View Full Version : US Mil female soldiers wearing hijabs/scarves on mission...
Belmont31R
09-28-11, 17:51
For some reason this really pisses me off, and I don't like seeing our soldiers in this type of crap.
Among other issues this is why we have been there for 10 years. In fact right about this week isn't it?
Photo credit Michael Yon:
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/71e8ebea.jpg
More pics at link:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/tracer-burnout.htm
Mauser KAR98K
09-28-11, 19:28
For some reason this really pisses me off, and I don't like seeing our soldiers in this type of crap.
Among other issues this is why we have been there for 10 years. In fact right about this week isn't it?
Photo credit Michael Yon:
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/71e8ebea.jpg
More pics at link:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/tracer-burnout.htm
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The question is: how far backwards do we need to bend to prevent another backwards terrorist state to reemerge and do this crap over again, or do we cowboy up and educate them that their religion is way past its prime by about several centuries.
Yeah, I hate it, too, Blemont. But the retards we are "trying" to gain favor with are more superstitious and cruel to their women than the Puritans were.
yeah that steams my twinkies
complete BS PC world is making me sick !
Mauser KAR98K
09-28-11, 19:59
Reading further into it, they only wear them for a solemn gesture, but when the shooting starts, or on patrol, the helmets are on.
And apparently they are effective.
If they'd worried less about their pissing scarves and more about how to properly put a damn fire out we'd have probably gotten even more good will.
Belmont31R
09-28-11, 21:46
Reading further into it, they only wear them for a solemn gesture, but when the shooting starts, or on patrol, the helmets are on.
And apparently they are effective.
Apparently they are not because we have been there for 10 years.
ICANHITHIMMAN
09-28-11, 21:52
Did we not already address this same topic in another thread a few months back. This is a positive thing, ground commanders exploiting every availble option to gain an edge over the ememy. Female engagement teams have a huge impact on the battle space from a CA stand point. They are not wearing the hejab on missions only when they enter a home to speek with women. Its a sign of respect to show that you value there culture it will get you a long way.
Also the one with out rank is clearley of persian desent.
**** AFGHANISTAN! Having said that. Why are we still there? Because the people who work at the Dept. of State and the idiot in the White House seem to think that we are going to change that country and everything will be fine.
They still cannot understand the fact that democracy doesn't work in countries like Afghanistan. The average person there is illiterate and uneducated. Their belief in Allah and their allegiance to their own tribe/clan/ village, etc... trumps that of national interests.
We are simpy spending more money that we don't have. We need to pull out, take everything with us and wish them a good life. We can't even fix the mess we are in at home and yet somehow we are going to fix problems that have been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If they want to beat their wives, grow poppy all day and play with little boys, let them. We need to get out, use some of our intel assets to monitor the situation and if Al-Qaeda or whomever shows their face again we send a few Tomahawks over as a friendly warning.
variablebinary
09-29-11, 03:31
Is it a tactic, or capitulation?
Were you referring to my post? If so,
At what point do we call it a success or failure?
We have been there 10 years and the country is still ****ed up.
You cannot change the will of the people that do not function the way that you and I do.
What are we trying to accomplish? We have already routed the Taliban for the most part, we have killed Bin Laden and we have killed most of the top leadership. Unless we are prepared to go to war with Pakistan (which it should be obvious by now is helping them stick around) what else should we be doing?
Is it a tactic, or capitulation?
variablebinary
09-29-11, 05:18
I was just referring to the wearing of head scarves.
The_War_Wagon
09-29-11, 06:32
**** AFGHANISTAN!
...We need to get out, use some of our intel assets to monitor the situation and if Al-Qaeda or whomever shows their face again we send a few MX MISSILES over as a friendly warning.
Fixed it for ya'. The ONLY resource Afghanistan has, is sand & rocks, and we had MORE than enough of THAT here in America BEFORE 9/11. Nuke & FUDGE 'EM, I say. These are the people Sam Kinison was railing about 25 years ago - nothing EVER improves there!
http://youtu.be/P0q4o58pKwA
Not sure what those broads are doing over there in the first place. :confused:
We are doing it wrong. Kill your enemy, dont placate them.
If we had waged "war" we would have been done 5 years ago...
ICANHITHIMMAN
09-29-11, 11:09
I agree with everything said but the US does not fight wars it plays games
Imagine the absurdity if we forced females members of the military serving with occupational forces in Japan in 1946 to wear kimonos.
GermanSynergy
09-29-11, 11:40
Imagine the absurdity if we forced females members of the military serving with occupational forces in Japan in 1946 to wear kimonos.
Different time, different mindset. The Japanese knew they were beaten, and an American occupation, while still abhorrent to many Japanese nationalists, was far better than a Soviet landing on Hokkaido (which could have happened had the war dragged on into 1946).
IG hit the nail on the head. Afghanistan and Iraq are this generation's Vietnam. Follow the money.
CarlosDJackal
09-29-11, 12:38
I was just referring to the wearing of head scarves.
IMHO, it's a good tactic. I'm willing to wear a man dress if it helps me blend in and do my job. T.E. Lawrence learned that early on and it allowed him to effectively perform his mission (mapping the water sources) which later one assisted the British in their advancement across some of the driest and most inhospitable deserts in the Middle East.
I joined the Army when most of the trainers (Mid to Senior NCOs) were Vietnam Vets. The beat into us the importance of blending in, not just to your surroundings but also with the very individuals you are fighting (if appropriate). Standing out like a sore, American thumb overseas is never a good idea. Some adopted to carrying and using AK-47s and wearing black pajamas and a conical hats because this provided them with some very distinct advantages (depending on their mission).
Whether you agree with our reasons for being in A-stan or not; the wearing of the headscarf is akin to understanding the native culture and sometimes adopting the native dress. This is nothing new, the United States have used this approach long before it was a nation.
As someone who was born and raised in a Third World country, I can tell you that a lot of them will accept you more freely if you tried to emulate them especially if you are able to speak their language and practice some of their culture. And in the end, if this allows us to better fulfill our mission and bring our guys home safe-and-sound, what harm is it if we have to wear a headscarf.
NOTE: I am not by any means suggesting that my opinion applies to every unit we have deployed. I am looking at this as that of a Civil Affairs Officer whose mission is very different to that of the Infantry.
Different time, different mindset. The Japanese knew they were beaten, and an American occupation, while still abhorrent to many Japanese nationalists, was far better than a Soviet landing on Hokkaido (which could have happened had the war dragged on into 1946).
Couldn't agree more, and that is exactly the problem we have today. Nobody at the administration level is willing to fight a real war, so nobody has been made to understand they were defeated.
If we did the same thing during WWII we would have waged war against "national socialism", "facism" and "imperialism" rather than against specific countries and peoples and we'd probably still be fighting guerrilla wars with werewolf battalions and elements of the black dragon societies.
Not sure what those broads are doing over there in the first place. :confused:
Without a doubt, a comment founded by the many years of military experience you have. That, and the vast knowledge of that unit's specific mission.
Without a doubt, a comment founded by the many years of military experience you have. That, and the vast knowledge of that unit's specific mission.
No idea what unit it is. But I wouldn't want my woman over in that shit hole.
No idea what unit it is. But I wouldn't want my woman over in that shit hole.
Got it. I feel the same way about my wife but these ladies have a job to do just like our guys do. It's a shity job but it must be done.
theblackknight
09-29-11, 17:43
IMHO, it's a good tactic. I'm willing to wear a man dress if it helps me blend in and do my job. T.E. Lawrence learned that early on and it allowed him to effectively perform his mission (mapping the water sources) which later one assisted the British in their advancement across some of the driest and most inhospitable deserts in the Middle East.
I joined the Army when most of the trainers (Mid to Senior NCOs) were Vietnam Vets. The beat into us the importance of blending in, not just to your surroundings but also with the very individuals you are fighting (if appropriate). Standing out like a sore, American thumb overseas is never a good idea. Some adopted to carrying and using AK-47s and wearing black pajamas and a conical hats because this provided them with some very distinct advantages (depending on their mission).
Whether you agree with our reasons for being in A-stan or not; the wearing of the headscarf is akin to understanding the native culture and sometimes adopting the native dress. This is nothing new, the United States have used this approach long before it was a nation.
As someone who was born and raised in a Third World country, I can tell you that a lot of them will accept you more freely if you tried to emulate them especially if you are able to speak their language and practice some of their culture. And in the end, if this allows us to better fulfill our mission and bring our guys home safe-and-sound, what harm is it if we have to wear a headscarf.
NOTE: I am not by any means suggesting that my opinion applies to every unit we have deployed. I am looking at this as that of a Civil Affairs Officer whose mission is very different to that of the Infantry.
Thank you. At least someone gets it.
Belmont31R
09-29-11, 17:51
IMHO, it's a good tactic. I'm willing to wear a man dress if it helps me blend in and do my job. T.E. Lawrence learned that early on and it allowed him to effectively perform his mission (mapping the water sources) which later one assisted the British in their advancement across some of the driest and most inhospitable deserts in the Middle East.
I joined the Army when most of the trainers (Mid to Senior NCOs) were Vietnam Vets. The beat into us the importance of blending in, not just to your surroundings but also with the very individuals you are fighting (if appropriate). Standing out like a sore, American thumb overseas is never a good idea. Some adopted to carrying and using AK-47s and wearing black pajamas and a conical hats because this provided them with some very distinct advantages (depending on their mission).
Whether you agree with our reasons for being in A-stan or not; the wearing of the headscarf is akin to understanding the native culture and sometimes adopting the native dress. This is nothing new, the United States have used this approach long before it was a nation.
As someone who was born and raised in a Third World country, I can tell you that a lot of them will accept you more freely if you tried to emulate them especially if you are able to speak their language and practice some of their culture. And in the end, if this allows us to better fulfill our mission and bring our guys home safe-and-sound, what harm is it if we have to wear a headscarf.
NOTE: I am not by any means suggesting that my opinion applies to every unit we have deployed. I am looking at this as that of a Civil Affairs Officer whose mission is very different to that of the Infantry.
Its not about blending in because they still have the rest of the uniform on. I think doing it to blend in in certain circumstances is fine, and that is far different than wearing muslim garb to appease the locals.
And I think this type of appeasement is why we have been there for 10 years with no victory in sight and there are still Taliban all over the hills. We defeated the Japanese and Germans in 5 years where they had millions of troops, tanks, naval vessels, AAA, ect.
Afghanistan was never taken seriously by our government and we'll continue down the appeasement/COIN path until our citizenry gets tired of it enough they elect someone who's just going to pull us out of there, and then the Taliban will take over just like they were in control up to this month 10 years ago.
Also the scarf/hijab thing is how the muslim world oppresses women, and puts them a notch below the males. Its repugnant we would tell our soldiers to take part in that. Maybe during WW2 we should have rolled into Germany with swastikas painted all over our equipment to appease the Germans into liking us. They are both symbols of oppression and murder.
We are doing it wrong. Kill your enemy, dont placate them.
If we had waged "war" we would have been done 5 years ago...
Well, that there is the problem. We declared war on a tactic, not the actual enemy (ahem, Islam). Hard to fight a war against a nebulous abstract notion rather than a concrete ideology and readily identifiable group of people.
We'll always be hated by the Islamists, it's about ****ing time we pull our heads out of asses and make a concerted effort to make them fear us as much as they hate us.
**** AFGHANISTAN! Having said that. Why are we still there? Because the people who work at the Dept. of State and the idiot in the White House seem to think that we are going to change that country and everything will be fine.
They still cannot understand the fact that democracy doesn't work in countries like Afghanistan. The average person there is illiterate and uneducated. Their belief in Allah and their allegiance to their own tribe/clan/ village, etc... trumps that of national interests.
We are simpy spending more money that we don't have. We need to pull out, take everything with us and wish them a good life. We can't even fix the mess we are in at home and yet somehow we are going to fix problems that have been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If they want to beat their wives, grow poppy all day and play with little boys, let them. We need to get out, use some of our intel assets to monitor the situation and if Al-Qaeda or whomever shows their face again we send a few Tomahawks over as a friendly warning.
Could not have said it any better. Thanks for your post.
I was just in Japan. When we went to the Onsen (hot springs bath) we took our shoes off before we entered. Even me, the big white and blond gaijin did it.
The US military is not dressing all the soldiers up like Afghans. It is making efforts to defuse tensions with the non combatants who they hope will or can help them with intelligence or whatever. So some (CA in this case) make gestures that show respect to the people they are interacting with.
The question of whether we should be in or what we are doing in Afghanistan is totally unrelated.
Belmont31R
09-29-11, 21:55
I was just in Japan. When we went to the Onsen (hot springs bath) we took our shoes off before we entered. Even me, the big white and blond gaijin did it.
The US military is not dressing all the soldiers up like Afghans. It is making efforts to defuse tensions with the non combatants who they hope will or can help them with intelligence or whatever. So some (CA in this case) make gestures that show respect to the people they are interacting with.
The question of whether we should be in or what we are doing in Afghanistan is totally unrelated.
Yes there is a difference if we should be there or not and how if are going to be there how the war will be fought.
Either way I don't think pandering to the locals by dressing our females up in muslim clothing is the right thing to do, and is part of the reason why we have been there 10 years with no end in sight as far as hostilities.
After the surrender of Germany there was some terrorist activity and rebellion. In fact Germany had trained different units on how to conduct insurgent type attacks. When they happened in the western sectors we hung them, and when they happened in the eastern sectors the Russians went full bore. The attacks quickly stopped, and everyone went about rebuilding. I see this as akin to making post-surrender US troops wear Nazi armbands to appease the resistance and trying to appease the locals. Its the symbolism of it that matters not just as simple as picking out what pair of socks to wear in the morning. Every war we have since WW2 has been half assed and come back to bite us because we dropped the total war methodology in favor of COIN and 'half war' type strategies.
We could have our female soldiers dressed up in full garb and we would still be fighting them in the hills 10 years from now.
Yes there is a difference if we should be there or not and how if are going to be there how the war will be fought.
Either way I don't think pandering to the locals by dressing our females up in muslim clothing is the right thing to do,
They are not there dressing the mil females in muslim clothing. When they, the FET (female engagement team) are interacting with the local non-combatant females, they put on the head scarves. That is it. They still have their uniforms on. I bet such action gives them a lot better results than not. When the bullets start to fly, the head scarves came off and the helmets went on.
and is part of the reason why we have been there 10 years with no end in sight as far as hostilities.
This has nothing to do with why we have been there for 10 years.
After the surrender of Germany there was some terrorist activity and rebellion. In fact Germany had trained different units on how to conduct insurgent type attacks. When they happened in the western sectors we hung them, and when they happened in the eastern sectors the Russians went full bore. The attacks quickly stopped, and everyone went about rebuilding. I see this as akin to making post-surrender US troops wear Nazi armbands to appease the resistance and trying to appease the locals.
Not in the least. There is probably no comparable thing in Germany since the Germans and the western allies were similar culturally.
However, it might be similar to US soldiers removing their shoes in post-war Japan when they visited a local Onsen or brothel or other indoor place where shoes would customarily be removed.
Its the symbolism of it that matters not just as simple as picking out what pair of socks to wear in the morning. Every war we have since WW2 has been half assed and come back to bite us because we dropped the total war methodology in favor of COIN and 'half war' type strategies.
This has nothing to do with fighting half-assed. I tend to agree with you on that but this is not an example of it.
I think the "Lawrence of Arabia" example given earlier is spot on.
We could have our female soldiers dressed up in full garb and we would still be fighting them in the hills 10 years from now.
Dressing the female soldiers in full garb does not accomplish anything. This does. This gets them access to the people they need cooperation from.
variablebinary
09-30-11, 03:48
Dressing the female soldiers in full garb does not accomplish anything. This does. This gets them access to the people they need cooperation from.
In theory.
Infidels are still infidels.
Dressing the female soldiers in full garb does not accomplish anything. This does. This gets them access to the people they need cooperation from.
Isn't that part of the overall problem? Why do we need the cooperation of our enemies. We should destroy our enemies and cooperate with our friends. These people are not our friends, they want us dead.
Maybe in some great utopian world that might be the case, but its not with these cold blooded murderer's. The enemy needs to be destroyed not placated.
Belmont31R
09-30-11, 09:48
They are not there dressing the mil females in muslim clothing. When they, the FET (female engagement team) are interacting with the local non-combatant females, they put on the head scarves. That is it. They still have their uniforms on. I bet such action gives them a lot better results than not. When the bullets start to fly, the head scarves came off and the helmets went on.
This has nothing to do with why we have been there for 10 years.
Not in the least. There is probably no comparable thing in Germany since the Germans and the western allies were similar culturally.
However, it might be similar to US soldiers removing their shoes in post-war Japan when they visited a local Onsen or brothel or other indoor place where shoes would customarily be removed.
This has nothing to do with fighting half-assed. I tend to agree with you on that but this is not an example of it.
I think the "Lawrence of Arabia" example given earlier is spot on.
Dressing the female soldiers in full garb does not accomplish anything. This does. This gets them access to the people they need cooperation from.
I still think this type of fighting is why we have been there 10 years and there are still Taliban all over the place. And why in 10 years from now there will still be Taliban all over the place or even have taken back over after we pull out.
This hijab thing may have limited success in one off cases but its not going to win the war, and its part of the overall strategy which is of appeasement and making them our friends. It has not and will not work.
CarlosDJackal
09-30-11, 13:03
Its not about blending in because they still have the rest of the uniform on. I think doing it to blend in in certain circumstances is fine, and that is far different than wearing muslim garb to appease the locals...
Some may do this to "appease", but that doesn't mean it is the intent. This is a perfect case where carrots are teh way to go even if you have an over abundance of sticks. Going into another country that has its own culture thinking that acting like you would CONUS protracts the conflict more than the opposite. Not the other way around. Unfortunately, this fact has been lost except to those who actually study "International Relations" or were raised outside the United States.
...And I think this type of appeasement is why we have been there for 10 years with no victory in sight and there are still Taliban all over the hills.
See my above comments. This is why it is and always will be a mistake to expect Combat Soldiers to not only understand this, but also apply it when dealing with locals. Find 'em, Fix 'em, Fight 'em and Finish 'em is not the answer when dealing with locals. RE: In "War" by Stephen Junger (aka: "Restepo") the way the Grunts handled the cow incident is not the way to win allies. By shooting a cow, which may very well resulted in its owner's family starving to death just so they can have "steak", they created an immeasurable setback. The way the Combat Commander handled this situation did not help things any.
Clark AFB in the Philippines received an irreparable black eye back in the 1970s when they killed one of the locals who was trying to steal shrapnel from their bombing ranges. They would sell these items for scrap metal. The base commander insisted that his Security Forces thought they were shooting a feral pig. Something that did not match the SF personnel's signed statements to their command. This is one of the incidents that precipitated the locals' push to drive the US out of that base once the lease was up. Do you think this could have been handled better? I certainly do.
There is a reason why the number of Psy Ops and CA units have increased over the past years. There is also a reason why CA is made up of mostly Reservists whose daily life are directly transferable to their primary mission. Contrary to popular belief, CA aren't trigger pullers, and not all Soldiers should be conducting CA missions especially if they have not been properly trained.
...We defeated the Japanese and Germans in 5 years where they had millions of troops, tanks, naval vessels, AAA, ect.
Comparing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to that of World War II is outright ridiculous. You are trying to compare not only different generations but very different cultures from different continents who fought for different reasons. But if you really want to compare Germany and Japan to the current situation, look at how we handled their occupations after the conflict. Do you really think the insurgency in A-Stan can be defeated solely with military power or n A-bomb?
The core of the Marshall Plan (for Europe) and McArthur's policies (for Japan) is very similar to what you would consider "appeasement". But since they were given the chance to fail, the result is what can only be considered a success despite the insurgencies in both countries.
FWIW, this form of "appeasement" has been very successful in GWOT-PI (or OCO-PI?). I submit this is because those who are conducting these operations are actually listening to cultural experts (read: those who grew up in the area) and are following the ROEs that facilitate this type of success.
We are complaining about a global war that is relatively low in intensity lasting more than a decade. But if we were to look back in our own history it took 12 years to ratify our own Constitution and finally establish our country. And yet, we were still fighting the British to maintain said nation about 40-years after the start of the Revolutionary War. How many generations did it take to force peace in the West. The Civil War itself lasted about 4-years but it took many years (and countless lives and additional regulations) after that to bring any type of normalcy to the affected areas. We have been fighting the Korean War for more than 60-years and its outcome is still unsure. And how long did it take for us to finally "win" the cold war?
As with any modern conflicts we have the politicians running things remotely from their arm chairs which is never a good thing but is a nature of the beast. This assures that conflicts will last longer than it should because it impedes any type of victory.
We may have made a mistake in starting the GWOT in that area, but I sure hope that we see it through the end. JM2CW.
Belmont31R
09-30-11, 13:18
We were able to get Europe and Japan back up on their feet after WW2 because pre-WW2 they were modern nations, and at least for Europe shared a lot of the same values and religion as us. They were not living in the stone age prior to our arrival.
And we dealt with the insurgency in Germany very harshly. Those who were caught were hung. The Russians acted much more harshly in their sector. The insurgency died out very quickly.
I don't think Afghans will ever be able to welcome us as friends or allies, and the day we pull out the Taliban will take back over because we have not done enough to eradicate them. I am sure playing nice with the locals does help in some situations and cases but, again, I don't think that overall strategy of half-war or COIN is going to eradicate the Taliban which is what is needed to allow Afghanistan to get back on its feet. So we are playing tit for tat while trying to make the non-Taliban Afghans like us, and we've been there for 10 years with no end in sight.
I understand other wars have been going on longer, and in our Revolutionary War the actual fighting was less than 10 years. Yes they came back in 1812. Also during the actual war the engagements were usually very localized to one city or region at a time. The war could come through, and for most you'd never hear another shot again. It wasn't a persistent fight all over the place fighting for the same valley 10 years straight. The Civil War was similar but had more destruction especially in the south.
And no I am not suggesting using atomic weapons or carpet bombing population centers.
Isn't that part of the overall problem? Why do we need the cooperation of our enemies. We should destroy our enemies and cooperate with our friends. These people are not our friends, they want us dead.
Maybe in some great utopian world that might be the case, but its not with these cold blooded murderer's. The enemy needs to be destroyed not placated.
The average peasant in Afghanistan is not our enemy.
I still think this type of fighting is why we have been there 10 years and there are still Taliban all over the place. And why in 10 years from now there will still be Taliban all over the place or even have taken back over after we pull out.
This hijab thing may have limited success in one off cases but its not going to win the war, and its part of the overall strategy which is of appeasement and making them our friends. It has not and will not work.
This head scarf thing is not appeasement. It is smart soldiering. It has nothing to do with the question of whether we are doing good and effective fighting.
We are not trying to win over Taliban or AQ by putting on the head scarves. We are trying to work with the non combatants who may be able to help us or at the least, won't be driven to the other side by our other soldiering activities.
Like the story on Michael Yon's website (I think the same story where these pics come from IIRC), some farmer/peasant, whose house our troops were in, lost all of his hay for the winter due to a tracer from the Taliban. If our side was respectful (for example the head scarves when the FET was talking to his women) and made good his losses he may stay neutral in the conflict. If we are arrogant and push him around, the next time the Taliban come around he will be on their side. That is a loss for us.
This is independent of whether or not we have a good or piss poor strategy of fighting the war or whether or not we should even be this.
RogerinTPA
10-01-11, 14:00
Agree with everything Chadbag has stated. They wear the scarves to show respect and gather intel from a population (women) who are basically ignored by the indigenous male population, other than in their traditional roles. Don't read too much into it. It is nothing more than another facet of target exploitation and IPB (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.