Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, laws are still laws It's the same reason why here in the states, we shouldn't take the law into our own hands, even though it really does seem to be the right thing to do.
Sadly, right is wrong, and wrong is right as it appears to be nowadays. Morally, the soldier did the right thing. I totally stand behind him. What that disgusting man did to that child is sadly, ingrained in much of the Middle East's culture as acceptable behavior. It's so hard for westerners not exposed to their culture to understand how morally corrupt many of them are.
I know what you mean. What if, in that culture, people look the other way? What if the child was given something like money or favors for his family, of protection of some kind? Maybe the child's family accepted it as a means to an end? If so, who will suffer? It is the soldier who is being discharged, whose actions will have changed nothing.
I remember a story about how some do gooders forced a poor country to stop using child labor. I think it might have been mills in India, but not sure. The do gooders felt good about it, but the families lost a huge part of their meager incomes, and some of the saved children probably starved.
If the US refuses to take disciplinary action in such cases, then the SOFA breaks down, and the next time a soldier violates some minor local law, the local police snatch him and stick him into one of their hoosegows--where no American wants to be for even a minute--while diplomatic wheels grind slowly trying to get him out.
We don't want to go down that road. That would make a lot of soldiers very unhappy.
Sadly, right is wrong, and wrong is right as it appears to be nowadays. Morally, the soldier did the right thing. I totally stand behind him. What that disgusting man did to that child is sadly, ingrained in much of the Middle East's culture as acceptable behavior. It's so hard for westerners not exposed to their culture to understand how morally corrupt many of them are.
I dont think it is all that acceptable. I actually started a thread in the history channel and the practice of Bacha Bazi, and homosexuality in that part of the world.
If the mother and child went to the Green Berets in the first place, then they obviously thought they were wronged. And also I remember learning a little about Afghanistan prior to the Soviet Afghan War. They leader there was trying to be more progressive. They even had girl scouts.
This or these soldiers are a more valuable resource to the military than that afghan strongman. We could literally put him into the ground and just plug in one of his subordinates, and nothing will change.
I know what you mean. What if, in that culture, people look the other way? What if the child was given something like money or favors for his family, of protection of some kind? Maybe the child's family accepted it as a means to an end? If so, who will suffer? It is the soldier who is being discharged, whose actions will have changed nothing.
I remember a story about how some do gooders forced a poor country to stop using child labor. I think it might have been mills in India, but not sure. The do gooders felt good about it, but the families lost a huge part of their meager incomes, and some of the saved children probably starved.
That only means, not enough was done for that country.
I am not totally against child labor. It really depends on what they are doing.
I am assuming the children in this case were being worked like slaves. Now that is wrong and should stop. If the family lost a huge part, then why dont the men or women of that family work that job if it is paying so much?
I dont think it is all that acceptable. I actually started a thread in the history channel and the practice of Bacha Bazi, and homosexuality in that part of the world.
If the mother and child went to the Green Berets in the first place, then they obviously thought they were wronged. And also I remember learning a little about Afghanistan prior to the Soviet Afghan War. They leader there was trying to be more progressive. They even had girl scouts.
There is crap that goes on in the US under the concept of "boys will be boys" or "what goes in <insert city> stays in <insert city>" and such that "isn't all that acceptable," too. I'm not saying it's as bad as what goes on in Afghanistan, not hardly, but that's all relative. Rape happens on and around US military installations in the States, which does not permit US soldiers to take the law into their own hands.
This is the thing: US troops get into trouble with locals overseas all the time. Stuff is always happening, troops are always screwing up in some way. Thanks to these SOFA agreements, the local government hands our troops back to us to let us discipline them.
We almost always let them off with a lot lighter discipline than they would have gotten if they had been left in the hands of the local police and courts, even for serious stuff, which was the case with Maitland. Essentially he got a light reprimand for a crime that in other circumstances would have gotten him a BCD short of retirement--the command did understand the circumstances. He gets to retire at a nice rank after a shining career and collect good retirement pay and benefits for the rest of his life--no different from hundreds of other soldiers.
But such things always grate on the local government, and because troops get into trouble all the time...and the local gendarmes get handed frequent opportunities to retaliate.
I was wrong earlier about Maitland being allowed to retire. An earlier story I read indicated that he was retiring, but that's not the case, he is being discharged at the 11-year point.
This is what a friend of mine--a current Army Command Sergeant Major who has several Iraq tours--sent me this morning:
Quote:
Well… I am not the one to weigh in on the judgment. I don’t know that I
would have kicked him out, but certainly a removal was warranted.
But basically, that soldier did not execute the training that was
provided.
There may be some army politics involved too (which is, in general,
unfortunate). Although the article mentioned QMP. So actually army
politics is involved.
Now that we are not at war, the army is looking to cut back, particularly in
the more senior ranks. I am sure that the Air Force has done something
like this in the past and is likely doing something like that right now. I
have an SFC who is currently facing some QMP items right now (he is a convicted
wife thumper – and I am surprised that he doesn’t fall under the Lautenberg
Act).
But if DOD is looking to cut funding, getting rid of some of the more senior
guys is a way to make immediate savings as well as future savings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the same reason why here in the states, we shouldn't take the law into our own hands, even though it really does seem to be the right thing to do.
