http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/culture-rift-in-a-nasty-little-war-20120830-253fw.html
Can this rift be prevented? Should Australia pull out of stay?
Is it worth training Afghan soldiers?
= = = = = = =
Culture rift in a nasty little war
August 31, 2012
Tom Hyland
Australian and Afghan soldiers come from very different worlds. In such a gulf, deep tensions are inevitable.
ANOTHER three Australian soldiers have been murdered by their Afghan allies, bringing the total to seven. This means one-fifth of all our fatalities in this war have been caused by the very soldiers we are mentoring, so they can take charge of security and we can leave. The toll is shocking, but we should not be surprised. Instead, we should brace for more.
Despite all the official obfuscation, denials and weasel words, such killings are not new, rare or isolated. Nor, despite their apparent random madness, are they without cause. Without claiming any unique insight, it's fair to say they are the result of multiple, complex factors, born of a deep cultural rift, compounded by the inevitable tensions that are part of a messy multinational war.
It doesn't take any particular cultural insight to imagine how some of the Afghans might see some of the foreign troops. Australian soldiers are literate, highly trained, well paid, well led and well equipped. Afghan soldiers are highly religious, they can't read or write, their training is patchy, their equipment is poor. They are from a backward, poor, fractured, tribal society. If an Australian is wounded, he is likely to be in a modern hospital within half an hour. The same can't be said of the Afghans, who, when the foreign troops go, will be left unsupported. This is an environment with multiple points of friction.
Official accounts of these killings are composed in a unique language that seeks to obscure reality. You will see references to fratricide, to ''insider'' attacks and to ''green on blue'' incidents - the latter stemming from military jargon that uses blue to identify ''friendly'' forces, red for enemy and green for ''neutral''. You will hear the Afghan attacker described as a ''rogue'' soldier, or as a man ''dressed in Afghan army uniform''.
This language cannot disguise the fact these killings are now almost routine. At least 35 such incidents this year have killed 43 foreign soldiers and wounded more than 70. The mounting toll has prompted the US military, and presumably our army as well, to introduce further safeguards.
One proposal is for at least one foreign soldier, dubbed a ''guardian angel'', to stand back and watch over any gathering of foreign and Afghan troops. You don't have to have a military mind to know how messy such measures must be in practice, nor does it require much imagination to realise what these killings and countermeasures are doing to the trust that must be essential on a battlefield.
While the Taliban might claim ''credit'' for these attacks, the reality is much more complicated. Last year, a report by military psychologists for the US military said the killings were ''a rapidly growing systematic threat'' that could undo the entire international effort in Afghanistan. It said the extent of the killings ''may be the most unprecedented between 'allies' in modern history''. The US report, based on interviews with Afghan and US soldiers, was titled A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility. In summary, the Afghans saw the Americans ''as a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies hiding behind high technology''.
The Americans saw the Afghans as ''a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous, and murderous radicals''.
We can't assume that Australian troops are not separated by a similar cultural gulf from their Afghan partners. Despite all the references in Australian government official statements to the growing capacity of the Afghan security forces, many of our soldiers are deeply suspicious about the performance and ability of the troops they are mentoring.
I was on a reporting assignment in Afghanistan in 2009. In public, Australian officers talked of the courage and innate warrior traits of the Afghan soldier. In private, they told me of the incompetence, laziness and corruption of some of them. (References to the performance of Afghan forces are routinely blacked out on the rare occasions our government releases reports of inquiries into combat incidents.)
I heard comments from some Australian soldiers that ranged from the bemused to the contemptuous. They complained to me about their allies' disgusting hygiene, their dope smoking, their lack of discipline. They complained that Afghans sometimes froze under fire, and expected their Australian mentors to take charge. They were lost for words when some Afghan soldiers cavorted in a haze of marijuana smoke.
Our army is a reflection of our society. Australians assume they are likeable, easy to get along with and tolerant. Australian soldiers share those assumptions. Yet not all Australians display those qualities. Some are racist, some are just insensitive. Some leave sunglasses on when drinking tea with Afghan elders, or they show soft porn magazines to Afghan soldiers. These may seem like trivialities and maybe they are. No harm meant. But any of these things can cause offence in a highly insular, deeply conservative and proud culture. Then add the incredible stress and tension of an environment where young Australians are expected to not only risk their lives, but show sophisticated cultural awareness as well. It's a big ask for untravelled 21-year-olds.
Human nature and circumstances suggest tension between Afghan and foreign troops will rise as the 2014 international departure date approaches. With trust gone, foreign armies will march out watching their backs. The likelihood of more ''green on blue'' incidents exposes the threadbare nature of the official narrative of our Afghan retreat: that we are close to creating an Afghan army that can take charge of security. Australian soldiers will continue to die, defying the efforts of government and a compliant media to keep this nasty little war out of the public consciousness.
Tom Hyland is The Sunday Age's international editor
Can this rift be prevented? Should Australia pull out of stay?
Is it worth training Afghan soldiers?
= = = = = = =
Culture rift in a nasty little war
August 31, 2012
Tom Hyland
Australian and Afghan soldiers come from very different worlds. In such a gulf, deep tensions are inevitable.
ANOTHER three Australian soldiers have been murdered by their Afghan allies, bringing the total to seven. This means one-fifth of all our fatalities in this war have been caused by the very soldiers we are mentoring, so they can take charge of security and we can leave. The toll is shocking, but we should not be surprised. Instead, we should brace for more.
Despite all the official obfuscation, denials and weasel words, such killings are not new, rare or isolated. Nor, despite their apparent random madness, are they without cause. Without claiming any unique insight, it's fair to say they are the result of multiple, complex factors, born of a deep cultural rift, compounded by the inevitable tensions that are part of a messy multinational war.
It doesn't take any particular cultural insight to imagine how some of the Afghans might see some of the foreign troops. Australian soldiers are literate, highly trained, well paid, well led and well equipped. Afghan soldiers are highly religious, they can't read or write, their training is patchy, their equipment is poor. They are from a backward, poor, fractured, tribal society. If an Australian is wounded, he is likely to be in a modern hospital within half an hour. The same can't be said of the Afghans, who, when the foreign troops go, will be left unsupported. This is an environment with multiple points of friction.
Official accounts of these killings are composed in a unique language that seeks to obscure reality. You will see references to fratricide, to ''insider'' attacks and to ''green on blue'' incidents - the latter stemming from military jargon that uses blue to identify ''friendly'' forces, red for enemy and green for ''neutral''. You will hear the Afghan attacker described as a ''rogue'' soldier, or as a man ''dressed in Afghan army uniform''.
This language cannot disguise the fact these killings are now almost routine. At least 35 such incidents this year have killed 43 foreign soldiers and wounded more than 70. The mounting toll has prompted the US military, and presumably our army as well, to introduce further safeguards.
One proposal is for at least one foreign soldier, dubbed a ''guardian angel'', to stand back and watch over any gathering of foreign and Afghan troops. You don't have to have a military mind to know how messy such measures must be in practice, nor does it require much imagination to realise what these killings and countermeasures are doing to the trust that must be essential on a battlefield.
While the Taliban might claim ''credit'' for these attacks, the reality is much more complicated. Last year, a report by military psychologists for the US military said the killings were ''a rapidly growing systematic threat'' that could undo the entire international effort in Afghanistan. It said the extent of the killings ''may be the most unprecedented between 'allies' in modern history''. The US report, based on interviews with Afghan and US soldiers, was titled A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility. In summary, the Afghans saw the Americans ''as a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies hiding behind high technology''.
The Americans saw the Afghans as ''a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous, and murderous radicals''.
We can't assume that Australian troops are not separated by a similar cultural gulf from their Afghan partners. Despite all the references in Australian government official statements to the growing capacity of the Afghan security forces, many of our soldiers are deeply suspicious about the performance and ability of the troops they are mentoring.
I was on a reporting assignment in Afghanistan in 2009. In public, Australian officers talked of the courage and innate warrior traits of the Afghan soldier. In private, they told me of the incompetence, laziness and corruption of some of them. (References to the performance of Afghan forces are routinely blacked out on the rare occasions our government releases reports of inquiries into combat incidents.)
I heard comments from some Australian soldiers that ranged from the bemused to the contemptuous. They complained to me about their allies' disgusting hygiene, their dope smoking, their lack of discipline. They complained that Afghans sometimes froze under fire, and expected their Australian mentors to take charge. They were lost for words when some Afghan soldiers cavorted in a haze of marijuana smoke.
Our army is a reflection of our society. Australians assume they are likeable, easy to get along with and tolerant. Australian soldiers share those assumptions. Yet not all Australians display those qualities. Some are racist, some are just insensitive. Some leave sunglasses on when drinking tea with Afghan elders, or they show soft porn magazines to Afghan soldiers. These may seem like trivialities and maybe they are. No harm meant. But any of these things can cause offence in a highly insular, deeply conservative and proud culture. Then add the incredible stress and tension of an environment where young Australians are expected to not only risk their lives, but show sophisticated cultural awareness as well. It's a big ask for untravelled 21-year-olds.
Human nature and circumstances suggest tension between Afghan and foreign troops will rise as the 2014 international departure date approaches. With trust gone, foreign armies will march out watching their backs. The likelihood of more ''green on blue'' incidents exposes the threadbare nature of the official narrative of our Afghan retreat: that we are close to creating an Afghan army that can take charge of security. Australian soldiers will continue to die, defying the efforts of government and a compliant media to keep this nasty little war out of the public consciousness.
Tom Hyland is The Sunday Age's international editor
