The proposed handbook embraces a hotly debated theory that American cultural ignorance has sparked many so-called insider attacks—more than three dozen of which have claimed the lives of some 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year. The rise in insider attacks has created one of the biggest threats to American plans to end its major combat missions in Afghanistan next year and transfer full security control to Afghan forces in 2014.
Afghan leaders say Taliban infiltrators are responsible for most insider attacks. U.S. officials say the attacks are largely rooted in personal feuds between Afghan and coalition troops, though not necessarily the result of cultural insensitivity.
Last year, the U.S.-led coalition rejected an internal military study that concluded that cultural insensitivity was in part to blame for insider killings, which it called a growing threat that represented “a severe and rapidly metastasizing malignancy” for the coalition in Afghanistan.
The study was reported last year by The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. military at the time said the study was flawed by “unprofessional rhetoric and sensationalism.”
So in order to avoid such cultural misunderstandings, the following topics are supposed to be avoided:
The draft handbook offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism toward Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam," according to the Journal.
Oy, there is so much stupid in there it will take a few minutes to unpack it all. Let’s start with this don’t criticize the Taliban thing. So we can shoot them, but not say anything bad about them? I mean they and al Qaeda are kind of our enemies, ya know? Aren’t we allowed to tell others why we consider them to be as such? I mean if an Afghan ally says, “why do you hate the Taliban?” and you say nothing, doesn’t that increase the chances that someone might conclude that the actual reason is a bad one, such as some form of bigotry toward Islam generally, rather than the fact that these are knuckle-dragging barbarians who were complicit in the murder of about 3,000 Americans, who want to suppress religious freedom, women’s rights, etc.?
Which segues into the next bit: advocacy of women’s rights. So, I guess we have to tell our women in uniform that they are not welcome to serve in Afghanistan, because God forbid we ask our Afghan allies to treat them with any respect, right? I mean if one of our Afghan allies speaks in a derogatory way toward our women in uniform, slaps her ass, or whatever, we would have to take that person aside and say, “hey, you do not treat women this way. Check your piggishness at the door.” And that is advocating for women’s rights, right? I mean we either do that or our women in uniform could be subjected to sexual harassment that would make the Tailhook scandal look tame. So the only solution, I suppose, is to exclude women from the Afghan theater, right? Right?
(Note: I am being sarcastic.)
And um, “any criticism of pedophilia?” Really? Is it the opinion of our military brass that the average Afghan supports pedophilia? Because that would seem itself to be kind of bigoted, you know.
And of course you get to “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” which would seem to contradict the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, doesn’t it? I mean Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was really a policy of 1) nobody asks if anyone in the military is gay, 2) gay service members don’t volunteer that information, and 3) gay service members are not to actually engage in gay relationships on base. So it was more like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Do.” So if Tony mentions that he is dating Roger (both being men), isn’t that at least “mentioning homosexuality?” And certainly if you are not supposed to mention homosexuality, or homosexual conduct, it seems to imply that you shouldn’t actually be having gay sex anywhere an Afghan ally might see or else me might go all “suicide-bomby” on you. So apparently Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is to be reinstated in Afghanistan.
(Note: I am still being sarcastic.)
What we are seeing here, really, is bigotry masked as “cultural sensitivity.” Of course some of this might be justified. Putting down Afghans at random doesn’t seem to be particularly useful, and while I think our soldiers should be free to criticize any religion they want to, there is at least a logic to asking them to refrain from doing so.* But if an Afghan ally cannot stand to even hear one of our soldiers 1) put down the enemy, 2) put down pedophilia, 3) support women’s rights, and/or 4) support gay rights, then this person is really not your ally. And I am not ready to believe that this is the case with the majority of the Afghan people. No, they are not all pedophiles, for instance, and anyone who thinks that sounds like a bigot to me.
It is also worth noting that the top military commander in Afghanistan is not pleased:
But its message of walking on eggshells around the locals is not going over well with U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan.
"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."
So... does this mean he can deep six this silly, bigoted manual? I honestly don’t know. But hopefully someone in the military will do away with it.
And it highlights the deep contradiction in the left’s simultaneous 1) devotion to revolutionary cultural transformation and 2) devotion to moral relativism. At some point, the left will have to choose: the appeasement of sub-medieval islamofascism, or radical feminism and gay pride parades. The two cannot simply coexist, even if you do own that bumper sticker.
---------------------------------------
* Of course the old adage that the military is there to defend democracy, but not practice it applies. Ordinarily as a matter of free speech and freedom of religion, our soldiers should be free to criticize Islam, except, well... they are soldiers and thus not as free to do what ordinary citizens do.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed communication. I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him. Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report. And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.
0 comments:
Post a Comment