Chlid Sex Abuse by AFG Security Forces?

[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...

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

[Ken White]

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ken White]

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...

...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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.