From the Stan

[DASman]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/night-into-day.htm

This is pretty good stuff here.

E

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the link - a really good atmospheric piece. Should be mandatory reading for a lot of people.

[tooz]

Really good, thanks for the link!

[Dietrich]

Am I misunderstanding the nature of the mission documented by this series of photos, or am I misreading the caption which says "Corporal Chelsea Williams and Color Sergeant Kevyn Diggle ('Diggs') clean their weapons"? The British Army allows women in combat roles? Last I heard, the US military (by contrast) doesn't allow women in combat roles. On the other hand, the other day I saw a clip on YouTube of a German documentary which showed a Bundeswehr tank crew with a woman loader.

[JonS]

From the article:

"I ask Chelsea Williams, who is military police, if her family and friends know she comes out into combat. Chelsea laughs, saying her family thinks she is on Camp Bastion, which is about the safest place in Afghanistan. I say to Chelsea that she should never tell her family what she really does because they won’t believe her anyway. Chelsea laughs and there is sporadic small-arms fire from different directions, but nobody is shooting at us."

However: http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/artillery.aspx

[Dietrich]

Ah, I see. I wouldn't have thought an MP would be out on a combat patrol. Is that SOP, or just not anomalous enough to be worthy of mention? Or is it due to the need to have at least one woman in a patrol in case civilian women need to be searched?

[dieseltaylor]

Medic Lance Corporal Beth Sparks is on her job

and Molly were also out there to be shot at. You must pay more attention! : )

[costard]

Ah, I see. I wouldn't have thought an MP would be out on a combat patrol. Is that SOP, or just not anomalous enough to be worthy of mention? Or is it due to the need to have at least one woman in a patrol in case civilian women need to be searched?

I doubt it. More likely that women are accepted in the British military to the point where they're taken on combat patrol to give them the same opportunities of experience and advancement that the men get. It also sends an extremely loud message to the populace of the occupied culture - one that isn't obviously hypocritical.

[Dietrich]

'A message that isn't hypocritical'...? Wait a minute... Are women being inducted into the ANA and/or the ANP? If the Afghan military and police forces include no women, would the absence of women among Coalition troops be interpreted as hypocritical? I make no claims to knowing any more about Afghan culture than anyone else on this forum, but that sounds like projecting one's own (i.e., British/American) concepts of gender roles on that of the Afghan folks. In other words, Would the Afghans necessarily see hypocrisy in any absence of women from Coalition personnel vis-a-vis the Coalition efforts to see that girls and women are free from oppression and receive education and so forth? Of course, there are reasons to have women soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan other than whether or not the locals see their presence or absence as hypocritical.

[costard]

The hypocritical message would be "Women are equal to men in our society, except, of course, where they aren't. But you have to treat them as though they are." Having active female soldiery in place in [Western Armies in] Afghanistan would certainly be noted by the local populace and sends the message that we actually practise what we preach. Of course, the prejudices of the local culture aren't going to disappear overnight - it was something like a hundred years between granting the vote to condoning active combat service of wmen in Western Armies and there are still instances of cultural regression (e.g. the Beefeater row last week).

If Afghanistan is to have a hope of making it as a first world economy - in fact, if any nation is to achieve that level of wealth - it cannot afford to waste half its resource through systematic denial of opportunity. And if [we] are in Afghanistan for some reason other than to promote and foster the values we say we hold to, then we really shouldn't be there and should not expect people to go there to fight for any reason other than financial gain, or their own set of values.

[dieseltaylor]

Bull. The idea that Western women fight is an insult to Afghani men I would think. The idea that the West knows best is not one universally admired and given recent history is quite laughable.

As for reaching first world status - what does first world economy mean is the first question. Secondly is it laudable? Thirdly is it desirable?

It seems to me that there are plenty of happy communities where the happiness is the result of reasonable equality between the classes and that people are secure in THEIR social system. Imposing Western ideas of equality may increase GDP but so what if it creates confusion and unhappiness.

Another series of questions derives from the assumption that having Western views on women working will actually give a country a first world economy. I always thought natural resources, trading opportunites etc were required to advance a country. One can think of many countries who will never become first world economies regardless of how western they try to be. Deserts, famine, climate etc can be much more powerful on an economy than female police and female doctors etc.

Enforcing Western [current] views on another society I find repugnant. Also whilst no doubt someone will raise the benefits of female doctors etc etc no body gives the benefits of strippers, prostitutes etc as another example of superior Western culture enfranchising women.

[Tero]

Lessons learned. Or not.....

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/05/finnish-funded_prison_turns_brothel_724554.html

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks Tero - and then there is this:

The Finnish League for Human Rights is looking into the phenomenon of immigrant parents sending their children back to their homeland in order to de-westernise them. They want to make sure that the children's rights are not violated in the process.

The League intends to interview non-government organisations, Islamic groups in Finland as well as educational and social welfare organisations in larger cities.

"This study is necessary. At the moment we only have guesses and rumours about how widespread of a phenomena this might be in Finland," says Justice Minister Tuija Brax. "The rest of Europe has already woken up to this fact and considers it a significant problem."

The Justice Ministry, with Brax's urging, decided to launch the study on Wednesday.

The Secretary General for the League for Human Rights, Kristiina Kouros, notes that not all cases are equal - their job is to separate benign cases from those in which a child's rights are violated.

"I think it's fundamental to research this phenomenon from a clean slate," she says. "We know that these forced moves stem from very different circumstances. Some situations are bleak while others aren't all that dramatic."

The study is due out next April.

[costard]

Bull. The idea that Western women fight is an insult to Afghani men I would think. The idea that the West knows best is not one universally admired and given recent history is quite laughable.

As for reaching first world status - what does first world economy mean is the first question. Secondly is it laudable? Thirdly is it desirable?

It seems to me that there are plenty of happy communities where the happiness is the result of reasonable equality between the classes and that people are secure in THEIR social system. Imposing Western ideas of equality may increase GDP but so what if it creates confusion and unhappiness.

Another series of questions derives from the assumption that having Western views on women working will actually give a country a first world economy. I always thought natural resources, trading opportunites etc were required to advance a country. One can think of many countries who will never become first world economies regardless of how western they try to be. Deserts, famine, climate etc can be much more powerful on an economy than female police and female doctors etc.

Enforcing Western [current] views on another society I find repugnant. Also whilst no doubt someone will raise the benefits of female doctors etc etc no body gives the benefits of strippers, prostitutes etc as another example of superior Western culture enfranchising women.

Yes well. The obviously hypocritical message that we do send in conducting an armed conflict in Afghanistan is "You may not use military force to promulgate your values in a foreign nation."

diesel, I don't see you choosing to live a life of poverty and squalor under a corrupt, misogynist regime, nor do I see you making any reference to the wealth the participation of women in western society has delivered to the society as a whole. And if a country cannot develop the opportunities available to its populace in any other fashion than the control of natural resources than the only way forward is for the promotion of military conflict to gain control of those resources. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

The best argument for the education and provision of equal opportunity for women in a society describes the benefit delivered to children by an educated mother: the child learns quicker, develops further and begins a contribution toward society at an earlier age. If you believe that education, intellectual and behavioural, doesn't provide for the greater generation of wealth of a society, you haven't read much history - certainly not the history of the last three centuries.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that given the choice, people choose to be wealthy as rather than be poor.

[Angus]

Another series of questions derives from the assumption that having Western views on women working will actually give a country a first world economy. I always thought natural resources, trading opportunites etc were required to advance a country. One can think of many countries who will never become first world economies regardless of how western they try to be. Deserts, famine, climate etc can be much more powerful on an economy than female police and female doctors etc.

Enforcing Western [current] views on another society I find repugnant. Also whilst no doubt someone will raise the benefits of female doctors etc etc no body gives the benefits of strippers, prostitutes etc as another example of superior Western culture enfranchising women.

When they stop murdering rape victims, that's a conversation we can have. Until the most basic human rights are provided to women, however, I don't give a good goddamn how offended Afghans may be or whatever Western problems may be foisted upon them.

Seriously, it's as if Afghanistan is trapped in some bizarro parallel dimension where bad is good and injustice is just.

[Tero]

By costard

nor do I see you making any reference to the wealth the participation of women in western society has delivered to the society as a whole.

In the context of this debate that is redundant.

And if a country cannot develop the opportunities available to its populace in any other fashion than the control of natural resources than the only way forward is for the promotion of military conflict to gain control of those resources.

What is the main natural resource in and export item from Afganistan ? AFAIK class A drugs.

Your argument is disingenuous at best.

Your rebuttal is a bit myopic.

The best argument for the education and provision of equal opportunity for women in a society describes the benefit delivered to children by an educated mother: the child learns quicker, develops further and begins a contribution toward society at an earlier age.

Funnily enough children in the West seem to fairing rather poorly these days compared to past times when it comes to psychological matters. Could it be that increased material wealth has come at a cost when childrens educated mothers have for all intents and purposes abandoned their offspring to the care of professionals ?

If you believe that education, intellectual and behavioural, doesn't provide for the greater generation of wealth of a society, you haven't read much history - certainly not the history of the last three centuries.

Lets not forget history is not absolute. When reading history it is good to be aware who has written it and for what purpose.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that given the choice, people choose to be wealthy as rather than be poor.

Are you seriously thinking that the West is exporting wealth INTO Afganistan and Irak at the moment ?

[Tero]

Thanks Tero - and then there is this:

That is what you get when feminist "immigrant huggers" are given freedom to act according to what feels good without any regard to RL issues pertaining the matter. It is good and proper to think good of all people but it is stupid to be too trusting.

[costard]

What is the main natural resource in and export item from Afganistan ? AFAIK class A drugs.

So the argument remains valid - one of the few resources the Afghan nation has available to it is its populace. And we're in there to control the supply of those ClassA drugs? (probably;))

Your rebuttal is a bit myopic.

True. And it was also uncalled for. Plase accept my apology, diesel. Your argument is at worst disingenuous.

Funnily enough children in the West seem to fairing rather poorly these days compared to past times when it comes to psychological matters. Could it be that increased material wealth has come at a cost when childrens educated mothers have for all intents and purposes abandoned their offspring to the care of professionals ?

Probably true. On another hand (how many do you have Tero?), I don't believe that the wealth available to western populations has increased over the last twenty years.

Lets not forget history is not absolute. When reading history it is good to be aware who has written it and for what purpose.

Are you seriously thinking that the West is exporting wealth INTO Afganistan and Irak at the moment ?

No such suggestion - but it would seem that it is envisioned that a prosperous, happy Afghanistan will not be safe haven for the type of person that perpetrates something like 9/11.

It is good and proper to think stupid of all people and it is good to be too trusting.

..fixed that for ya...

[Tero]

By costard

So the argument remains valid - one of the few resources the Afghan nation has available to it is its populace. And we're in there to control the supply of those ClassA drugs? (probably;))

The argument would be valid if there was a perceived or real disparity between the distribution wealth and other associated social issues.

Probably true. On another hand (how many do you have Tero?),

I have 4 (four). My wife stayed at home until our youngest (twins) turned six and went to pre-school.

I don't believe that the wealth available to western populations has increased over the last twenty years.

Propably true. But the distribution wealth has polarized at the same time the (native) population has been decreasing, family units have gotten smaller through fewer kids per family and disruption of the family unit. (Go global markets and free trade ! )

No such suggestion - but it would seem that it is envisioned that a prosperous, happy Afghanistan will not be safe haven for the type of person that perpetrates something like 9/11.

Yes, it is infinitely better to multiply the number of perpetrators globally by violently (and what is more both blindly carrying a fox's tail under your arm) stomping around enraging and alienating people.

..fixed that for ya...

Can't see any results just quite yet. Standing by.....

[Dietrich]

it seems to me that there are plenty of happy communities where the happiness is the result of reasonable equality between the classes and that people are secure in THEIR social system.

That, basically, was my point.

Does "treat women and men equally" make sense to the typical Afghan, or is their cultural perception of gender roles more along the lines of "of course we don't treat men and women the same; they're different"?

But, as I said, most people would say there are more reasons to have gender-integrated combat units than to not have gender-integrated combat units.

Simply put, I shudder to think of what would happen to a woman British or American soldier who fell into the hands of AQ or the Taliban, and to think of what the public reaction would be thereto and the resultant military action.

[dieseltaylor]

So much has happened since I last past this way! The innate belief that bringing Western "morality" is justifiable even if it creates uncertainty and death seems deep in some people.

Costard

Yes well. The obviously hypocritical message that we do send in conducting an armed conflict in Afghanistan is "You may not use military force to promulgate your values in a foreign nation."

Well I glad you agree on the first point but you do seem not to except the corollary that perhaps we should butt out.

diesel, I don't see you choosing to live a life of poverty and squalor under a corrupt, misogynist regime, nor do I see you making any reference to the wealth the participation of women in western society has delivered to the society as a whole. And if a country cannot develop the opportunities available to its populace in any other fashion than the control of natural resources than the only way forward is for the promotion of military conflict to gain control of those resources. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

What I like about your posts costard is the multiplicity of targets you provide : ) Rather like living in Australia if that is the only climate type you know then one does not rail against it you get on living a happy life. If I recall correctly the happiest country in the world is/was Bhutan which is hardly first world economic and a kingdom to boot!

Are you confused as to the relationship between "democracy", wealth, and happiness? I live in a democracywhere for the past 50 years only two governments have recieved a majority mandate. Cute huh!

As for corruption there is no doubt that ruler Bliar took the UK into a war on Iraq corruptly - you can try to dispute that but you will lose. As for misogyny - perhaps you do not know the word means hatred of women. I am sure that most men love women. If you are talking about different roles for different genders perhaps you ought to find a better word or expression.

The best argument for the education and provision of equal opportunity for women in a society describes the benefit delivered to children by an educated mother: the child learns quicker, develops further and begins a contribution toward society at an earlier age. If you believe that education, intellectual and behavioural, doesn't provide for the greater generation of wealth of a society, you haven't read much history - certainly not the history of the last three centuries.

So true, so true. I think you are suggesting here that women would be better off at home raising children in a loving and caring environment so that they get the best possible start in life. Educating women to be good mothers is certainly a farsighted but often derided concept. Bravo to you.

Fortunately modern science is revealing how important maternal care is and despite the pressures of industry and commerce to get women backing working as fast as possible this should be resisted in the interests of the childrens development.

The pressure on families to have two incomes to provide lots of plastic junk to latchkey children is a terrible indictment on Western society. And of course once the children are raised then these educated women will return/join to the work force. What a lovely win win.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that given the choice, people choose to be wealthy as rather than be poor.

I have very often said the same thing about breathing and not breathing.

Answering Tero -So the argument remains valid - one of the few resources the Afghan nation has available to it is its populace. And we're in there to control the supply of those ClassA drugs? (probably;))

I love the assumption that the problem is not the West's for buying the product but for the Aghani's to produce it. Love it. Killing the funny folk abroad is so much more palatable than executing junkies and suppliers in the West. Any way we want them to take alcohol and other drugs.

Plase accept my apology, diesel. Your argument is at worst disingenuous.

Its OK I don't expect everyone to understand everything fully

[costard]

I'm in the quagmire.

The West's deployment to Afghanistan has never made sense to me for the reasons promulgated by the political and military leaders. Even now we get the line "If we pull out now, then the radical Islamists will be that much more dangerous because they'll be on a morale kick." Pure horse****.

If, however, the reasons stated are along the lines of:

- we need to be keeping our military active in dangerous country so that we maintain a cadre of experienced personnel

- we need to be expending ordnance and using hardware to keep our defense industries in profits and their employees in work

- the circumstances surrounding 9/11 are such that we can pretty much do whatever we want with the full blessing of the populace

- Afghanistan, being a non-country, will not be able to call in any alliances to make the global play difficult

then I can see that there is an argument for us to be sending our military in. The argument is not in any way defensible, morally, economically or socially (I can't even see it making sense militarily), but there again, that's just the way the (western) world operates. I don't require that an argument be justifiable according to my own values, I merely require it to have some sort of relationship with the real world and not be a fantasy: it then becomes worth examination in terms of abstracts, like the worth of a human life.

Are you confused as to the relationship between "democracy", wealth, and happiness? I live in a democracywhere for the past 50 years only two governments have recieved a majority mandate. Cute huh!

No, not confused. In denial.

[rant]The recent history of liberal western democracies is that their populations have been allowed unprecedented freedoms, in expression, movement, association, etc. [These are now being wound back for reasons I cannot fathom, but that doesn't mean they aren't good reasons.] Mostly, people living in regimes not involved in this brave social experiment have seen the lives of western people as preferable to their own. Frankly, I don't blame them.

The systems that evolved to enable the functioning of a late twentieth-century western democracy require a degree of discipline in observation and analysis, and a degree of honesty in description and self-regard. The decadence and associated decay of the West over the past two decades is mostly about a discarding of these values - honesty and discipline. The systems can't function without those values being displayed in the behaviour of the populace and the structure fails. While it's going down, all sorts of human scavenger are making sure that they get something out of it.[/rant]

[Stalins Organ]

Western civilisation has only discarded honesty and discipline in the last 2 decades?

I was pretty sure it was founded on lack of honesty and discipline only in terms of seeking the most for oneself - how else do we explain that western "civilisation" is founded on the basis of robber barons, slavery (or exploitation of the poor to virtually the same extent if not actual slavery...), political corruption and cronyism, religious extremism, and financial misdealing, fraud and exploitation on the most massive scales...ever since...oh...say Henry VIII to pick a name only 450 years ago that ppl might be familiar with....I could go back further.....

[costard]

Western civilisation has only discarded honesty and discipline in the last 2 decades?

Honesty and discipline were part of the values structure that the mythology of the western democracies of the late twenitieth century operated on. For the underlying mythology, they were values that informed the behaviour of most of the populace - the law abiding populace, if you will.

SO, I suspect that a reading of history deeper than that purveyed as easy propaganda will lead me to the conclusion that anyone who mattered broke as many laws as they could possibly get away with, but I contend that the richer societies didn't disintegrate and remained relatively wealthy because most of the rest of the populace were law abiding. By the same token, I believe that the global banking industry is now in the unenviable position of knowing that, because none of them have exercised trust or trustworthy behaviour, they now don't believe they can trust anyone. Which means that contracts are just pieces of paper. And the law and the wealth structure of the globe can go hang, because military might is the only mechanism of power.

[Wildman]

Or there could be a good reason for including Women....they have to talk, meet and inspect AFGHAN women...and I"m sure its easier to have the villago cooperation when a woman questions/inspects a woman.

I'll bet dollars to donuts its a simple as that.