New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban

[Badger52]

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"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."

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 towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."
Full story at Wall Street Journal here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578171561230647852.html

'cause we're leaving, right?
:rolleyes:

[Streck-Fu]

It requires a subscription to read. Is there an alternate source?

[miclo18d]

Col. Tom Collins

"I'll have one of those and a vodka martini, barkeep"



Because we don't want to hurt anyone's sensibilities. They might want to include not shooting when someone shoots at you and don't even carry weapons because it frightens the Afgans.

[Richard]

WSJ glances at DAFT Cultural Sensitivity manual

I like the title of the thread - "DAFT" (whether an unintentional spelling error or not) is an appropriate word for this one. :D

Richard :munchin

[Badger52]

It requires a subscription to read. Is there an alternate source?I didn't have that issue at all & don't have a subscription. Here's my EB EXSUM:

Draft Army Handbook Wades Into Divisive Afghan IssueBy Dion Nissenbaum
WASHINGTON—American soldiers should brace for a "social-cultural shock" when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women's rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

"Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.

The 75-page manual, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is part of a continuing effort by the U.S. military to combat a rise in attacks by Afghan security forces aimed at coalition troops.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"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."

Gen. Allen hadn't seen the proposed foreword until a portion of the handbook was called to his attention by the Journal, Col. Collins said. Military officials wouldn't spell out his precise objections. But the handbook's conclusion that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks goes beyond the view most commonly expressed by U.S. officials.

The version reviewed by the Journal—marked "final coordinating draft" and sent out for review in November—was going through more revisions, said Lt. Gen. David Perkins, commander of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., whose Center for Army Lessons Learned wrote the manual.

The proposed foreword was prepared by Army staff for Gen. Allen's eventual consideration, and the general's concerns will be taken into account as the military moves ahead with more revisions, he added.

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."

The 2011 report—"A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility"—is now a centerpiece of the draft handbook's advice to soldiers heading to Afghanistan, and it is listed under the draft's references and recommended reading. The report's findings also informed the current manual for troops in Afghanistan, which was released in February, according to Gen. Perkins.

U.S. Army officials didn't make the current version of the manual available for review.

The Army officer who headed up the 2011 study, Maj. Jeffrey Bordin, now is serving as the Army center's liaison to Gen. Allen's coalition headquarters in Kabul.

Maj. Bordin's work was included in the manual as part of a broader assessment of the insider threat in Afghanistan, said Gen. Perkins.

"We are very serious in trying to solve this problem, so we are not discounting any insights that we think are useful," he said. "We are pulling out all the stops to do everything we can to gather lessons learned."

Maj. Bordin didn't respond to email requests to comment, and the military didn't make him available for an interview.

The study, based on interviews with 600 members of the Afghan security forces and 200 American soldiers, painted a grim portrait of opposing cultures with simmering disdain for their counterparts.

The draft handbook uses Maj. Bordin's conclusions to psychologically prepare troops for serving in Afghanistan. A summary includes views of some U.S. soldiers that Afghan forces engage in thievery, are "gutless in combat," are "basically stupid," "profoundly dishonest," and engage in "treasonous collusion and alliances with enemy forces."

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 towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."

"Bottom line: Troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with" Afghan security forces, the handbook states. "Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence."

[Badger52]

I like the title of the thread - "DAFT" (whether an unintentional spelling error or not) is an appropriate word for this one. :D

Richard :munchinIt was initially a typo, then I wondered who might catch that.

You didn't disappoint sir.
:cool:

[Snaquebite]

<SNIP>
Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:03:07 PM by jazusamo

Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.



<SNIP>
Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.

Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S. and the administration sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission. The Obama Administration even ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.

FULL STORY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2967753/posts

[Trapper John]

The fact that this is not posted in the Comedy Forum is very disturbing indeed. :(

[Old Dog New Trick]

We will win them over with softly spoken words of encouragement and overlook their heinous social ills towards women and children. Two-thousand years of cultural history and barbarian living shall not be undone by a country with only a 236-year history of standing up for the less advantaged and morally corrupt.

De Oppresso Liber! (vel non)

[Trapper John]

We will win them over with softly spoken words of encouragement and overlook their heinous social ills towards women and children. Two-thousand years of cultural history and barbarian living shall not be undone by a country with only a 236-year history of standing up for the less advantaged and morally corrupt.

De Oppressor Liber! (vel non)

Exactly!! My only suggestion is to make the font pink to highlight the sarcasm.

{Salute}

[PSM]

COLOR="Magenta"]pink[/COLOR

But you chose magenta. :confused: ;)

Pat

[MTN Medic]

To be fair, it is about on par with those that state that "we only need to speak 5.56 and 7.62." As it is with most things, the truth usually lies in the middle of the opinions of the opinionated.

[ddoering]

So how do you defeat an enemy that you can't even treat like an enemy?

[Trapper John]

But you chose magenta. :confused: ;)

Pat

Ooops :o

[Snaquebite]

Just WHO is the real enemy?

[Old Dog New Trick]

To be fair, it is about on par with those that state that "we only need to speak 5.56 and 7.62." As it is with most things, the truth usually lies in the middle of the opinions of the opinionated.

In the famous words of Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

Diplomacy is won in the minds of others, not on the field of battle. However, you had better be prepared to unleash hell when diplomacy fails.

If this manual is being distributed Army wide its inclusion of "Western ignorance" is probably on target for those that have not gone through years of cultural awareness training and adaptation of sensitive liability also known as "Sensitivity Training".

While I may not always agree with a kinder, gentler, Army, there is a time for violence and a time for compassion and acceptance that you can only change so much using either method. Our ideals are not universally shared around the world and humanity has a different face depending on one's location.

The target is the audience not the instructor or the instructors' beliefs and opinion. Building and maintaining rapport with the host nation is job number one. When/if that is lost. Then the purpose of the mission is lost and lives are needlessly lost or sacrificed as revenge.

Problem with this mission is that it has had little to no purpose, and no amount of money or blood is going to change the outcome or result. Our strength as a nation is dependent on how we execute the mission with honor and prestige, not inflammatory talk, and religious intolerance.

We can win every battle against our enemies and those whom support them, and yet lose the war on a single act of bad faith or action committed in the public eye.

[Trapper John]

Perhaps its the pathos font.

:confused:

Nope. Just the deuteronopsos font :D

[Badger52]

Perhaps a merge with this (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40240) might be in order. And frankly....

The fact that this is not posted in the Comedy Forum is very disturbing indeed. :(That idea has merit.

[Paragrouper]

Ooops :o

My wife, she knows fancy colors like 'magenta.' To me, it's dark pink.;)

[Trapper John]

My wife, she knows fancy colors like 'magenta.' To me, it's dark pink.;)

Know what you mean. I still have no F'n idea what puce is? :D

[Paragrouper]

Know what you mean. I still have no F'n idea what puce is? :D

Drink too much and you may find out. ;)

[MTN Medic]

In the famous words of Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

Diplomacy is won in the minds of others, not on the field of battle. However, you had better be prepared to unleash hell when diplomacy fails.

If this manual is being distributed Army wide its inclusion of "Western ignorance" is probably on target for those that have not gone through years of cultural awareness training and adaptation of sensitive liability also known as "Sensitivity Training".

While I may not always agree with a kinder, gentler, Army, there is a time for violence and a time for compassion and acceptance that you can only change so much using either method. Our ideals are not universally shared around the world and humanity has a different face depending on one's location.

The target is the audience not the instructor or the instructors' beliefs and opinion. Building and maintaining rapport with the host nation is job number one. When/if that is lost. Then the purpose of the mission is lost and lives are needlessly lost or sacrificed as revenge.

Problem with this mission is that it has had little to no purpose, and no amount of money or blood is going to change the outcome or result. Our strength as a nation is dependent on how we execute the mission with honor and prestige, not inflammatory talk, and religious intolerance.

We can win every battle against our enemies and those whom support them, and yet lose the war on a single act of bad faith or action committed in the public eye.

Agreed 100%

My comment was more trying to say that many in the Army go too far the other way and their conduct downrange is harmful to the mission and the security of the U.S. as a result.

This directive though, as doctrine, could have some pretty serious consequences.

[miclo18d]

"Isn't talk softly and carry a big stick" the exact same as carrot and stick diplomacy? I forget but I think there is a unit in the US Army that specifically does this sort of thing for a living. It's something like Security Forces, San Fransisco or Sensibility Forces... Anyway its acronym is SF.

They have successfully executed many wars like this until the Regular Army took over and screwed it all up to get their "glory time" in.

[Greyshade2]

So hard to know what the role of a military force, fully armed and in contact should be, isn't it...I have it on very reliable intel about how touchy and protective the Iraqi police and soldiers we trained felt about "their" women over there. When we outfitted them with cel phones they made good use of them. They couldn't seem to get enough of porn for their phones and would spend countless battery charges running around and sharing their nasty pics w/whoever was around. Maybe that was the resoning...if the men are so busy exploring sex sites on their cels they wouldn't have too much idle time they could be using killing our guys.

Anyway, just sayin'

[Hand]

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.



"Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.


Is there any truth in these assertions?

[Badger52]

Is there any truth in these assertions?Seems to be a meme that has been playing in the admin for awhile. I recall awhile back there was "the message" pushed that green on blue were really largely caused because someone got their grundies in a bunch or were culturally offended by a CF member. The default position seems consistent for that, this, to Benghazi being the fault of an insensitive video, bowing, apologies... anything approaching a pattern?

Oh, wait, you wanted evidence. Do we have any of the perpetrators who can be interviewed as to motive?
:rolleyes:

[Richard]

RE: Post #17 - yep.

Richard :munchin

[Old Dog New Trick]

Agreed 100%

My comment was more trying to say that many in the Army go too far the other way and their conduct downrange is harmful to the mission and the security of the U.S. as a result.

This directive though, as doctrine, could have some pretty serious consequences.

My comments were because of yours not a reply to your's. :)

The military and the government always swings too hard the other way, hoping for something in the middle. It's just the nature of the beast.

This mission would have, and will become better once the generals and the politicians get conventional forces out of the region. While FID/UW/HA are not as sexy as DA/CT it is what makes SF different and successful.

The sooner we get rid of the SSG Robert Bales, and Marines pissing on enemy dead and taking pictures of it to post on FB, and lowly enlisted guys burning Korans in a public burn pit managed by locals, the sooner we can rebuild bridges and worry about the lone asshat with a grudge inside the wire.

Much harder to overcome is the hatred and disdain the American people back home have for the average Muslim or "other" people and I'm afraid to say that war is already lost.

[Team Sergeant]

General Patton is rolling over in his grave......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlzIPoRbF_A

Spineless America needs to get out of the "war" busniess.