Oh would you fuck the legalese! Those guys (whose crimes were often far more than just buggering boys), owned their position and power to the US. They were propped up the force of U.S arms. No one can pretend otherwise.
That’s not actually a helpful or informative answer. I get that this is the Pit and all but maybe someone with some actual information can answer.
The past decade has taught me that that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee in the Middle East these days.
Oh would you quit the foolishness!
“Those guys” are part of the local government, which is propped up by US military presence. US military commanders didn’t exactly install these shit heads, nor do they abet slavery. We (as in the USA) went into the country, aided the overthrow of the Taliban government and, like all of Bush the Lesser’s grand schemes, hadn’t thought much past that. So now there’s a sovereign Afghan state that doesn’t care to stop these practices, or the narco trade, or rampant government corruption.
The most moral thing we could possibly do here as a nation is NOT step in and assert our own moral authority, it would be to leave the country completely. And in a few years the Taliban would probably reassert itself, correct those wrongs and install in their place a different set of wrongs. And we should then keep our ‘force of arms’ out of it.
What, specifically, do you think the US military on the ground there should do?
If were in the military you saw an adult raping a young boy and were ordered to do nothing about it, what would you do as an individual soldier? “You” are not the entire military and are not responsible for the actions and/or decisions of the entire military…but you are still responsible for your own actions.
I hope I’d stop the rape, forcefully if necessary. I could live with damage to my career rather than such damage to my soul (metaphorically speaking).
Any decent human being should have said something like what Charles Napier said back in the 19th century about Suttee.
In war people often have to choose the lesser of two evils in situations in which both choices are incredibly bad. I would have to weigh whether the consequences of my actions to stop one person’s evil behavior toward another against the affects of what would happen if I did nothing. Interfering might save one boy one time; however, it could also destabilize an area and result in many more than one boy being raped and murdered.
No one saw a rape in this instance.
I would have to see some damn convincing paperwork before I would buy a line like that. Loose “logic” of that sort could be used to justify pretty much any atrocity at all, couldn’t it?
The proper thing to do is to report the issue to the local authorities. We’re not there to be the internal police force in the sense of investigating alleged crimes.
Is it the “proper”, and only, thing to do if you have knowledge that reporting said rape will do absolutely nothing to help the child from continuing being raped?
Is WWII convincing enough paperwork for you. The United States worked with Italian-American organized crime to stabilize Sicily and defeat Mussolini (and let us not forgot our Allie Stalin) Throughout the history of warfare governments have to work with scumbags to fight other scumbags. True the Taliban fought the custom of “dancing boys”, they encouraged the custom of nine year old brides (which from the standpoint of concern for child health creates worse problems than some boys getting anally raped). What annoys me most is all the people who supported Bush and the warhawks didn’t realize that, yes, this is the kind of quagmires a war in that region pulls us into (that and I see a lot more people outraged over the rape of teenage boys than teenage girls.)
Officially, yes, of we are reading the orders correctly.
If you want to go off on your own and do something, knock yourself out. Be prepared to face a Court Martial, though. And be prepared to cause an international incident that may put your comrades in danger, and possibly adversely affect the entire mission over there.
Be prepared to have the kid testify that he’s over the age of consent (which might be 8 or 10 or 12) and that he gave his consent.
I’d certainly hope I’d react to stop it. I don’t begrudge the guy in the story who beat up the Afghan guy and left the military. But then I haven’t gone through military training (which might change my perspective) and my individual impulses probably aren’t a great basis for policy.
As a policy, because we can’t have thousands of soldiers doing whatever they feel like doing, I’m not sure what our options are. It sounds as though some think we should impose our rules upon the local governments and nominal allies, by force if necessary.
Do you know what I would be prepared to do?
Not look for any excuse, no matter how feeble, to ignore the cries of a child being raped. I guess I wouldn’t make a very good soldier in your eyes, would I?
Yeah… I think I’d have trouble living with myself if I witnessed a child being raped, had the means to stop it, and did not. Even if I reported it afterwards.
I was in the Navy, though I didn’t go to Afghanistan. A close friend did, though, and he has told me that this practice was pretty well-known among the servicemen there, even if most probably never actually witnessed it first-hand.
The bottom line for me is that there are no good guys over there. I don’t say that in a racist or bigoted way. The culture is different there, and they simply don’t see things according to the morality of a law-abiding first world nation. For example, tribal loyalties are more important than national ones. Europe hasn’t thought like they do since before Rome, and we’re not going to change them overnight. You cannot reason with the irrational. You cannot rule the lawless.
We have three choices then: some kind of colonial-scale, long-term occupation (frowned upon in this “enlightened” age of international politics; today, you cannot hang people for practicing local customs, no matter how abhorrent), choosing the bad guy who is least opposed to us (guaranteed to create just this kind of problem) or stay out of it entirely (which lets them fester until they metastasize into ISIS and al Qaeda).
I honestly do not know which one is worst and my only response to issues like this is to be thankful that the extent of my choice in the matter is casting a ballot for our national leaders.
The “local authorities” were the ones doing the raping.
Does “Proper” mean the same thing as “minimally necessary”, John Mace?