Chlid Sex Abuse by AFG Security Forces?

[Rex Brynen]

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.

[Ken White]

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:

"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...

[milnews.ca]

...when I read this:

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.

[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.

[Rex Brynen]

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.

[Ken White]

and it'll work in the field...

Particularly this:

"...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."

[milnews.ca]

....indicates that:

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.

[milnews.ca]

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):

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