NYT story about abuse of Afghani children

We can't stop the abuse of children on our own bases? Really? Even when it's happening within earshot of our officers?

Western civilization has dealt with these issues since the age of discovery.

Here's how the British dealt with a certain Hindu custom:

Major General Charles Napier dealt with Hindu "custom":

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

It solved the problem.

There's absolutely no point in fighting evil on behalf of others, and not insisting that those we fight for live up to certain social standards. Do they have to match our in every way? No. But I think we can set the bar somewhere above tolerating the systematic sexual abuse of children as a status symbol.

What's happening here is a violation of rights by any standard, and we need to do what we can to prevent/stop it.

 

Hard to argue with any of this.

 

Hard to argue with any of it. Whose job is it to fix, and how?

 

Captain Quinn seemed to have a pretty good handle on how to handle it.

But, instead of encouraging Captain Quinn's behavior, his military career was ruined.

 

There's an obvious distinction you're missing here. India was not yet a sovereign state when General Napier said those words back in the 1840s, instead it was a British colonial possession. Under 19th century international law Britain had every right to force Indians to abide by British law, as they were living in what was then legally regarded as British territory. That is certainly not the case with us and the nations of the Middle East today.

That said, I agree with you that we absolutely should not allow this abominable shit to occur on our own bases over there. The idea that we can stop it in Afghani society at large is pie in the sky nonsense, but we sure as hell should be able to control what happens on our own bases.

 

Can we cut out the malarkey about us fighting for them. We went to Afghanistan because that's where the guy who attacked us was, not out of any concern for the Afghan people. Our motives are rooted entirely in self interest.

 

We sure as shit should be fighting for the children who would otherwise be sold into sexual slavery.

 

Certainly. But then we would be accused of imposing our values on other countries, and we can't do that, can we?

 

Precisely. The Taliban had been in power for something like five or six years prior to 9/11. There were a lot of horror stories that came put about their control. Yet, we did nothing.

Sounds pretty similar to the current problem in ISIS, except we had a pretty big hand in creating the conditions that enabled them to be successful.

 

There was such a thing (of practical import)?

 

Simple -- hey Marine (or soldier)? See someone diddling kids? Put a bullet in their head ...

Cost -- however many bullets it takes for the Afghans to get the message about diddling kids ...

Of course, this will never happen ...

 

How do you "fix" a culture that says "Wow, the future looks pretty cool" when watching The Flintstones?