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.
No comments:
Post a Comment