find another line of work.
Quote:
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.
I think that statement proves another old saying "morals are what one think thinks everyone else should do." Good luck with that idea when you have the problem of a major cultural gap AND a language barrier. Sounds like a rather bigoted approach to me...
Quote:
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.
we can disagree on that. In matters of security, even in some senses of governance, yes; in matters of morality and religion -- absolutely not.
How would you react to an occupier in your home town insisting that you had to engage in pederasty? Had to worship Baal?
Quote:
Fighting to protect villagers from the enemy while at the same time they won't even protect their own children from themselves.
What gives you the right to impose your views on them?
More importantly, I think you're losing sight of the fact that your (generic 'your') personal beliefs cannot be allowed to interfere with your mission AND that you are using actual or implied force to impose your personal -- not the US', not the US Army's, not your unit's -- views on people who you do not command, rule or apparently even wish to understand. Quite simply, that is not your call.
Quote:
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.
Then that Corporal needs to go to jail and you should be more than willing to put him there. That's supposed to be the difference between a Soldier or Marine and a 'Warrior.' Discipline.
-
I think Ken is absolutely right on what can be done by combat boots on the ground, especially in a context where: 1) coalition forces are already widely viewed as alien outsiders, 2) it is almost impossible for outsiders to know what is going on within particular families and communities, and 3) there aren't enough boots on the ground to keep the Taliban from moving in and out of rural villages, let alone engage in armed social work.
That being said, it is also not appropriate for the CF/ISAF/the US to wash their hands of this entirely—or (and this may be just as bad) develop a quick feel-good strategy driven largely by reaction at home and press coverage rather than actual needs and conditions on the ground.
First step? Someone needs to call in some expertise, both Afghan and international. Yes, that late 20s field worker from UNICEF or Save the Children might look like your hippie daughter, but she also might been previously working in northern Uganda dealing with sexually traumatized and physically abused child-victims of the LRA (etc). There are already a number of local and international NGOs working on child protection issues in Afghanistan, some of them very good.
Second: it is a dialogue and learning process, not a hand-off. The military needs to communicate what it can, and cannot, do. There may be some things they can do (including zero-tolerance at FOBs, etc). There may be some things the Afghan government or NGO community can do that the military isn't aware of, or doesn't even know is going on. Comparative expertise/capacity-building/coordination/consultation/synergies and especially "host-country ownership" aren't just development buzzwords, they are also of fundamental importance.
Third: developing a coherent and reasonable action plan with the key stakeholders, and building/building on local capacities is far, far better than rushing to do something because you can't be bothered to work out how to do it right. Focus on the most vulnerable and those you can best help (urban street kids might fit in this category), and if resources allow expand from there.
-
That works for me
and it'll work in the field...
Particularly this:
Quote:
"...or (and this may be just as bad) develop a quick feel-good strategy driven largely by reaction at home and press coverage rather than actual needs and conditions on the ground."
-
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
