No Good Choices? Some Choices Are Still Better than Others
By Matt Rowe, February 3, 2009
I was dismayed to read the feature story “No Good Choices” by Lynn Vincent in the January 31, 2009 edition of “World Magazine.” The magazine is a source for conservative Christian thought and discussion. The story centered on a US Army Captain operating in Afghanistan who suspected that some of the local Afghans working with his unit might be working for the enemy too. CPT Hill’s battalion commander apparently dismissed these concerns when CPT Hill brought them to his attention. Obviously concerned for the safety of his troops and frustrated by this lack of response, CPT Hill took it upon himself to determine whether the suspected men were in fact operating with the enemy. Satisfied that his suspicions were correct, CPT Hill allegedly had the men detained and interrogated, which included physical abuse and included the firing of weapons in such a way as to convince them that they were being executed—very unchristian ways to behave even in a war.
Although I certainly agree that CPT Hill was placed in a difficult position, I have to take issue with the tone of the article, which appears to condone his actions. As a US Army Special Forces veteran of insurgent conflicts in Central and South America I can absolutely sympathize with CPT Hill feeling powerless at the likelihood of having spies operating close to and even within his organization. What I cannot condone are the actions he allegedly took and which are clearly in violation of Christian ethics, Human Rights, and military regulations.
Although the article does not provide enough information to determine the reasons for his battalion commander’s apparent inaction, at a minimum an investigation under Army Regulation 15-6 is probably warranted. If appropriate, the battalion commander should be held accountable for his part in not responding to the legitimate concerns and needs of a subordinate commander in the field.
Unfortunately, CPT Hill’s actions work exactly counter to the principles of counterinsurgency and fly in the face of our goal of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. Contrary to what the media would have us believe, counterinsurgency is not an “impossible mission” nor is it even hard to understand. What makes it difficult to accomplish is the fact that there is no strategy for victory that can be accomplished by the military alone. This is because people do not pick up a weapon and fight their government without good reason. They typically have legitimate grievances like political, religious, or ethnic discrimination, abuse by government police or military forces, or simply the lack of basic security and social services, like healthcare, education, and meaningful employment.
In a nutshell, they lack hope for the future and for the futures of their children.
Of course, this desperate lack of hope can be exploited by political and/or religious opportunists or extremists, but this type of exploitation is more a matter of emotion or careful propaganda than the actual root causes of a conflict. As it has been made clear by the Army and Marine Corp Field Manual on Counterinsurgency—political capacity is the exit strategy for conflicts like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
CPT Hill’s position was extremely difficult, but his alleged actions and those of some of his troops serve only to exacerbate the actual and perceived issues at the root cause of the conflict. Terrorizing his prisoners drives more supporters into the arms of our enemies and contributes to the continuation of the war. The only way to counter the propaganda and manipulation by our enemy’s leadership is to be distinctly different—to be better than they are—even at increased risk to ourselves.
We must demonstrate that as Christians and free democratic people human rights, the rights of the accused, and the rule of just laws matter. We must help Afghanistan put political institutions and programs in place that recognize this fact and seek to meet the basic human needs of their constituents and provide realistic hope for their futures. Clearly this is something the US military cannot do by itself. Nonetheless, until we change this we will be just one more foreign occupier that offers nothing better to the oppressed people caught in the middle of the conflict, and we will continue to put soldiers like CPT Hill in the position to make some very bad choices.
I was dismayed to read the feature story “No Good Choices” by Lynn Vincent in the January 31, 2009 edition of “World Magazine.” The magazine is a source for conservative Christian thought and discussion. The story centered on a US Army Captain operating in Afghanistan who suspected that some of the local Afghans working with his unit might be working for the enemy too. CPT Hill’s battalion commander apparently dismissed these concerns when CPT Hill brought them to his attention. Obviously concerned for the safety of his troops and frustrated by this lack of response, CPT Hill took it upon himself to determine whether the suspected men were in fact operating with the enemy. Satisfied that his suspicions were correct, CPT Hill allegedly had the men detained and interrogated, which included physical abuse and included the firing of weapons in such a way as to convince them that they were being executed—very unchristian ways to behave even in a war.
Although I certainly agree that CPT Hill was placed in a difficult position, I have to take issue with the tone of the article, which appears to condone his actions. As a US Army Special Forces veteran of insurgent conflicts in Central and South America I can absolutely sympathize with CPT Hill feeling powerless at the likelihood of having spies operating close to and even within his organization. What I cannot condone are the actions he allegedly took and which are clearly in violation of Christian ethics, Human Rights, and military regulations.
Although the article does not provide enough information to determine the reasons for his battalion commander’s apparent inaction, at a minimum an investigation under Army Regulation 15-6 is probably warranted. If appropriate, the battalion commander should be held accountable for his part in not responding to the legitimate concerns and needs of a subordinate commander in the field.
Unfortunately, CPT Hill’s actions work exactly counter to the principles of counterinsurgency and fly in the face of our goal of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. Contrary to what the media would have us believe, counterinsurgency is not an “impossible mission” nor is it even hard to understand. What makes it difficult to accomplish is the fact that there is no strategy for victory that can be accomplished by the military alone. This is because people do not pick up a weapon and fight their government without good reason. They typically have legitimate grievances like political, religious, or ethnic discrimination, abuse by government police or military forces, or simply the lack of basic security and social services, like healthcare, education, and meaningful employment.
In a nutshell, they lack hope for the future and for the futures of their children.
Of course, this desperate lack of hope can be exploited by political and/or religious opportunists or extremists, but this type of exploitation is more a matter of emotion or careful propaganda than the actual root causes of a conflict. As it has been made clear by the Army and Marine Corp Field Manual on Counterinsurgency—political capacity is the exit strategy for conflicts like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
CPT Hill’s position was extremely difficult, but his alleged actions and those of some of his troops serve only to exacerbate the actual and perceived issues at the root cause of the conflict. Terrorizing his prisoners drives more supporters into the arms of our enemies and contributes to the continuation of the war. The only way to counter the propaganda and manipulation by our enemy’s leadership is to be distinctly different—to be better than they are—even at increased risk to ourselves.
We must demonstrate that as Christians and free democratic people human rights, the rights of the accused, and the rule of just laws matter. We must help Afghanistan put political institutions and programs in place that recognize this fact and seek to meet the basic human needs of their constituents and provide realistic hope for their futures. Clearly this is something the US military cannot do by itself. Nonetheless, until we change this we will be just one more foreign occupier that offers nothing better to the oppressed people caught in the middle of the conflict, and we will continue to put soldiers like CPT Hill in the position to make some very bad choices.
posted by Matt Rowe at 11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home