Afghan Rapes & Canadian Soldiers' Duty

[Jarnhamar]

According to their own law, it is a crime though.  Doing nothing to stop it will produce that exact result; nothing.

Yup.
But can we stop it?
No.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't try but when it's the ANA and Afghan police DOING the raping, which is an ingrained part of their culture for thousands of years, I have little faith that we can change them.

When the Taliban were there they stopped it (well drove it under ground) by using violent violent punishment.
We don't roll like that though. Maybe throwing money at them and trying to buy their compliance will work..

 

[George Wallace]

It will take several generations to correct this problem.  That will mean that we will have to remain and mentor the ANA, ANP, the elected officials, business leaders, educators, and the rest of Afghan society for a period much longer than we did in Europe after WW II, Japan, and later Korea; all of which still have foreign troops on their soil. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Yup.
But can we stop it?
No.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't try but when it's the ANA and Afghan police DOING the raping, which is an ingrained part of their culture for thousands of years, I have little faith that we can change them.

Yes, so was rum, sodomy and the lash in our culture.....why did it stop? 

When the Taliban were there they stopped it (well drove it under ground) by using violent violent punishment.
We don't roll like that though. Maybe throwing money at them and trying to buy their compliance will work..

And the they stopped women from basic humanitarian rights; identity, education, political expression etc etc.......

So why is it that Canadian soldiers wax poetically about how girls can go to schools now.  Children have shoes and can play soccer.  However when we talk about the practices terrorism of Rape, we say that it is a part of their culture, so let them have at 'er.

Anti antisemitism was a part of European culture for thousands of years, why did we stop the German from practising it?  (Uhoh, did I break Godwin's Law ?)

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

when did we become "guests" there?

When did we become "citizens" there?

What kind of question is that? we don't have to be invited or be citizens of a place IOT go in to the aid of a NATO ally.

I guess, perhaps we are guests of the Northern Alliance...
And, sure, some would say that the missions are not the same - just semantics, one is the continuation of the other by whatever means seems politically palatable.

I can see you really don't understand the situation at all. 

is that a PC way of making us and the locals feel better about it?

No.  That is a fact.  And it is.  We are nothing more than "guests" and we have to remember our place; just as our troops have had to do in Germany, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Cyprus, the Golan, Pakistan, and dozens of other nations around the world that we have sent troops to do the work of the UN or NATO.

I'm not sure when that concept first came up (imposing Western values), perhaps reinforced by Star Trek, but I think it is inconsistent with the notion of universal human rights.

Universal Human Rights is a concept foreign to many cultures and societies around the world, especially in this Region.  It is a concept and ideal of the Western World and not at all universal.  It is like the Geneva Conventions.  We in the West agree to follow those priciples.  Not all our enemies do.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If it was up to me I'd hit these guys with a very bug stick with a rusty nail out the end.
Hell I had a one sided physical altercation with an ANP who was beating the shit out of a puppy.

The CF needs to put their foot down, decide on what exactly to do (Allow it or prevent it) then wear the responsibility of their decision.

Leaving it up to troops, section commanders and young officers to try and figure out on their own isn't right IMO.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Universal Human Rights is a concept foreign to many cultures and societies around the world, especially in this Region.  It is a concept and ideal of the Western World and not at all universal.  It is like the Geneva Conventions.  We in the West agree to follow those priciples.  Not all our enemies do.

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention in 1956 George....

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

Therefore, as early as 53 years ago, Afghanistan agreed to a principal of Global Safety for those that have been stipulated in the convention, and this includes children, specifically, being raped.  I don't understand where you get this "Western" concept that being a pederast is an accepted concept in Afghanistan.  It is illegal, and unacceptable by the international community, and therefore, if we are soldiering in the name of "policing" and area of the globe that is breaking these rules, we can not enforce one, and turn a blind eye to another.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

So why is it that Canadian soldiers wax poetically about how girls can go to schools now.  Children have shoes and can play soccer.  However when we talk about the practices terrorism of Rape, we say that it is a part of their culture, so let them have at 'er.

dileas

tess

Because the government of Afghanistan themselves made a political move to educate females and allow them to attend schools once again (we soldiers did not do that). We simply "make it safe for them to do so" because their government has allowed them to.

This situation requires "a political fix" BY the government of Afghanistan; Until & unless THEY decide that their laws which are already on the books are worth enforcing ... no amount of "complaints" (because that's ALL we can do in the meantime - complain) will force them to do otherwise.

Why they choose to ignore or overlook their own laws is the real question (there's that cultural thing again). We soldiers have no jurisdiction in enforcing Afghanistan's own laws upon Afghani citizens.

We may certainly train the ANA for them, but we can not "hire or fire" those pers - they do not work "for" us - they work at the behest of the government of Afghanistan. And, it would seem, that currently that government has no desire to uphold those employees to a higher standard or to the minimum standard of their own laws (or even hold them to a standard which we ourselves would find acceptable were they "our" employees that we actually COULD hire and fire, arrest etc).

I believe that it's the Afghan Ministry of the Interior who sets out the standards (and hires/fires) for the ANA. That's a political part of a political domain - not a foreign soldiers domain to set standards for someone else's behaviour and/or standards of morale conduct or compliance with their own national law.

If we Canadians do not like those standards which are set out (or lack of enforcement of their own laws), then we Canadians have to complain via POLITICAL means to the Afghan government vice making it a Canadian soldier's "job" to ensure that the Afghan government enforces their own laws and holds themselves & their entities to higher standards of conduct than are currently culturally acceptable. Illegal or not - it is viewed as "culturally acceptable" there.

A foreign soldier can do nothing (and has no jurisdiction to do anything) but complain about it unless & until the politicians deem it a "necessary endeavour" and move to effect a change.

Edward has it bang on; we soldiers need a mechanism by which to make complaints, and ergo our govnt to forward said complaints to the Govnt of Afghanistan --- but until that govnt decides to enforce or uphold it's own laws ... we soldiers can't do much except complain.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Edward has it bang on; we soldiers need a mechanism by which to make complaints, and ergo our govnt to forward said complaints to the Govnt of Afghanistan --- but until that govnt decides to enforce or uphold it's own laws ... we soldiers can't do much except complain.

So,  is Edward, and yourself, arguing that there is a systematic problem of ignorance within the chain of command in Afghanistan, or that it is not our Mission to uphold the basic tenants of law and order.  According to our government;

maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections.

dileas

tess

 

[Edward Campbell]

So,  is Edward, and yourself, arguing that there is a systematic problem of ignorance within the chain of command in Afghanistan, or that it is not our Mission to uphold the basic tenants of law and order.  According to our government;

maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections.

dileas

tess

No, I'm not arguing anything.

I have made my contribution. It's not a very good idea but, under the circumstances, which are hideously complex, I suspect it is about as far as we might be willing to go.


Edit: punctuation

 

[George Wallace]

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention in 1956 George....

And which Afghan Government was that?  The Taliban?  The Karzai Government?  The Russian protectorate?  The Kingdom of Shad?  The Daoud Republic of Afghanistan?  The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan?  Which one exactly?  The Government has changed several times in the last sixty some years, and not all of them will have followed or accepted terms agreed to by previous governments.  Kind of a Red Herring.

Another point to clarify: I was not referring to Afghanistan in particular in my comparison of who follows the Geneva Conventions and who does not.  It was a general statement on a point.

 

[the 48th regulator]

And which Afghan Government was that?  The Taliban?  The Karzai Government?  The Russian protectorate?  The Kingdom of Shad?  The Daoud Republic of Afghanistan?  The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan?  Which one exactly?  The Government has changed several times in the last sixty some years, and not all of them will have followed or accepted terms agreed to by previous governments.  Kind of a Red Herring.

Another point to clarify: I was not referring to Afghanistan in particular in my comparison of who follows the Geneva Conventions and who does not.  It was a general statement on a point.

The country of Afghanistan, not a political entity.  until the Country of Afghanistan officially declares the Geneva Convention, null and void, their previous government has locked them into the international law of abiding by it.

We in Canada have agreed to serve there in a military and diplomatic capacity, to aid them in upholding it.

Pontificate all you want what the average soldier can or can not do, we as a military force must uphold these laws.  That means from the ground up.

Same reason why we are there no later that 2010, in the capacity we are now.  A descision by a previous Government, upheld by the current.  Canadian on and all.

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

:

OK...OK

I'll tell you what; I'll buy you the airfare to get there and you can go and tell them to sort themselves out for all of us.

 

[armyvern]

So,  is Edward, and yourself, arguing that there is a systematic problem of ignorance within the chain of command in Afghanistan, or that it is not our Mission to uphold the basic tenants of law and order.  According to our government;

maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections.

dileas

tess

We currently DO "maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police (we train them & increase their capacity - at the behest of their government)". Onto the next bit, "and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections" which can be accomplished via the "complaint mechanism" through Govnt to Afghan Govnt.

Once again, the key word is "support" complimentary efforts to justice and corrections. We can support adherance to their laws via complaining when they don't adhere to them, but we only get to "support that bit" - we soldiers don't get to tell the Afghan govnt that they "must enforce their overlooked/ignored laws" ... they have to do that on their own or give us powers of arrest/hire/fire over their employees who choose to "ignore" ... and they obviously need some political kicks in the asses to do so because it certainly doesn't seem as if there is any political will within the current Afghan govnt to enforce this "currently acceptable cutural norm" (even though their own laws say it's illegal); rather they seem to be maintaining status quo.

We, as a military, must be given jurisdiction and powers of arrest over average Afghan citizens in order to enforce such civic law, but - that being said - we can arrest and detain all we want, but if the host nation let's the perpetrators out the back door of the jail (witness same host nation 'out the back door' releases of persons we arrested during a certain mission we were involved with in 1993) because they choose to ignore - there's not much we can do about it. Only politics at the highest level can stop that. UN sanctions anyone? Withholding of Canadian taxpayer funds headed to Afghanistan anyone? At least until the Afghan government decides to take this problem seriously and actually do something about it and begin enforcing their own laws?

As well, I don't think that I (or Edward) said anything about "ignorance" in the CoC in Afghanistan" - I don't know where you pulled that bit from ... but if you meant that I believe that the government (and, generally, Afghan citizens - treat this as "culturally acceptable" (thus ignoring) their own laws ... yep, I do.

 

[Monsoon]

What!? Do you mean to tell me that Rome can't be built in a day? Well in that case, there's no point even getting started!

:

 

[armyvern]

What!? Do you mean to tell me that Rome can't be built in a day? Well in that case, there's no point even getting started!

:

:

Who said "let's not even bother trying?"

Unfortunately, until the "political side" does THEIR job, all we can do is file a complaint about an occurance (which - I'm pretty sure is "better than nothing" and certainly should be a way to "get the ball rolling" lest you suggest that I suggested that we do nothing [I believe that I even suggested some ways of giving the Afghan govnt some 'politcal kicks in the ass].)  :

 

[the 48th regulator]

Okay Vern,

Maybe we are all arguing the same point.  I will simply pose a basic question.

Canadian troops are serving in an area, and working along side members of the ANA and/or the national Police.  Canadian troops witness the rape of a local citizen.  What are we to do.

If you require specific details of unit size (both for the Canadians and ANA or Afghan Police) please advise.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Okay Vern,

Maybe we are all arguing the same point.  I will simply pose a basic question.

Canadian troops are serving in an area, and working along side members of the ANA and/or the national Police.  Canadian troops witness the rape of a local citizen.  What are we to do.

If you require specific details of unit size (both for the Canadians and ANA or Afghan Police) please advise.

dileas

tess

We can make a complaint. We can even go so far as to arrest someone under Afghan civil law (only if we had jurisdiction to do so), but if the Host nation Govnmt isn't willing to enforce their own laws ... we'd probably be arresting the same asshat the very next week when that "widely-known & culturally acceptable" day rolls around again. Then arrest him again the next week after that again. Around & around the soldier would go, affecting a weekly arrest, but going absolutely nowhere but through the revolving door until the politcal govnt decides to enforce it's own existing laws and effect lasting and meaningful change.

Governments get to effect change &, when they actually do so, soldiers get to enforce it (if required). We soldiers certainly can encourage a shift in the cutural ideals seemingly 'acceptable' there now by complaining about such "not being acceptable either legally or morally and making complaints ... but we can't change their minds for them - they have to have the political will and moral fortitude to do that themselves.

 

[the 48th regulator]

We can make a complaint. We can even go so far as to arrest someone under Afghan civil law (only if we had jurisdiction to do so), but if the Host nation Govnmt isn't willing to enforce their own laws ... we'd probably be arresting the same asshat the very next week when that "widely-known & culturally acceptable" day rolls around again. Then arrest him again the next week after that again. Around & around the soldier would go, affecting a weekly arrest, but going absolutely nowhere but through the revolving door until the politcal govnt decides to enforce it's own existing laws and effect lasting and meaningful change.

Governments get to effect change &, when they actually do so, soldiers get to enforce it (if required). We soldiers certainly can encourage a shift in the cutural ideals seemingly 'acceptable' there now by complaining about such "not being acceptable either legally or morally and making complaints ... but we can't change their minds for them - they have to have the political will and moral fortitude to do that themselves.

So after 8 years., 131 soldiers lost, and Hundreds injured, why are we there?

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

So after 8 years., 131 soldiers lost, and Hundreds injured, why are we there?

dileas

tess

Because our politcal entity the government has decided that we should be there ...

and because soldiers (as well as most governments), of all people, certainly DO know that Rome was not built in a day. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Because soldiers, of all people, certainly DO know that Rome was not built in a day. 

And Rome had laws against Pederasts too

dileas

tess