Posted on Sep 8, 2015
"Colonel: Soldiers Should Not 'Impose' On All Afghan Customs, Including Child Rape"
65.2K
569
322
11
10
1
From: Breitbart
United States soldiers should tolerate all Afghan customs, even if they go against American moral values, suggested Col. Steve Johnson, referring to a decorated Green Beret who has been reprimanded by the U.S. Army for “striking” a child rapist in Afghanistan back in September 2011.
“You cannot try to impose American values and American norms onto the Afghan culture because they’re completely different… We can report and we can encourage them,” Col. Johnson told The News Tribune. “We do not have any power or the ability to use our hands to compel them to be what we see as morally better.”
The practice of influential men using underage boys as their sexual patterns, known as “Bacha Bazi,” is an illegal but common custom in Afghanistan.
Sgt. First Class (SFC) Charles Martland, the Green Beret, is expected to be kicked out of the Army by November 1.
Johnson’s comments drew the ire of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who, along with severRep. Al Green (D-TX) Beret veterans, argues that the Army should not discharge Martland for standing up to the alleged rapist, identified as Afghan local police (ALP) commander Abdul Rahman.
The incident took place in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province.
Hunter, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, declared that the Army’s decision to dismiss Sgt. Martland shows the “moral decay” currently afflicting military leadership. Rep. Hunter told Breitbart News:
Martland’s experience shows the type of moral decay among certain aspects of military leadership—starting at the top. In fact, had he not intervened in my opinion, that should have been grounds for removal. At what point will Army leadership stand up for Martland for doing the right thing? Instead, they continue to hide behind a process that seems to makes most sense, in the case specifically, to an Afghan rapist who was happy to see Martland pulled from duty.
Rep. Hunter, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has written three letters to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter asking him to intervene in the Army’s case against the Green Beret, for the purpose of granting him his wish to continue serving in the U.S. Army.
Sgt. Martland admitted “striking” the alleged rapist accused of kidnapping, chaining, and raping a 12-year-old boy and then beating his mother for pleading for help. The local police commander reportedly laughed about committing the crimes.
Rep. Duncan Hunter disagrees with Col. Johnson’s comments about U.S. soldiers having to tolerate all Afghan customs even if they go against American moral values.
“It is, in fact, a fundamental duty for our military to project American power, strength, and values,”wrote the congressman in the most recent letter addressed to Sec. Carter, dated September 1. “The ALP commander’s action was a human rights violations—and SFC Martland was right to step in and attempt to protect the child from further harm.”
Duncan also noted that Col. Johnson, in talking to The News Tribune, claimed the alleged rapist was “an inch from his death” after he was assaulted by Sgt. Martland and Quinn.
A cultural adviser and linguist who witnessed the incident contradicted those allegations, telling the office of Rep. Hunter, on condition of anonymity, that the rapist exaggerated the nature of his wounds, adding that the provincial police chief “strongly condemned” the alleged rapist and suggested that “he should be dismissed, arrested and put away.”
The police chief commended Sgt. Martland for confronting the Afghan police commander who allegedly laughed when approached by Martland.
Prior to the September 2011 incident, Col. Steve Johnson commanded Sgt. Charles Martland when he was the commander in the Army’s 1st Special Forces Group.
Johnson was in Afghanistan when Martland and Capt. Daniel Quinn, his Green Beret team leader, approached Rahman for allegedly kidnapping, chaining, and raping a 12-year-old boy and then beating his mother for reaching out to the Green Berets for help.
The Army reprimanded Martland and Quinn, relieving them from their duties in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province where the incident took place back in 2011.
Quinn has since taken a private sector job in New York. Sgt. Martland is fighting to stay in the military.
Sgt. Martland is now facing involuntary discharge from the Army.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Army and the public affairs office for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, citing the Privacy Act, told Breitbart News that the Army was unable to confirm whether or not the September 2011 incident is linked to its decision to remove Martland.
When Breitbart News asked for a comment on accusations that the Army had chosen to side with the rapist instead of Sgt. Martland, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, said, “The Privacy Act prevents us from releasing any additional information about the administrative action taken regarding this topic.”
When the 2011 incident occurred, Sgt. Martland was serving with an elite Joint Base Lewis-McChord unit.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/02/colonel-u-s-soldiers-should-not-impose-on-all-afghan-customs-including-child-rape/
United States soldiers should tolerate all Afghan customs, even if they go against American moral values, suggested Col. Steve Johnson, referring to a decorated Green Beret who has been reprimanded by the U.S. Army for “striking” a child rapist in Afghanistan back in September 2011.
“You cannot try to impose American values and American norms onto the Afghan culture because they’re completely different… We can report and we can encourage them,” Col. Johnson told The News Tribune. “We do not have any power or the ability to use our hands to compel them to be what we see as morally better.”
The practice of influential men using underage boys as their sexual patterns, known as “Bacha Bazi,” is an illegal but common custom in Afghanistan.
Sgt. First Class (SFC) Charles Martland, the Green Beret, is expected to be kicked out of the Army by November 1.
Johnson’s comments drew the ire of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who, along with severRep. Al Green (D-TX) Beret veterans, argues that the Army should not discharge Martland for standing up to the alleged rapist, identified as Afghan local police (ALP) commander Abdul Rahman.
The incident took place in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province.
Hunter, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, declared that the Army’s decision to dismiss Sgt. Martland shows the “moral decay” currently afflicting military leadership. Rep. Hunter told Breitbart News:
Martland’s experience shows the type of moral decay among certain aspects of military leadership—starting at the top. In fact, had he not intervened in my opinion, that should have been grounds for removal. At what point will Army leadership stand up for Martland for doing the right thing? Instead, they continue to hide behind a process that seems to makes most sense, in the case specifically, to an Afghan rapist who was happy to see Martland pulled from duty.
Rep. Hunter, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has written three letters to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter asking him to intervene in the Army’s case against the Green Beret, for the purpose of granting him his wish to continue serving in the U.S. Army.
Sgt. Martland admitted “striking” the alleged rapist accused of kidnapping, chaining, and raping a 12-year-old boy and then beating his mother for pleading for help. The local police commander reportedly laughed about committing the crimes.
Rep. Duncan Hunter disagrees with Col. Johnson’s comments about U.S. soldiers having to tolerate all Afghan customs even if they go against American moral values.
“It is, in fact, a fundamental duty for our military to project American power, strength, and values,”wrote the congressman in the most recent letter addressed to Sec. Carter, dated September 1. “The ALP commander’s action was a human rights violations—and SFC Martland was right to step in and attempt to protect the child from further harm.”
Duncan also noted that Col. Johnson, in talking to The News Tribune, claimed the alleged rapist was “an inch from his death” after he was assaulted by Sgt. Martland and Quinn.
A cultural adviser and linguist who witnessed the incident contradicted those allegations, telling the office of Rep. Hunter, on condition of anonymity, that the rapist exaggerated the nature of his wounds, adding that the provincial police chief “strongly condemned” the alleged rapist and suggested that “he should be dismissed, arrested and put away.”
The police chief commended Sgt. Martland for confronting the Afghan police commander who allegedly laughed when approached by Martland.
Prior to the September 2011 incident, Col. Steve Johnson commanded Sgt. Charles Martland when he was the commander in the Army’s 1st Special Forces Group.
Johnson was in Afghanistan when Martland and Capt. Daniel Quinn, his Green Beret team leader, approached Rahman for allegedly kidnapping, chaining, and raping a 12-year-old boy and then beating his mother for reaching out to the Green Berets for help.
The Army reprimanded Martland and Quinn, relieving them from their duties in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province where the incident took place back in 2011.
Quinn has since taken a private sector job in New York. Sgt. Martland is fighting to stay in the military.
Sgt. Martland is now facing involuntary discharge from the Army.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Army and the public affairs office for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, citing the Privacy Act, told Breitbart News that the Army was unable to confirm whether or not the September 2011 incident is linked to its decision to remove Martland.
When Breitbart News asked for a comment on accusations that the Army had chosen to side with the rapist instead of Sgt. Martland, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, said, “The Privacy Act prevents us from releasing any additional information about the administrative action taken regarding this topic.”
When the 2011 incident occurred, Sgt. Martland was serving with an elite Joint Base Lewis-McChord unit.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/02/colonel-u-s-soldiers-should-not-impose-on-all-afghan-customs-including-child-rape/
Army
Afghanistan
Customs and Courtesies
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 151
5
5
0
Before I get into this quagmire, let me stress I do not condone any of this. I find the situation wrong on every level.
However, we have competing issues, which many people cannot grasp emotionally or intellectually.
First there is the matter of what is Morally Right. Of course what is going on is Morally Wrong. Everyone knows that. There is no doubt about that. There is no argument about that. Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. But, Aaron, WTF!?! Morals are a non-issue. We do not play Moral Judge in the game of international Politics (which warfare is, Diplomacy through force). We must separate that thought process from the situation.
Second is US Law or Legislative issues. Again, we are in a really bad situation here. What is Legal (or more exactly illegal) for the US is not necessarily the same for our Host Country. That's where we get into the SOFA agreements and our ability to enforce laws, not only theirs, but ours while we are GUESTS in their country. Again, when we are there, we have to play by a very specific set of Legal Rules, which although they are WRONG, has nothing to do with Legal/Illegal. Remember these are independent Concepts. Just because something is Legal, does not make it Right. Just because something is Illegal does not make it Wrong.
Third comes our Oaths and more specifically the Constitution. The Constitution is our defining charter of what is allowed and not allowed. It transcends all of this Right/Wrong, and Legal/Illegal BS (Above). Unfortunately, it does not mention these issues. More specifically it is about reigning in government power. As a document, it is almost exclusively about tying government's hands. As agents of the government, it effectively ties our officers' hands on these specific issues. For our Enlisted, our Oaths doubly so.
Again, this is not Morally Right, however that is an irrelevancy as far as arguments go. It is not Legally Right, were we inside the US. Unfortunately it is "Constitutionally Silent" which places our folks in a really bad position.
So that's the situation. We're bound by our Oath, which we are not violating the Constitution, even though we are committing a Morale Wrong (or at least complicit in one) yet the order is Legal.
How do we deal with that situation?
The simple answer(s) are: For Officers, resign their Commissions, they either agree to accept the morality of the decision, or they cut ties. For Enlisted, Request Mast, as high as they can, hoping for a change in policy. But nothing is as simple as it sounds on paper.
However, we have competing issues, which many people cannot grasp emotionally or intellectually.
First there is the matter of what is Morally Right. Of course what is going on is Morally Wrong. Everyone knows that. There is no doubt about that. There is no argument about that. Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. But, Aaron, WTF!?! Morals are a non-issue. We do not play Moral Judge in the game of international Politics (which warfare is, Diplomacy through force). We must separate that thought process from the situation.
Second is US Law or Legislative issues. Again, we are in a really bad situation here. What is Legal (or more exactly illegal) for the US is not necessarily the same for our Host Country. That's where we get into the SOFA agreements and our ability to enforce laws, not only theirs, but ours while we are GUESTS in their country. Again, when we are there, we have to play by a very specific set of Legal Rules, which although they are WRONG, has nothing to do with Legal/Illegal. Remember these are independent Concepts. Just because something is Legal, does not make it Right. Just because something is Illegal does not make it Wrong.
Third comes our Oaths and more specifically the Constitution. The Constitution is our defining charter of what is allowed and not allowed. It transcends all of this Right/Wrong, and Legal/Illegal BS (Above). Unfortunately, it does not mention these issues. More specifically it is about reigning in government power. As a document, it is almost exclusively about tying government's hands. As agents of the government, it effectively ties our officers' hands on these specific issues. For our Enlisted, our Oaths doubly so.
Again, this is not Morally Right, however that is an irrelevancy as far as arguments go. It is not Legally Right, were we inside the US. Unfortunately it is "Constitutionally Silent" which places our folks in a really bad position.
So that's the situation. We're bound by our Oath, which we are not violating the Constitution, even though we are committing a Morale Wrong (or at least complicit in one) yet the order is Legal.
How do we deal with that situation?
The simple answer(s) are: For Officers, resign their Commissions, they either agree to accept the morality of the decision, or they cut ties. For Enlisted, Request Mast, as high as they can, hoping for a change in policy. But nothing is as simple as it sounds on paper.
(5)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
1LT William Clardy . First, I was not commenting (originally) on this specific case. I was commenting on US Military personnel stopping a child rape if they witnessed it. I know the SFC in the original thread did not witness the act directly.
I think the context of the scenario does matter and I do not think your scenarios is an apples to apples comparison.
To answer your question directly though, I would have likely hauled away two people. The person that threatened the child's well being and the person the struck the gentleman that threatened the child's well being. Another hole though is that no harm was actually done to the child. His soccer ball was dispatched but he was not beaten or raped. I am not in Law Enforcement so I am a little out of my realm arresting people admittedly.
How about a scenario for you now:
You are on Patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. You come across a small village and decide to halt your platoon for a break near by. While there, you see an older man holding a child down and performing forcible sodomy on him. You do:
A: Nothing, none of your business.
B. Stop the act and turn him into local police
C: Invite him to come live at your FOB and bring his young boy friends along (we actually do this apparently)
D: Wait for the event to end and see of the boy needs medical attention and send over your medic then continue your patrol giving a shoulder shrug to the child's mother as you walk by.
I think the context of the scenario does matter and I do not think your scenarios is an apples to apples comparison.
To answer your question directly though, I would have likely hauled away two people. The person that threatened the child's well being and the person the struck the gentleman that threatened the child's well being. Another hole though is that no harm was actually done to the child. His soccer ball was dispatched but he was not beaten or raped. I am not in Law Enforcement so I am a little out of my realm arresting people admittedly.
How about a scenario for you now:
You are on Patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. You come across a small village and decide to halt your platoon for a break near by. While there, you see an older man holding a child down and performing forcible sodomy on him. You do:
A: Nothing, none of your business.
B. Stop the act and turn him into local police
C: Invite him to come live at your FOB and bring his young boy friends along (we actually do this apparently)
D: Wait for the event to end and see of the boy needs medical attention and send over your medic then continue your patrol giving a shoulder shrug to the child's mother as you walk by.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1LT William Clardy To expand, SFC Martland's actual punishment was "Relief for cause," which later resulted in his inability to re-enlist. His punishment was not, not being able to re-enlist, that was a 2nd order effect, completely separate from the incident itself, and likely to happen to ANY E7 who had "relief for cause" on his record (at this point in time).
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Cpl Jeff N., my real point wasn't about there being harm done, it was about the risks in trying to impose justice unilaterally and prematurely. One really pertinent item that you overlooked in my scenario was that everybody was jumping into action based on an unconfirmed accusation. What if the boy made up the story because he was still angry about his friend's soccer ball?
I'm sure that you're aware how adept some Afghans have become at leveraging our eagerness to take out Taliban to settle their own scores -- I'm not sure that "SWATing" is still an applicable term when we're talking drone strikes, but I hope you get the idea.
As to your scenario, I would hope you won't be surprised by me choosing option B with the best part of option D added in.
That said, the lines are rarely that clearly defined. I can recall a non-incident -- way back when I was a young corporal -- intervening at a party when a young lady started sounding less enthusiastic about the attentions of a couple of soldiers who were too drunk or too horny (or both) to notice the change in her tone. A few sharp words were all that was required to send the disappointed soldiers on their way with no more harm done than mildly scaring a drunk girl (and irritating a drunk corporal by ruining his mellow buzz). Nothing big or dramatic, just recognizing that somebody needed to do a "right thing" and then doing it.
I'm sure that you're aware how adept some Afghans have become at leveraging our eagerness to take out Taliban to settle their own scores -- I'm not sure that "SWATing" is still an applicable term when we're talking drone strikes, but I hope you get the idea.
As to your scenario, I would hope you won't be surprised by me choosing option B with the best part of option D added in.
That said, the lines are rarely that clearly defined. I can recall a non-incident -- way back when I was a young corporal -- intervening at a party when a young lady started sounding less enthusiastic about the attentions of a couple of soldiers who were too drunk or too horny (or both) to notice the change in her tone. A few sharp words were all that was required to send the disappointed soldiers on their way with no more harm done than mildly scaring a drunk girl (and irritating a drunk corporal by ruining his mellow buzz). Nothing big or dramatic, just recognizing that somebody needed to do a "right thing" and then doing it.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, ah yes -- the penalty for no longer being a water-walker when that is the new (or new again) standard.
I understand very well the secondary effects of having your mistakes recorded in formal disciplinary action -- I'm sure it was a contributing factor in my own "honorary retirement". I envy SFC Martland that at least his mistake had some morally redeeming values.
I understand very well the secondary effects of having your mistakes recorded in formal disciplinary action -- I'm sure it was a contributing factor in my own "honorary retirement". I envy SFC Martland that at least his mistake had some morally redeeming values.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Hmm.. I can't help but think, that if his pending discharge was for ANY other reason, Public Affairs would be shouting from the rooftops that his stopping a child rapist was in no way the reason he was being punished.
It's a sad day if we have stooped to telling soldiers they have to choose between their careers or being able to live with themselves.
It's a sad day if we have stooped to telling soldiers they have to choose between their careers or being able to live with themselves.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Living with oneself is the other thing. And most important here. Not some silly and stupid defense which is any that suggests stopping violence against innocence. Legal bullshit is still bullshit... imho
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This repulsed me. It's proof to me of everything I've thought about the Middle East. I couldn't lay there while I could hear a boy screaming because he's being raped. I would have to do something to help the kid. I would lose rank and maybe kicked out, but it is the right thing to do.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
Although a landlocked country in South Asia, the language is Persian, which is FARSI and written in Arabic and is from the areas of Iran, Iraq and Tajikestan....I would consider Afghans to be middle eastern and not Asian.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see), Sgt Kelli Mays - Actually, the majority of Afghanistan speaks Pashto, with minor elements speaking Farsi (which is found primarily in Iran), Tajik, and Urdu. The latter two are closely related to Russian. Farsi is it's own beast, not based on an Aramaic root. Pashto is a bastardization of a bunch of languages, and has over 100 distinct dialects in an area the size of Texas. Also, not based in the least on Arabic or Aramaic.
The only two Aramaic-based languages that still survive are Arabic and Hebrew. Using the same script doesn't make the languages or cultures related in any way. French use the same alphabet we do. I know I'm not French. Are you?
The only two Aramaic-based languages that still survive are Arabic and Hebrew. Using the same script doesn't make the languages or cultures related in any way. French use the same alphabet we do. I know I'm not French. Are you?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Sometimes I question weather certain cultures are worth preserving. No sane person says "the Nazi party should have been preserved, even if they did attempt to exterminate the Jews."
It disturbs me that America has a policy of "turning a blind eye" to abuse and rape because "it's their culture". No, it's a human rights violation, and we're helping keep those people in power.
Cultures CAN however change... slowly, and at times painfully. Example, slavery in the South.
It disturbs me that America has a policy of "turning a blind eye" to abuse and rape because "it's their culture". No, it's a human rights violation, and we're helping keep those people in power.
Cultures CAN however change... slowly, and at times painfully. Example, slavery in the South.
(4)
(0)
Our U.S. policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. Does it bother you this is an accepted policy from this administration and congress. And where is all the voices of outrage against sexual abuse against people. The American public has it rammed down our throats that we as a nation will not stand for these atrocities. But yet here we are allowing it. Hypocrites from the President all the way down. http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/us-policy-ignore-rampant-afghan-child-abuse/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left
(4)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
The worst part is it isn't really tolerated there either. It's just that those who do it tend to have the power to ensure they're untouchable. We just added to that by giving them militias and authority.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
You see that is the truth. There are freedom fighters like Taslima Nasrin in Bangladesh. She has received death threats and even been attacked by crazies calling themselves men. Honor killings my ass. Stupid crap!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
We have a bunch of idiots sitting on capital hill who's afraid to offend anyone so that would let others run over us instead of standing up for this country. Sad, offensive behavior from a bunch of rich a$$holes who only care how much money they can make.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Imagine asking why you were forced out of the military? "Oh, I was protecting a child from rape." Huh? Yeah our top officials in the services are playing grab ass or sitting on their hands because of the political climate at 1600.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
That's nasty....how are we to combat evil when we allow it to fester in the ranks of the so called allies of the Afghan police? Then we prosecute our own men for living up to higher standard and holding people of authority accountable to their charge. How disgraceful and sickening.....
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Evil can only exsist when good men do nothing.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
http://www.infowars.com/islamic-cleric-issues-fatwa-permitting-rape-of-syrian-women/
Good story on this kind of thing..
Good story on this kind of thing..
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I am sick to my stomach with this. It's disgusting and immoral.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
To condone this behavior is to take part in it. There is no excuse for looking the other way in this matter - any more than there was for looking the other way in the scandal of Abu Ghraib.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google