US Soldiers told to ignore child sexual abuse in Afghanistan

LittlePinto · Sep 20, 2015

From the New York Times.

When you get into a war, sometimes you ally yourself with people who do horrible things. One of those horrible things is the sexual abuse of children. U.S. soldiers are alleging that their commanding officers told them to ignore such abuses--perpetuated by Afghan allies--on the grounds of cultural differences.

I suspect the real reason is that it was easier to sacrifice children than anger people we wanted or needed in positions of power.

What do you think? Is ignoring the sexual abuse of children respecting cultural differences, pragmatism, or moral cowardice? (Or something else?)

All I know is that Bush's War is the war that keeps on giving.

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 20, 2015

I think the US should have thought through their policy on what's acceptable behavior from their "allies", both here and in many other incidences. I'm not sure whether it says good or bad things about the military personnel involved that they could receive such orders and willingly remain in the service. I'd rather we look for other solutions that don't involve taking sides with the sort of people who would do what these men did. That sort of practice paints both us and the culture from which it springs with a very nasty brush.

shadowwalker · Sep 20, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
That kid had the right idea, he just picked the wrong Marines to shoot.

Seriously?

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 20, 2015

I mean, the guys he killed weren't responsible for the policy. Ergo, if he wanted to solve his problem or get some revenge, they were a poor choice of target. It's unclear how much say in this policy anyone in the Marine Corp had. Perhaps some Presidential Cabinet members would have been a better option?

We didn't like what the Taliban and Al Qaeda were doing, so we invaded this kid's country, shot a lot of people, and then forcibly installed child rapists as essentially dictators with no checks or balances. Something of a habit with us, it seems. The victims tried pretty much every legal recourse, and it only made things worse for most of them. Exactly what moral high ground are we standing on here to keep you out of the pools of blood, tears, and semen this kid was wading in?

Is shooting those policy makers (and the rapists, of course) the right response? Maybe, maybe not. But it was basically our response to 9/11, so I can at least sympathize with a desire to sink to our level.

(ETA: For the record, I've very clearly specified I'm not advocating he blow away any bunch of innocent "I was just following orders" grunts he happens across. But rather the people formulating and using their command authority to enforce this policy. Not really advocating, necessarily, but definitely forgiving.)

Don · Sep 20, 2015

Be nice to us, or we'll bring democracy to your country.

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 20, 2015

Yup. "Democracy". XD

shadowwalker · Sep 20, 2015

I'm not an advocate of shooting Americans. I guess that's somehow reprehensible? :Shrug:

kuwisdelu · Sep 20, 2015

shadowwalker said:
I'm not an advocate of shooting Americans. I guess that's somehow reprehensible?

Why Americans specifically?

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
Why Americans specifically?

Generally speaking, most of us would prefer to see no one shot, but don't pretend tribal identification is something you are above.

Liosse de Velishaf said:
As I clarified, I don't advocate it, but I can't blame the kid considering his situation.

9/11 does not justify condoning/basically supporting mass child rape. You might be quite the patriot if you believe the situation described here is acceptable, but you're not much of a worthwhile human being. (Generic "you")

And as it happens, I would not be opposed to a firing squad for the guys who decided this was going to be policy. It's a war crime if I ever saw one.

An interesting position. The problem is, you're wrong about this not being a cultural difference. It absolutely is. That doesn't mean everyone in the culture in question approves - obviously, it's a cultural difference that says powerful people get to do this to less powerful people. But for us to stop it, we would have to say "Your cultural practices are wrong and bad and we're going to forcibly put an end to them."

I'm okay with that, personally.

But the politics of the situation are certainly not as easy as you suggest. There were no "good guys" for us to replace the Taliban with. Only slightly less evil and anti-US guys (for some value of "evil" - which is worse, burning schoolgirls alive or raping sex slaves?).

ErezMA · Sep 21, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Every single officer who put up with that should be removed from the military for good, no pension.

That just puts the officers into an even more difficult position. Insubordination and disobeying a commanding officer breeds nothing but bad trouble for the officer. When an order is given, there's no questioning it. There's do or don't do, and the latter can lead to a dishonorable discharge... potentially worse.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore child abuse, but the commanders are to blame, not the person whose job it is to follow orders without question.

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

ErezMA said:
That just puts the officers into an even more difficult position. Insubordination and disobeying a commanding officer breeds nothing but bad trouble for the officer. When an order is given, there's no questioning it. There's do or don't do, and the latter can lead to a dishonorable discharge... potentially worse.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore child abuse, but the commanders are to blame, not the person whose job it is to follow orders without question.

Ahem. No, that is not correct. We covered that in the courtroom coda following a breakdown in Anglo-Germanic relations back in the 40s.

ErezMA · Sep 21, 2015

Is there a specific title for it? If what you're saying is true then the soldiers do have a duty to disobey orders in the interests of the children's health.

Zoombie · Sep 21, 2015

ErezMA said:
Is there a specific title for it? If what you're saying is true then the soldiers do have a duty to disobey orders in the interests of the children's health.

I believe it goes something like: "'I was just following orders' is not an excuse."

LittlePinto · Sep 21, 2015

Zoombie said:
I believe it goes something like: "'I was just following orders' is not an excuse."

Nuremberg Principle IV, if I'm not mistaken.

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

The UCMJ also specifies that (US) soldiers must follow all lawful orders of their commanders. The Supreme Court has established that soldiers not only have the right, but the obligation, to disobey unlawful orders. E.g., if your commander tells you to commit a crime and you obey, you as well as your CO can be charged with unlawful conduct.

Now, whether this would apply here is not so clear cut. The soldiers are in another country that has its own laws. Whether or not it's technically illegal in Afghanistan for commanders to take boys as sex slaves, it's an accepted practice with virtually no chance of anyone being prosecuted for it by the Afghan government. The US Army does not have law enforcement powers. So can soldiers legally use force to prevent something they don't approve of? Not really. Can a US commander tell troops "Yes, this practice is abhorrent but we can't stop it, so shut up"? Yes, he probably can.

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
If every single "commander" we can find who can maintain power is raping little boys or burning schoolgirls alive,

Every single one? Maybe not. Most? Probably.

then I agree with you. In which case, we ought to pull out. We weren't making those guys commanders to help the populace. We were doing it to support our own goals.

Well, of course.

If supporting our own goals requires putting child rapists in positions of power over children, perhaps we ought to rethink those goals.

Perhaps. Perhaps we also should not have allowed Hirohito to stay on the throne, or brought all those German rocket scientists back to the US.

Politics and war is ugly.

Xelebes · Sep 21, 2015

I guess it is also prudent to recognise that:

A) the Allied forces in the region are not Supermen
B) the goal in the region is to erect a state that will not attack, or harbour attackers who attack the United States and its allied countries.
C) pursuing the human traffickers may jeopardise the erection of the desired peaceful state for the reason stated in statement A.

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 21, 2015

Amadan said:
Politics and war is ugly.

It certainly is.

You know, it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows". Not exactly a new meaning I enjoy seeing America support. But hey, what's a few boys getting raped compared to me getting my Starbucks without walking through a metal detector, right?

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
It certainly is.

You know, it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows". Not exactly a new meaning I enjoy seeing America support. But hey, what's a few boys getting raped compared to me getting my Starbucks without walking through a metal detector, right?

The thing is, this is not the first or last time we have made bargains with devils. We (and every other country) have always done this. That's not to say there shouldn't be oversight and efforts to fix things, but when you blithely say "Well, they're evil so we should walk away," what is your actual, real-world proposal? We can leave Afghanistan because all the non-Taliban commanders in charge are boy-raping bastards. Okay, so the Taliban takes over again and resumes stoning people to death in soccer stadiums, and sooner or later we're likely to have to go back. We can replace the boy-raping bastards with... who? We can simply take over the government completely and make Afghanistan a protectorate/colony. Not sure that will make you or the Afghanis happier.

It's not like we have clear-cut moral choices here.

ErezMA · Sep 21, 2015

Thank you, everyone, for correcting me on this. My original post was one where I hoped that I was wrong. I think the best possible decision to move forward is to relieve the officer who enacted this order, punish those who followed the order and move forward with better leadership. People shouldn't be abused sexually - even if you live in a third world country.

robjvargas · Sep 21, 2015

Tell you what, kill all those baby-f***ers and put our own folks in. Afghanistan is now the 52nd state.

After all, look at how well that worked for the USSR.

nighttimer · Sep 21, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
That's not a cultural difference when the boys are obviously being raped and the locals are complaining to our troops. That's a crime. Every single officer who put up with that should be removed from the military for good, no pension. Same goes for any politicians involved.

That kid had the right idea, he just picked the wrong Marines to shoot.

I understand you are angry and justifiably pissed, but despite your clarification, your last sentence is indefensible. Shooting American soldiers for not fixing a situation their commanders, diplomats and politicians put them isn't going to change jackshit and there's no justifying it.

We'd like to think putting our boots on the ground, pouring billions into Afghanistan's government, military and infrastructure as well as spilling our blood gives us the right to suggest to them they really should set aside some of the more unsavory aspects of their culture such as boy-rape.

We'd be thinking wrongly. No amount of money, lecturing or beatdowns will change what is not a crime, but tradition in Afghanistan. The U.S. Military has its own extensive problems with sexual exploitation and assault, and is in no position of moral authority to wag its finger at the Afghani commanders.

There was a Frontline episode, The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, which clearly made the point of how entrenched and pervasive bacha bazi is. Mere moral outrage is not enough to end this repulsive practice.

In The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi (Behind Taliban Lines) returns to his native land to expose an ancient practice that has been brought back by powerful warlords, former military commanders and wealthy businessmen. Known as "bacha bazi" (literal translation: "boy play"), this illegal practice exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11, whose parents are paid to give over their sons to their new "masters." The men dress the boys in women's clothes and train them to sing and dance for the entertainment of themselves and their friends.

According to experts, the dancing boys are used sexually by these powerful men.

In detailed conversations with several bacha bazi masters in northern Afghanistan and with the dancing boys they own, reporter Quraishi reveals a culture where wealthy Afghan men openly exploit some of the poorest, most vulnerable members of their society.

"What was so unnerving about the men I had met was not just their lack of concern for the damage their abuse was doing to the boys," Quraishi says. "It was also their casualness with which they operated and the pride with which they showed me their boys, their friends, their world. They clearly believed that nothing they were doing was wrong."

Under the guise of doing a documentary on similar practices in Europe, Quraishi gained the confidence of Dastager, a former mujahideen commander and wealthy businessman whose business interests include importing autos from the Far East. With Dastager as his guide, Quraishi takes viewers inside the world of bacha bazi, where prominent men compete to own and use the boys.

"I had a boy because every commander had a partner," says Mestary, a former senior commander who is well connected with major Afghan warlords. "Among the commanders there is competition, and if I didn't have one, then I could not compete with them."

"I go to every province to have happiness and pleasure with boys," says an Afghan man known as "The German," who acts as a bacha bazi pimp, supplying boys to the men. "Some boys are not good for dancing, and they will be used for other purposes. ... I mean for sodomy and other sexual activities."

"It's a disgusting practice. ... It's a form of slavery, taking a child, keeping him. It's a form of sexual slavery," says Radhika Coomaraswamy. U.N. special representative for Children and Armed Conflict. "The only way to stop bacha bazi is if you prosecute the people who commit the crime, and that's what we need, because the laws are there in the books against this practice."

The bitterest pill for Americans here to swallow is the same one the Marines there couldn't choke down. Try as we might to force the Afghanistan government to intercede, it is unlikely the boy play will cease until the people of Afghanistan force it to. Long after the U.S. is gone, children will still be exploited.

It isn't right, but being wrong isn't always easily or quickly changed.

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

If there was an actual point there beyond 'I do not like this situation," I am unable to discern it.

kuwisdelu · Sep 21, 2015

Amadan said:
Generally speaking, most of us would prefer to see no one shot, but don't pretend tribal identification is something you are above.

I was just wondering if there was some other reason.

Amadan · Sep 21, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Well, my original point was that calling it a cultural difference was just a euphemism for "it's so much more convenient if we just ignore this"

No. It's pointing out that making people stop doing something because you find it abhorrent is neither as simple nor as morally clear as you believe.

I personally believe we can and should have done more about the corrupt warlords we put in power, but I also believe we could not and cannot ever do as much as we'd like. It's very unlikely we could put an end to "bacha bazi" in Afghanistan, for example, without going full British Raj on the place.

My second point was, if we don't care about the kid who shot those Marines, I don't think we have a right to criticize him for not caring about us.

The fact that we were unable (or unwilling) to put an end to the practices that victimized him does not mean we don't care, nor does it make us (or those particular Marines) personally responsible for his victimization. How far does that logic extend?

But y'all didn't like those points, so I watered it down for you

I "didn't like" your point because it's logically and morally incoherent.

US Soldiers told to ignore child sexual abuse in Afghanistan

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

Liosse de Velishaf

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

Liosse de Velishaf

Don

All Living is Local

Liosse de Velishaf

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Amadan

ErezMA

Amadan

ErezMA

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

Amadan

Amadan

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Liosse de Velishaf

Amadan

ErezMA

robjvargas

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Amadan

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Amadan