Another low bow to radical Islam
By Wes Pruden
PrudenPolitics.comcom
Barack Obama says he’s a Christian. Good for him
(and for the Gospel). But rarely has a Christian
paid such obeisance to another faith and ideology.
The president’s bow and scrape to Islam knows no
end. That’s not so good.
The
U.S. Army is soon to issue a handbook instructing
soldiers to copy Mr. Obama’s example of when and how
to defer to an alien ideology that stands against
everything Americans are taught, whether by faith,
ethics, morals or another code of good conduct.
The
new manual, which runs to 75 pages, orders American
military personnel to refrain from saying anything
to offend the Taliban in Afghanistan, to be careful
not to criticize the practice of sexual relations
with children, the abuse of women, beheadings,
massacres of girls and the killing of “unbelievers”
and Muslims who Taliban enforcers regard as
insufficiently devout in the faith. Holding to what
they have been taught, whether at Sunday school or a
mother’s knee, is presumably OK for American
soldiers, at least for now. But they must keep such
ideas to themselves.
The
manual, issued in the name of the U.S. Government,
obviously at the command of the commander in chief,
suggests that Western ignorance and arrogance and
not the Taliban are responsible for the surge in
deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the
soldiers of the allied coalition.
U.S.
troops should prepare for “psychologically
challenging conditions” in Afghanistan, and be
prepared for “stressors” that some American soldiers
have remarked from previous deployments, such as
finding Afghan security forces “profoundly dishonest
and [having] no personal integrity,” and “gutless in
combat,” and “ignorant and basically stupid.”
The
manual’s bottom line, as first reported by the Wall
Street Journal, is that “troops may experience
social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when
interacting with [the Afghans]. Better situational
awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help
better prepare [coalition] forces to effectively
partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead
towards . . . violence.”
The
Army, citing “etiquette,” specifically orders
soldiers to avoid “conversation topics” such as
“anything related to Islam, mention of any other
religion and/or spirituality, debating the war,
making derogatory comments about the Taliban,
advocating women’s rights and equality, directing
any criticism towards Afghans, and mentioning
homosexuality and homosexual conduct.” The manual,
according to the Journal, is the work of the Army’s
Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth,
Kan. Some lessons, alas, are still to be learned.
Some
of this advice would be just good manners at a
proper dinner party for the elites and the effetes,
where custom forbids talking about religion or
politics. But bitching about anything and everything
is a soldier’s cherished right. Any top sergeant (or
major general) could tell you that bitching is
crucial to good morale.
Nor
is this the first time the Army has issued a manual
to GIs with advice about avoiding cultural potholes.
Every GI arriving in Britain in 1942, to train with
our British cousins for the invasion of France,
received a 31-page pamphlet detailing how to get
along with the natives. Some of the advice is quaint
today: Don’t use the word “bloody” if women are
present; “it’s one of their worst swear words.”
Never apologize for “looking like a bum;” to the
British “this means you look like your own
backside.” American GIs were reminded that a British
female officer or non-commissioned officer is
entitled to give orders to a man; “the men obey
smartly and know it is no shame.” Both American and
Brit were civilized, of course. That made everything
easier.
It’s
the tone and tint of the manual that offends. The
Army of yesteryear would never feel it necessary to
beg for an enemy’s mercy or cultural indulgence. Ike
did not caution Americans not to speak ill of the
Nazis on the eve of D-Day lest they abuse his
soldiers. FDR did not describe the beheading of
American pilots by the Japanese in 1942 as
“workplace violence” lest he offend the men of
Nippon. Ike and FDR counted on soldiers and Marines
to be big enough to take care of themselves.
The
Army manual offends American fighting men today,
too. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. military
commander in Afghanistan, neither endorsed the
manual nor agreed to sign a foreword written in his
name. “Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend
to provide, a foreword,” a spokesman for the
U.S.-led coalition said. “He does not approve of its
contents.”
Gen. John Allen
We
should thank him for small mercies. No thanks at all
to the commander in chief. All is not lost, not yet.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington
Times.