I’m puzzled about various aspects of the abuse scandal in Iraq. First off, who took the pictures? Aside from the obvious savagery involved, the stupidity of people to take pictures of themselves breaking the law is mind-boggling. I recall thinking the same thing when those teenagers were shooting people on the street with pellet guns a few years back.
Next, if they were so bold as to photograph the acts, it makes me think that they had no fear of repercussions. It reinforces my feeling that the higher-ups were completely in the know and encouraged this behavior.
Do you think they’ll throw the book at the accused offenders? My gut feeling is that they’ll make examples of the lot of them and give them very long sentences. But some people say they think they’ll get off with reprimands. What’s your take?
Finally, the apparent lack of leadership in the military, as well as the calibur of people we’re seeing in sensitive areas, makes me question our abilities should we ever have to go up against a more formidable force. How about you?
The story as I have heard it is that at least some of them were told the photos were propaganda pieces for psychological ops. I’m not exactly sure how they could be used for such purposes, but if a NCO(Non-Comissioned Officer) said these kind of humiliations and such would be injurous to the psyche and make interrogation easier then people who would not normally do these sorts of things would have second thoughts. Review the Milgram Experiment for an example of how people will behave if they think an authority figure has a good reason to ask them to do something they would never do on their own.
Depends on your definition of “higher up”. I think at the immediate higher up level, there was both knowledge and encouragement. At the next level up there was probably knowledge but less active encouragement, more “turning a blind eye” level stuff. At the highest levels there was probably a good bit of ignorance as well as turning of blind eyes. The middle levels are the most inexcusable IMHO because oversight is their job.
Depends on the type of conflict. As has been noted over and over, the armed forces are not policeman. They are very, very good at their job, which is to win battles. The entire apparatus is unsuited for police work. IMHO it should have been turned over to the State Department once major combat was done and Baghdad taken.
It’s possible that some may get some leniency if systemic failures can be proven or reasonably demonstrated by the defense. For example, a recent New York Times report (link goes to the Toronto Star’s copy of the story) goes into details of some of the general and apalling chaos of the prison’s administration. I cannot fathom being in those conditions and not having them deteriorate into some kind of scene out of Lord of the Flies.
In particular they are stunningly understaffed – the story says that typically, a military police brigade should be in charge of 4,000 prisoners. At Abu Ghraib a single battalion (1/3 as big as a brigade) was handling up to 7,000. Many of them had only a bit of training from “training camp” and had no dea how to deal with riots. At times temperatures were up to 120 (F), there would be 6 guards on a shift to watch over 700 prisoners at a time, insurgents outside the prison were launching crap at them regularly (small arms fire, grenades, mortars etc.)
So on one hand, you have total jerks like Charles Graner who is a corrections officer in civilian life and certianly should have known better. On the other hand, you also have many reservists who were completely overwhelmed and understaffed, never really trained for the prison system, in a horrendoulsy chaotic environment, suffering from terrible morale, and then asked to “set the conditions” for interrogations by mistreating (within legal limits) their charges.
It is likely that some will be dishonorably discharged, or less-than-honorably discharged but will not face prison time if it can be demonstrated that the problem had more to do with soldiers being overwhelmed and let down by the system (a lot of people would go savage in such extentenuating circumstances). Others will be in much, much deeper doo-doo. Like the ones that did have proper training, knew better, and still went on to commit acts of barbary.
It’s going to be very, very messy to sort through it case-by-case. Unimaginable!
Thanks for the link. I had heard of that study before. Pretty scary what the human psyche is capable of. I’d like to think I’d be able to think coherently and not participate in something like that, but it certainly makes you wonder.