The incidents of sexual assault on children described by American service members who served in Afghanistan are sickening. Boys screaming in the night as Afghan police officers attacked them. Three or four Afghan men found lying on the floor of a room at a military base with children between them, presumably for sex play.
No less offensive is that American soldiers and Marines who wanted to intervene could not. According to an account in The Times by Joseph Goldstein, they were ordered by their superiors to ignore abusive behavior by their Afghan allies and “to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
The Pentagon’s indulgent, even complicit, attitude toward pedophiles among the Afghan militias that it funded and trained is indefensible, at odds with American values and with international laws Washington has taken the lead in promoting.
Pervasive sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan. It is especially pronounced among armed commanders who control rural regions and hold sway over the population there. The practice is known as bacha bazi, or boy play; powerful Afghan men often surround themselves with young teenagers as a mark of social status.
By instructing American soldiers and Marines not to interfere, even if the incidents occurred on American bases, the Pentagon has chosen — reprehensibly — to sacrifice vulnerable children in order to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militias it needs to fight the Taliban.
Some American service members who opposed the policy have been disciplined or seen their careers ruined because they fought it. In one case, Dan Quinn, then a Special Forces captain, beat up an Afghan militia commander in 2011 for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. The Army subsequently relieved Captain Quinn of his command, and he has since left the military. Now the Army is trying to retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in the beating.
The American military’s defense of the policy is laughable. In an email, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, argued that allegations of child abuse committed by members of the Afghan military or police “would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” But the track record for Afghanistan bringing sexual predators to justice isn’t encouraging. In 2010, two Marine officers persuaded the Afghan authorities to arrest a police commander after a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, he was back with a different unit in Helmand Province.
Colonel Tribus also said there was “no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan” report abuses except when rape is being used as a weapon of war. He’s wrong on several counts, legal experts say. Sexual abuse would appear to violate the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit violence, cruel treatment and “outrages upon personal dignity” against people taken into custody. International human rights law outlaws rape.
The Geneva Conventions and federal law also impose an obligation on the United States to investigate and prosecute violations of the laws of war under its jurisdiction, including military bases in Afghanistan. “There are no gray areas here,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
Fourteen long years of war and billions of dollars invested have proved that the United States cannot remake Afghanistan. But there should be no question that the American military cannot allow such practices on its bases or give Afghans at any level the impression that such practices are condoned. Nor should service members like Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland be penalized for refusing to turn a blind eye when a boy is kept as a sex slave.
No comments:
Post a Comment