Posted on 05/10/2004 3:54:35 PM PDT by IronJack
Seems half the world is enraged at the recent revelation that some Iraqi prisoners of war were “abused." And the other half is apologizing for it. But before we beat our breasts and rend our robes, let’s take a calmer look at exactly what happened.
The charges are that, on a handful of occasions, Iraqi detainees were stripped naked and photographed in degrading positions. Apparently this is an offense of some magnitude in the sexually convoluted world of Islam, and a cultural breach of unimagined proportion. I guess the protocol with filthy, half-mad religious zealots captured by your soldiers is to give them a plush Ralph Lauren bathrobe and a bar of Nivea and have a buxom valet escort them to the spa to clean up.
The most serious allegation is that a detainee was sodomized with either a broom handle or a chemical glow stick. Apparently other horror stories too grisly for the unhardened psyche are yet to be revealed. Heaven knows what the future holds, but for now, these two complaints are giving our allies, our media, and Congress the vapors.
I think we need to separate the two sets of incidents. The former is embarrassing - especially to the Iraqis - degrading, humiliating, probably unnecessary, and probably counterproductive. But not criminal. The latter is not only criminal but inexcusable.
Abu Ghraib holds citizen criminals, Iraqis detained for questioning, and actual prisoners of war. While cursory attempts are made to keep the three elements separate, no particular marking system has been adapted to clearly differentiate them. Consequently, all three classes of prisoners are treated the same way.
The problem is that enemy combatants merit a different level of treatment than someone stopped for running a red light. While it may be culturally discomforting, it is perfectly justifiable to strip-search prisoners of war and to run them through a delousing process. Such rigorous handling is probably less justified when applied to a shoplifter or a material witness to a car accident.
These breaches can be addressed by for effectively segregating the different classes of detainees and applying management techniques appropriate to the level of security implicit in each. In other words, this is merely a lapse in administrative procedure, not a moral shortcoming.
Leading prisoners around on leashes or piling them up like squirming specimens to be photographed is a waste of time and sophomorically sadistic, but a war crime it is not. In fact, to the degree that such actions demonstrate the clear subjugation of the prisoner and the power of his captors, it may serve as a valuable psychological tool to command obedience in a recalcitrant crowd. There is no physical pain involved, no permanent scarring or life-threatening abuse. The prisoners are simply shown that their lives, their modesty, and their comfort are no longer theirs to control. It enforces a sense of vulnerability and defeat, and may prove the final act that convinces a rebellious prisoner that cooperation is the preferable alternative. That cooperation can translate into lives saved, including the life of the prisoner.
The same message could be communicated - albeit not as dramatically - other ways. And certainly such childish antics do not reflect well on a nation (vainly) trying to win hearts and minds. But make no mistake, gentler methods would earn the same exaggerated complaints from the prisoners, the same feigned dudgeon from the Arab world, and the same partisan haymaking from the anti-Bush mob. The errant gaolers have been properly reprimanded and reassigned and new, less intrusive procedures implemented that shield the administration from these vapid criticisms. And it should end there.
The charge of rape is a different matter entirely. If true, this is the sadistic act of a man who has allowed his personal hatred to override his sense of duty. Such a man has no business guarding anyone or anything. He does not deserve to wear the uniform of this country that so many before him have worn while carrying out exemplary acts of courage and honor. The military establishment should bring all its legal forces to bear on this individual, to hunt him down, press criminal charges against him, and exact justice befitting the crime.
However, this “scandal” should not be allowed to blossom beyond its scope. With an eighth of a million men and women halfway around the world in one of the most difficult environments imaginable, it is statistically inevitable that isolated individuals will breach the standards of decency and law. After all, this isn’t a game of euchre in the parlor. That is why the military has a legal enforcement arm, and why that arm functions so effectively. Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle and Tom Harkin should not be allowed to assault the administration by claiming any artificial high ground. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are no more responsible for this incident than the governor of Massachusetts is responsible for a vehicular homicide committed by one of his citizens in a drunken stupor.
The charge of “atrocity” resonates well with the anti-war public, and disturbs even those Americans who heartily endorse the regime change in Iraq. The Left knows this and has since My Lai. They also know that it is a powerful fifth-column issue they can use to undermine support for the war and, by extension, the administration they hate. That level of politicization serves no one except the kingmakers and power brokers accustomed to disguising their nefarious motives behind masks of nobility.
And this war, this shadowy war against a great evil, cannot be politicized to that degree. America must remain committed to rooting out the seeds of villainy in all the dark corners where it dwells. It is a task as big as mankind itself, and one that will not admit of small minds second-guessing it. We have to be above the petty squabbles and political potboiling if we’re ever going to chase down this specter and put a stake through its heart. All right. Shame on the hardhearted jailers who embarrassed their captives. Shame on the sadist who sodomized a prisoner entrusted to him (if that event ever proves real). Shame on the officers who failed to train and command their troops to the standards America demands.
Now, can we get on with the task at hand, secure in the knowledge that our troops are as PC as the rest of our society? Well, actually, no, we can’t. So why try? It was this very fear of treading on cultural toes that led to the debacle in Viet Nam. That effort was hamstrung by the same second-guessers and media milquetoasts who are hooting today, and whose outrage sounds oddly rehearsed. We can ill afford a repeat of their fifth-column subterfuge in this endeavor, when our way of life and the safety of all we hold dear is at stake. We were naïve in Viet Nam. We’re not any more.
Today, the south end of Manhattan lies strangely barren. There’s a gouge on a hillside in Pennsylvania. And part of the Pentagon doesn’t quite match the rest of the building. There are 3,500 grieving families and thousands of friends and colleagues who know the grim chore we face, and who are counting on us to stay the course. If we make mistakes along the way, we correct them and move on. But we do not abandon the great task before us simply because we cannot do it perfectly.
As long as we’re handing out shame, save the lion’s share for the gadflys who are willfully blind to the successes of this mission but who are focused to distraction on its rare failures.
Amen. Thanks IJ......to distraction, and maybe to the jeopardy of our troops.
The nation's enemies have been handed a propaganda coup that they will milk for decades. There's no use denying it. Nor does it make sense to deny that those repulsive photos will be in the public domain and a part of American history forever, in a certain sense forever sullying the shining city on a hill.
At first I was too. But consider the source ...
The Left has a very limited repertoire. They can always be trusted to fall back on some historic success that was at best an anomaly.
Dontcha know ... Generalizations only work AGAINST us, never in our favor.
Well, I'm glad you're so easily convinced. I'm not. I'm not sure what is "abusive" about strip-searching enemy combatants. I don't know what constitutes a "scandal" when an investigation was launched immediately upon hearing the allegations.
And as for the mileage our enemies will get, so what? These aren't people who liked us anyway, and never will. If we served wine with the prisoners' meals, they'd hate us because it wasn't chilled properly. Why degrade yourself to curry favor with those who hate you?
And if those hateful images are to be part of America's legacy, how about the images of smoke-smudged soldiers handing out flowers to adoring schoolchildren, or Army nurses treating wounded civilians? How about a "before" and "after" of Abu Ghraib, you know, as it was under the previous management?
To hell with our enemies. Foreign and domestic.
We're signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Anytime prisoners are treated outside those standards it is abuse. Forgive me but it's highly disingenuous to contend that these were "strip-searches," as if these people were naked during some kind of in-processing routine. Nor were they naked because the MPs were "following orders" (an obviously self-serving charge that I will believe only when I see hard evidence for it). They were naked because they were being humiliated for sport by incredibly undisciplined, foolish and sadistic American MPs.
I don't know what constitutes a "scandal" when an investigation was launched immediately upon hearing the allegations.
A scandal exists when American soldiers in uniform in a war zone film one another blatantly violating the Geneva Conventions, grinning like bozos all the while.
Is Iraq?
Anytime prisoners are treated outside those standards it is abuse.
What provision of the Geneva Accords did we violate in taking pictures of naked prisoners? Different time, different war. And if this is the worst "abuse" our prisoners need fear, then they've got it pretty easy, compared to most other jailers.
Forgive me but it's highly disingenuous to contend that these were "strip-searches," as if these people were naked during some kind of in-processing routine. Nor were they naked because the MPs were "following orders" (an obviously self-serving charge that I will believe only when I see hard evidence for it). They were naked because they were being humiliated for sport by incredibly undisciplined, foolish and sadistic American MPs.
And you know this because ...?
A scandal exists when American soldiers in uniform in a war zone film one another blatantly violating the Geneva Conventions, grinning like bozos all the while.
An impropriety, yes. A distraction, yes. An ugly, forgettable incident, okay. But a "scandal?" Only if you and people like you buy into that designation. I don't.
President Clinton receiving blowjobs in the White House with a 21 year old intern to whom he was not married, lying about it to the American people on camera (complete with finger pointing), being found guilty of lying under oath, i.e., perjury, and being impeached, yet remaining in office.
That the press did not see all this as an embarrassment to our nation, but does see the actions of a few demented soldiers half-way around the world as such, is no surprise. What happened to their line, "It's only sex, and every one does it, and can't we just move on?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.