The generally left-of-center and anti-military Foreign Policy has an interesting article on a tale of two investigations: a CYA shamvestigation by Pentagon in-house “investigator,” politically appointed IG Kenneth P. Moorefield, and an actual investigation by John Sopko’s Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, the scourge of low-ranking small-buck corruption. The threat of the SIGAR investigation has forced Moorefield to widen the scope of his pre-emptive whitewash.
What are they investigation (or pretending to investigate, in Moorefield’s case)? Whether and why the Army is doing to Army Special Forces soldiers what some Afghan security forces leaders typically do to young boys — because the SFers tried to stop the child abuse.
In the fabulously-decorated pink-tinged E Ring of the Pentagon, up is down. NAMBLA is seen as one more “sexual minority” that deserves “equal rights;” the only war worth fighting is the Social Justice War; and criticism of the Great Buggernaut that’s rolling through military personnel offices is a sign of someone that’s not with the program, and that needs to feel the wrath of RuPaul or something.
The U.S. Defense Department has significantly expanded its investigation into what U.S. military commanders knew about the alleged sexual abuse of young boys by members of the Afghan security forces. The new inquiry was in part spurred by increased pressure from Capitol Hill and an aggressive government watchdog group, which had launched its own investigation.
The issue first exploded last fall, when reports emerged that U.S. service members were being punished for confronting Afghan officers they accused of kidnapping and raping young boys on bases shared with U.S. troops, who were allegedly discouraged from reporting the abuse to their commanders.
Those reports of soldiers punished for interfering with Afghan buggery are absolutely true, and these political punishments have taken place, to our great shame, in the Special Forces Regiment. One officer, team leader CPT Dan Quinn, has already been thrown out unceremoniously; an experienced NCO, SFC Charles Martland, is also being discarded. These personnel actions have been and are taking place because of a top-down determination that opposition to what the Fabulous Secretary of the Army delicately calls “man-boy love” conflicts with capitalized “Army Values.”
Yes, Virginia, child buggery is now an “Army Value,” and we’ll explain the mechanism that is being used to dispose of SFC Charles Martland regardless of what any investigation determines below a couple of quotes from the article. Do Read The Whole Thing™, but remember its written by someone — FP’s Paul McLeary — who’s a “made guy” as an inside-Beltway reporter, but who has no first-hand experience of Army culture or processes. (A reportorial embed? A solid effort, but it doesn’t really count).
Some in Congress were unhappy with the limited scope of the Pentagon’s initial efforts to investigate. By launching a preliminary research project in October, the Defense Department inspector general set out primarily to determine if there was any guidance given to U.S. troops to ignore the abuse. Since the results of the research project would not necessarily be made public, lawmakers were worried that the Pentagon’s findings could quickly be brushed under the rug.
Hmmm. Embarrassing facts, indefensible policy that is politically untouchable, in-house investigation, led by a political appointee. What do you think? We think this: any “findings” such a willfully blind investigator stumbled, Clouseau-like, upon, would never come out from under the rug in the first place.
Led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a bipartisan group of 93 members of Congress asked the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, to launch its own wide-ranging probe, which was announced in its quarterly report in January. The watchdog has already started work on the project, and has staffers on the ground in Afghanistan.
Spurred by the new investigation, Kenneth P. Moorefield, the Pentagon’s deputy inspector general for special plans and operations, released a letter on Feb. 19 saying his team is now “conducting a full assessment” of the allegations. A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office told Foreign Policy that parts of the assessment will likely be released publicly, possibly as early as this spring, and investigators will coordinate efforts with SIGAR.
Let’s translate from Beltway into English, shall we? The political investigator’s “Investigators will coordinate efforts with SIGAR,” translates to, “Investigators will stay close to SIGAR so that they can undermine SIGAR’s investigation.”
The new inquiry raises questions over whether the Pentagon can effectively police itself. From the unsettled investigation into the deadly Oct. 3, 2015, strike in Kunduz, Afghanistan, which killed as many as 42 civilians, to the yearslong history of unpunished sexual assaults, military leaders have an uneven track record in holding themselves accountable.
“The new inquiry raises questions over whether the Pentagon can effectively police itself. ” This guy’s been a Pentagon reporter since Christ was a corporal, and he wrote that line with a straight face?
Ah well, Straight Face is not an Army Value. Straight anything is not an Army Value any more.
Lawmakers felt that SIGAR “provides an extra degree of independence” outside of the Pentagon and will take a wider view of the issue than merely looking at the Department of Defense, said a congressional aide.
The aide — familiar with the discussions over the two investigations — said lawmakers were convinced that calling in SIGAR was the right move after viewing the original document outlining the Pentagon’s research project, which was “focused entirely on the DoD. It was very limited in scope, and the conclusions would not necessarily be made public. We felt a more expansive inquiry by SIGAR was warranted, whose conclusions would be made public.”
Those are just excerpts. We highly recommend you AfterRead The Whole Thing™ (you knew we were going to say that, right?), but read it with our cynical take in mind. Paul McLeary may be kind of socialized to the Beltway culture and too “inside” for his own good, but he’s done a decent job of reporting here.
Cynicism speaking, translating the two paragraphs of the excerpt above: It was a whitewash from the word go, and now facing a more-independent investigation, the Pentagon’s CYA honcho, Moorefield, responds with an expanded whitewash.
What Will Happen with Martland
Unfortunately for Martland, the fix is already in. His chain of command was directed, back when he first was accused of breaking up the man-boy love nest (by, appropriately enough, beating the snot out of the “man” in question). The Pentagon, where precious, polite, thin and neat generals obsess about whether lilac or mauve interior paint goes better with their new aide’s eyes, is far, far removed from the coal face of military operations. Someone in the Pentagon sent a rocket down the chain of command directing the Rater and Senior Rater that do Martland’s NCO Evaluation Report to make a single alteration of the report. The Rater, the Team Sergant, obeyed that direct order, and the Senior Rater, the encourager’d replacement for the defenestrated Quinn, obeyed it as well, and a small change was made in the report.
It was changed from “yes” to “no” in the block: Supports Army Values.
Because, under NAMBLA-friendly Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning, buggery is an Army Value.
What does this mean for Martland? Career-wise, “Game Over, man.” And it’s not because he beat up an Afghan buggerer to try to save the buggeree. No, it’s because he doesn’t support Army Values, which is an automatic selection for a Qualitative Management Program board-out (like, say, getting an SS tattoo on your face, burning a cross at the CO’s wife’s workplace, or being sixty pounds overweight). It’s the perfect passive-aggressive way for the Pentagon SJWs to get the Army to spit out a combat soldier, and they can make pious facial expressions and say it’s got nothing to do with him beating on an Afghan scumbag for whom beating-on is at the very low end of what he deserves, and everything to do with that bad NCOER. Why he got the bad NCOER? That doesn’t matter, from here on the machine just operates automatically. Rossum’s Universal Robots, at your service.
Just a personnel matter. We can’t comment on it. Nothing to see here, move along.
And the fix is in, and Martland is as good as out, despite the concern expressed for him by Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who’s been fighting the good fight in this matter.
Speaking of personnel matters, we’ve noticed that leadership performance is inversely proportional to time spent inside the Beltway, for instance, at the Pentagon, CIA HQ, Congressional staff jobs, Congress itself, Main Justice, you name it. Why ever is that?