How (Un)Lucky that Military Abuse in Iraq has always been photographed and published

Great Debates
1

With the prisoner abuse Abu Ghraib surfacing again (soon after the second set pictures of British soldiers beating and otherwise maltreating Iraqi civilians surfaced) I was struck by the common response that in all cases it was just a few bad apples.

How unfortunate that it is the bad apples that also make a pictorial record of the abuse and then let it leak to the press. :confused:

Or is it just that only that abuse that has pictures with it is taken seriously.

There have been many other cases claiming that coalition forces beat, shot unnecessarily and otherwise mistreated civilians, but no pictorial evidence meant no findings of guilt.

Perhaps the coalition forces have just been (un)lucky that the only maltreatment that occurred was photographed.

Or

Perhaps the coalition forces have just been (un)lucky that few cases of maltreatment were photographed.

Do you believe that the only maltreatment that has been admitted just happens to be that that was photographed?

Or

Do you believe that maltreatment is more widespread, but that some troups have the common sense not to make pictorial records of their war crimes?

2

That’s precisely what I believe.

3

I believe that war is hell and has been since the dawn of time.

… and I believe that digital photography has been around for, oh about 10 years.

4

So you believe that all soldiers, everywhere are thugs ? All of them are rapists, torturers and child molesters, and all that’s changed is the photographs ?

Oh, and Polaroids and videotape and other forms of picture taking have been around a lot longer than 10 years.

5

Yep. However much I’m opposed to torture, I feel that once a government has found it to be neccesary, it is a sign of civilization to document the extent of the torture. I’d much rather deal with a chain of command, scrutinizing the extent of the torture going on, and presumably ensuring it doesn’t go too far.
Other countries that torture, just deliver the victim to a couple of sadists down somewhere in a basement who can do everything, unchecked, as long as the victim doesn’t die.

That the pictures have become public is, from a PR point of view, unbelievably stupid.
But, paradoxically, I feel the fact the pics were delivered to the press is reassuring. Apparently, there are many, many decent human beings among Army personnel who refuse to conceal such material, even when presenting to the press makes the Army look bad.

6

Hear, hear, Maastricht

That - and the fact that these soldiers, or their officers in command, get punished for their deeds.

Somehow I can’t see that happen in countries that tend to sweep nasty things under the rug.

7

I dunno Pjen, as you already have another in your series of prisoner abuse threads going in GD and this is basically a rant rich in straw men, maybe it’s better suited for the Pit.

Nope, and I’ve never seen anyone here suggest so.

Virtually any crime or abuse that one can name occurs in greater numbers than the instances that are actually documented, so yes.

Other questions: Do you think that mistreatment and torture of enemy prisoners in wartime situations is more common now in Iraq than in earlier wars, and that previous governments have been more proactive in ensuring that such abuses do not occur?

Do you think that documentation of such cases and dissemination of photos by both trophy collectors and those shocked by abuses is easier now than in previous wars?

8

Oh yes, undoubtedly.

9

On both US and UK television I have seen a succession of interviews that go:

Dreadful…mumblemumble…few bad apples…mumblemumble…our troups are well trained…mumblemumble…things have changed…mumblemumble.

No one I have heard has said- train soldiers to kill without mercy, develop a strong pack mentality, teach them that the enemy are sub-human, and then of course our boys are going to beat and torture the enemy, happens in evry war. Up until now we have either pretended it didn’t happen, or there were no strong human rights groups. Now we have documentary evidence and a peace party, we find that the military can’t kill and torture with impunity and we find that a little worrying. We don’t really know how we can defend this and pretend we have any purchase on the moral high ground, so we send people out to mumble PR for us.

Answered above I think

Of course. That is part of the military’s problem- fewer fig leaves to hide behind.

10

I find it very concerning that the people photographing and videoing these events do so in the apparent mindset that what they are doing is OK and can be captured on film.

It shows an apparent institutional attitude of disrespect and dehumanisation for their captives. I realise that these feelings are somewhat common in all areas of confinement against will but the stakes are very high here and considering that some of the justification for the war was to put a stop to Saddam’s men carry out similar abuses against the Iraqi it is very frustrating to see this happening.

11

This does not qualify as a cite showing that those speaking in whatever interviews you are referencing claim that prisoner abuse is limited to instances in which photos are taken - never mind documenting that anyone in these forums has made such claims.

Are you really suggesting that never before has there been documentary evidence of maltreatment of prisoners in wartime? Such knowledge was common during the Vietnam War (involving both sides) and cases of beheadings of American POWs by the Japanese in WWII were known during the conflict (details of cannibalism and medical experimentation didn’t leak out until later), just to name a few obvious examples.

12

I never suggested that anyone on these boards suggested this. I asked a rhetorical question.

I will go look for relevant print sites which beg the question or merely bypass it with mumbles.

No, but digital cameras and video cameras are far mor prevalent and do not require developing as photo-stock or Super 8 did. Hence people are able to take a store things that they would have avoided going through processing. Also, censorship (formal and informal) is considerably less effective than it was previously and communication (e.g. the internet) is far quicker and more open and bypasses conventional media.

I don’t really know what you are arguing.

13

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Pentagon-Abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Rumsfeld:

‘‘I’m told that these photographs that are coming out now are nothing more than the same things that came out before, if not identical, of the same type of behavior,’’ Rumsfeld said. ‘‘That behavior’s been punished.’’

"U.S. officials denounced the activities shown in the latest Abu Ghraib photos but said they were the same instances of misconduct that had already been investigated and prosecuted.

“I’m told that these photographs that are coming out now are nothing more than the same things that came out before … the same type of behavior,” said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, testifying Thursday before the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense. “That behavior’s been punished.”

In a congressional appearance last week, Rumsfeld said that 87 soldiers had received criminal punishment through court-martial proceedings for abusing detainees, and that an additional 91 had been given administrative penalties.

Nine low-level enlistees have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to charges of detainee abuse in connection with the earlier highly publicized photos from Abu Ghraib.

Critics have complained that nearly all of those held criminally liable have been low-level personnel. An Army inspector general’s report last year cleared all high-ranking commanders — including Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former U.S. ground commander in Iraq — of wrongdoing.

The White House called abuses at Abu Ghraib “appalling” but said Thursday that the military had acted swiftly to hold soldiers accountable for improper conduct."

A military spokesman in Basra, Flight Lieutenant Chris Thomas, yesterday reacted to the release of the tape by condemning “all acts of abuse and brutality” by British troops. “We hope that the good relations that the multinational forces have worked very hard to develop won’t be adversely affected by this material.” He added that the allegations related “to only a tiny number of the 80,000 personnel that have served in Iraq”.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article345237.ece
Mr Blair said: “We take seriously any allegations of mistreatment and those will be investigated very fully indeed.”

But, speaking at a summit of centre-left leaders in South Africa, he insisted the “overwhelming majority” of British troops behaved properly and did a “great job for our country and for the wider world”.

He said: “Any allegations of mistreatment we investigate, but they deserve our fullest support in the work they are doing.”

Now, over to you. Let’s have some cites for public admission that these things happen regularly in combat and near combat situations and that we should just accept it as part of warfare- the honest answer.

14

Your links mainly relate to U.S. authorities’ claims that the specific abuses documented in the new photographs relate to known prior instances which supposedly have been addressed…not to suggestions that it’s no big deal because only a relatively few members of the military were involved. The only instance I see you citing that relates to the “few bad apples” theme involves Blair and British troops.

I would share a concern about higherups telling us to overlook abuses since “most” troops don’t commit them (which is irrelevant, since “most” of any group are generally fine folks), but I don’t see Blair saying that in your cite.

I haven’t claimed that our leaders make such statements; however the facts are that prisoner abuse is common to modern warfare, and while we need to hold policymakers and top brass more responsible than they have been for establishing high standards of behavior, it is disingenuous to pretend that these occurrences are something shockingly new. I bring this up because a number of posters seem to believe that history began with the Bush Administration, apart from something they vaguely remember reading about Nazi Germany in school.

15

Military training is mostly off limits for public criticism until trainees themselves are injured or killed. One reason is that there is always someone with military credentials to argue that any civilian influence on training will hurt combat readiness and produce less effective fighters.

Also, it’s never very popular to think about the costs of war – especially the intangible costs that don’t produce a body count. That could even be seen by some as dishonoring the dead.

16

I didn’t just rely on 'a few bad apples@

My full quote was:

On both US and UK television I have seen a succession of interviews that go:

Dreadful…mumblemumble…few bad apples…mumblemumble…our troups are well trained…mumblemumble…things have changed…mumblemumble.
I also earlier referred to persistent begging of the question.

These quotes illustrate that.

And the earlier response to Abu Ghraib from the US point of view was consistently one of ‘a few bad apples.’

17

Maybe it’s just me, but with the sheer numbr and frequency of all this, and with Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Cheney and Bush having gone on record as supporting torture, this is more than just a few bad apples.

18

No Steve, it’s not just you. There’s a value system at work here that we as Americans are not being allowed to question effectively.

19

Sort of like an argument that finding a new videotape of the Rodney King beating constitutes further proof of widespread police abuse.

Abu Gharib happened, and it was wrong. And those involved were punished. Further pictures of the same abuse proves - well, that it happened, and was wrong. This is not exactly new.

Regards,
Shodan

20

And if these pictures were the only evidence of abuse, you would have a point here, Shodan, but the fact is these pictures are just the first rock-hard documented instance.

There have been too many allegations of beatings and rape, too many deaths in custody, and too much tapdancing around the issue for the higher-ups for me to believe for an instant that the photos constitute an isolated instance of what’s been going on that just happened to be photographed.

It’s not enough to beat our chests and cry mea culpa over Abu Gharib. It’s not enough for us to send low level soldiers to Leavenworth and leave the brass free to keep making these decisions. Nothing short of active effort by the higher ups in charge of the operations is going to stop any of this. Now if the documentary evidence helps persuade the people in charge to keep a tighter rein on the troops, then I’m all for the documentary evidence. It’s not as if the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan had no idea what was going on before any of the pictures came out.