Where are the broken bones? Where are the severed limbs...

Here you are, sir.

Excellent stuff TT.
You're one of the most interesting voices on the web - this piece is spot on.

I believe SAO is correct, worse is to come. Just how much worse remains to be seen. The thing that interests me is the rumours I have heard of the photos being released as a form of blackmail against the Pentagon, in order to prevent the court martialing of certain members of the military. That could be the real scandal of it all.

Hmm torture in Iraq isn't so bad because it allows one ethnic group to get their revenge on another ethnic group, and it's still not as bad as Saddam?

"For all we know it may help cement our growing alliances with the Kurds and Shia in Iraq."
By playing them off against the Sunni? That's a good way of running a dictatorship, but it's terrible for running a democracy.

The trouble with this "suspend judgement until we have all the facts" strategy is that it has to be applied in an even manner. On the existence of WMD, Bush did not "suspend judgement until we have all the facts" instead he chose to charge in all fists/apache helicopters flying. Same appears to be true of the treatment of prisoners in G-Bay.

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." ~Alfred Adler

Now the frauds are starting to show up. What a circus.

Why is the media so wuick to show pictures of alleged American abuse of detainees while refusing to post pictures of Islamofacsit atrocities? It is time to show everything and let people be made uncomfortable.

They should show all the pictures of this stuff (the American abuse and all the pictures of Islamofacsist stuff) everyday. To hell with concern about graphic photos being upsetting. Show them all and let people decide what they think. Let people confront the exact nature of our opponents.

As long as the real barbarism is censored by the media most people will not know the difference between what we are doing and what the Islamists are doing.

"Shias and Kurds recognize that the vast majority of these prisoners are Sunni Arabs arrested for attacking, or supporting attacks, on Shias, Kurds and coalition troops."

The vast majority of these prisoners have been convicted of nothing, and many of them were simply arrested in raids for being in or near suspicious places. The first part of the sentence is likely true (they are mostly Sunnis) because of where the arrests took place and because of the religious segregation in Iraq. The last part is likely wrong, and is the source of outrage for the genuinely informed. You should be outraged, too.

"So pass the beer and pretzels, the game in the Arab world is about to come on. We have no idea how Abu Ghraib will play out, and there are a lot of bucks riding on the outcome."

Pathetic

I'm sorry, but this is just not an accurate post.

For starters, Tom Friedman and Richard Cohen supported the Iraq war, and did not predict it would be doom and gloom.

Next, we have the Taguba Report saying that over 60% of the detainees were wrongfully imprisoned and should have been released.

Then, we have evidence of murder, rape. And we have the understanding that these pictures are deeply humiliating in the Arab world, because they violate culture norms and

And finally, if the silver lining here is supposed to be deepening rifts between Shias, Kurds and Sunnis, count me out. Way out. Because last I checked, the mission here was to create a democratic nation including all three of these groups working together for the greater good. Call me crazy.

Wake up, please, folks.

I second asdf. Besides, suppose you're right, and this will somehow not work to our detriment in the Arab world. Would that somehow make it OK for our country to be engaging in these practices? News reports, along with such anti-war naysayers as Lindsey Graham, claim that to pictures we have not yet seen include assault, rape, and murder. The idea that we can toake comfort from the fact that we have not committed as many assaults, rapes, and murders as Saddam Hussein is obscene -- not being as bad as Saddam is not the moral standard I want to hold my country to.

Further:

Red Cross was Told Iraq Abuse "Part of the Process".

This, and the other strategic reasons for being in Iraq, are fundamentally incompatible with trying to bulid a democracy.

There's a reason realpolitik and Wilsonianism are separate schools; you cannot merge the two successfuly.

No matter how you spin it—wrong is wrong. Whether a little or a lot, makes not one whit of difference!

The war was wrong and prisoner abuse is also wrong. One certainly hopes that heads at the top will roll. That might be a good example to the Arab world to do some housecleaning of their own.

What ever happened to the people who were photographed and filmed murdering, dismembering, torching and then hanging 4 contractors up like so much BBQ meat—all the while dancing and joyously celebrating? How about bringing those people to a little "justice" right along side our troops and officers!

Let them all be made examples of. Clearly, the urge for revenge runs deep in mankind.

"This, and the other strategic reasons for being in Iraq, are fundamentally incompatible with trying to bulid a democracy."

Why? There seems to me to be a disconnect in the 'Doomies' logic on Abu Ghraib: namely, what is the process by which misconduct in the prisons leads to the Iraqis deciding to abandon the project of building a stable and democratic Iraq. How many of the world's democracies have had a pristine birth, how many revolutions have been as pure as their ideals? The task of creating a functioning state is the ultimate achievement of a people, and it has rarely been achieved unopposed. And without a doubt, the state will have both external and internal enemies. Certainly, if the abuses at Abu Ghraib are enough to convince the Iraqis to give themselves over to chaos, then perhaps this whole enterprise was fated to fail from the start. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I still do have faith that the Iraqis wish most of all for peace and prosperity and that the coalition can and will continue to assist them in their task. There are certainly reasons to doubt our competence at this point, and Abu Ghraib is bad news from any perspective, but I don't see how it changes the fundamental equation in Iraq.

Surely everyone here has heard of tarring and feathering? Right? The question that Trent raises is whether or not this will seriously hurt US chances to build a democratic Iraq. I think that he is right to point out it is too early to tell.

As long as it's brown or yellow people being tortured who cares? I mean that's the Left's response to Cambodia, North Korea and Cuba among others.

As to the "torture" offending Arab culture and sensibility, I say who the hell cares. Making women wear potato sacks, and keeping young boys as sexual playthings are offensive to me. I say offend away, the more we rub their noses in the fact that their culture is a backward cesspool of brutality and dysfunction the better.

Spoken like a true coward, Vaildog.

What pisses me off more than anything is the rank hypocrisy of the Arabs. Those savages are shocked, just SHOCKED that anyone would abuse prisoners. Gimme a break.

Ah, another one.

> Why is the media so quick to show pictures of alleged American abuse of detainees while refusing to post pictures of Islamofascist atrocities?

Because it's news?

Islamofascists have been doing this sort of thing for years. It's an old story.

More to the point, I suppose the press could write article after article saying "mass murderers are bad," but it's kinda redundant. I mean, we don't really need an expose in the New Yorker to know that mass murderers are bad. We do need an expose in the New Yorker to know that the US government is bad.

I also don't like the fact that many of these posts are conflating innocent Iraqi civilians (the people who were in the prison) with islamofascists.

The tragedy is that this scandal assumes without examination that we are not willing to apply psychological pressure short of physical torture to obtain information from insurgents. That, in my opinion, should be the question here -- but that is being ignored in the mainstream coverage.

The result? Less information gathered from interrogations of Baathists and jihadists, and, as a result, more deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

For a more detailed discussion, see Advisory Opinion.

Arrest the perpetrators--wait! They already did. Shake up the unit responsible--wait! They already did. If they are already correcting the problem, and they also have the far more important task of creating a democratic Iraq, what are democratic officials squawking about?

The further we get into this, the more disgusted I am by my democratic party leaders. They sound more like cheerleaders for the jihadi movement than loyal americans.
Gore may have gotten my vote, but Kerry certainly won't.

SAO: Put my name on your list, too.

SAO: My name too! I've read all the Iraqi Bloggers, and they totally mirror Trent's findings! Go do some research before you 'gift' us with your opinion!

Vaildog and Fred both accused the Arab world of "hypocrisy."

In the last few months, I've come to the conclusion: anyone accuses somebody of "hypocrisy" is a scoundrel who's trying to distract others from his own crimes.

Basically, when you call hypocrisy, you're responding to criticism by saying "Look over there! There's somebody bad over there!" It's a simple attempt to deflect attention.

I also think that the mere attempt to deflect attention in this way is part of the reason the press dwells on certain issues.

I mean, think about it. If you wrote an article about somebody, and person were to reply "Stop writing about me. There's nothing to see here. No news, nope. Nothing to write about me. There's no story here, nope." Wouldn't that just tempt you to dig deeper?

Trent Telenko wrote:

It is far too early to tell exactly how those prison pictures the “Gloom and Doomers” are raving about will play with the Iraqi people. For all we know it may help cement our growing alliances with the Kurds and Shia in Iraq.

Good point. We debated this over at Asymmetrical Information and several of us speculated that it could also have the effect of rather than inflaming resistance to the coalition’s efforts to rebuild Iraq but could have the unintended (since no one seriously believes that this was our policy) of discouraging insurrectionists by sending a message of what could happen to our enemies.

The prisoners who were abused may be seen as having been in opposition to the Coalition and as insurrectionists who tried to murder our soldiers and support the toppled regime (Note: I am not speculating as to whether they are guilty or innocent, but merely saying how their status may be perceived in that part of the world). The Associated Press also reported that the prisoners said that they were well treated until they decided to beat up a fellow detainee who began cooperating with our forces.

In which case, it is possible that the abuse might be seen as a form of punishment or retaliation against those who tried to kill our troops or who attack those Iraqis who are seen as cooperating with us. If that (the perception) is indeed the case, then it seems possible that it could prove beneficial as it sends a message of “if you cooperate with us and someone tries to hurt you, we will protect you and punish those who hurt you. If you f*** with us or hurt our friends, we will humiliate you in ways that may you wish for death.”

FTR: I support investigating this incident and punishing any who participated in (or stood by while it happened) this abuse. Not only is it the right thing to do (as we are trying to establish the rule of law and many of these detainees could be innocent), but it helps our cause to show that we hold our own accountable and how we handle it is more important than the incident itself. However, I agree with Trent Telenko that predictions of the importance of the abuse and it and speculation about potential negative consequences to our mission in Iraq are overblown and dare I say hopeful on the part of the administration’s critics.

I think we can easily divorce the general agreement - which Trent shares - that what happened there is wrong, from the potential consequences and reaction which are the subject of this post.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that nobody knows exactly how this will play out... and yes, there is a great deal riding on the outcome.

Trent makes a plausible case for his point of view. In the end, however, we will take action because of who WE are, not who THEY are.

If Abu Ghraib does get a positive reaction in many places within Iraq, that would be an interesting side effect - but it won't stop us from prosecuting and punishing those responsible.

This war has exposed many vulnerabilities, even while we try to exploit the vulnerabilites of the enemy. The word that comes to mind is asymetrical.

We already know we are more sensitive to casualties, even as we easlity dispatch hundreds even thousands of terrorists (good ridance), yet bristle at the loss of each soldier (as we should).

This propaganda casualty is as devastating as a friendly fire incident. In our directed offensive on the propaganda front, however, we have yet to deploy the big guns, leaving our enemies all but untouched.

Am not a "gloom and doomer" but have one foot in that camp and the other in "this can still be won."

My fondness for some of our elected officials has plummeted, but I am not inclined to call them liars and charlatans like some. The battle to win the war that ended long ago in Baghdad remains to be fought.

There remains too much to be lost if we cut and run. Interesting analysis. I also liked today's analysis by Andrew Sullivan on the state of the war.

Am not a "gloom and doomer" but have one foot in that camp and the other in "this can still be won."

My fondness for some of our elected officials has plummeted, but I am not inclined to call them liars and charlatans like some. The battle to win the war that ended long ago in Baghdad remains to be fought.

There remains too much to be lost if we cut and run. Interesting analysis. I also liked today's analysis by Andrew Sullivan on the state of the war.

Josh,

I didn't say the Arabs' hypocrisy excused the abuse. I said it pisses me off. And I believe my anger is completely justified. A few guards go nuts, and we are condemned by people whose policy is to torture prisoners. And I believe Thorley Winston has a great point about perceptions of this in Iraq and the Arab world in general. I'm sure I'll be roundly attacked for saying what some of you are secretly thinking, but when you're fighting savages, you occasionally have to do savage things. It ain't PC but it's the world we live in.

SAO: My name too! I've read all the Iraqi Bloggers, and they totally mirror Trent's findings!

What are you saying, Twisterella? You agree with Vaildog, or Fred? The "list" Lord Worfin refers to is in reference to him, not Trent.

By itself, I don't think Trent's analysis is particularly keen, unless you think the fact that al-Jazeera is pro-Sunni is some sort of "breaking news".

Judging from the Arabs I have spoken with, they seem less outraged by Abu Ghraib than I am. For a number of reasons, they're used to this. We're trying to bring something different to the region (umm, right?), but this incident makes our efforts look like a continutation of 80 years of bad policy (think Lord Lloyd George, here).

> I didn't say the Arabs' hypocrisy excused the abuse. I said it pisses me off.

Hm. Maybe I just have a more jaded view. I guess that when you face an obstacle for long enough, you stop taking it personally and start simply seeing it as an obstacle.

Can Fred have his cake and eat it too?

I didn't say the Arabs' hypocrisy excused the abuse[...] but when you're fighting savages, you occasionally have to do savage things.

Oh and nice way to minimize what's happened: "A few guards go nuts..."

Well if being sickened by rape, torture, and murder is "PC" then please, count me in.

Hmmm, OK then. I misunderstood the intent of your list, then, but I will disagree with you on two points.

You said: "We're trying to bring something different to the region (umm, right?), but this incident makes our efforts look like a continutation of 80 years of bad policy (think Lord Lloyd George, here). '

Nope. We are trying to inculcate the Rule of Law in a society frozen in development for, maybe, 2000 years or more. Eighty years of bad policy? Feh, not even close. As long as we still inhabit a largely Hobbesian universe, Abu Ghraibs will happen-- no amount of 'policy' can completely prevent them.

And I do happen to think Trent's analysis is particularily keen. I really appreciate the parallel with the fall of 'the old adversary', because Trent showcased a memetic replacement example that I could learn from.

Murder is wrong, yet they occur every day in every State of the Union. Do we throw up our hands and give up on civilization because of it? No. Do we march to have our Judicial system disolved every time an OJ gets off? No. Then what's up with Abu Ghraib? Before this story ever broke, the US Military was already systematically, fairly and thus successfully dealing with these incidents and processes.

Any human enterprise, whether it be a nation or a corporation or a small business or a church or a family or a Cub Scout Den, isn't about "all or nothing," perfection versus total failure. The war in Iraq isn't an exception to this fundemental reality. Life is a process, throughout which much failure and undesirable outcomes occur. Failure and undesirable outcomes are GIVENS to be managed, not an excuse for abandoning the enterprise. The failure at Abu Ghraib is just a wave, it's not the water.

:jackson

"Basically, when you call hypocrisy, you're responding to criticism by saying "Look over there! There's somebody bad over there!" It's a simple attempt to deflect attention."

Not necessarily. What you describe is exactly what the Arab nations are doing. You are not trying to deflect attention if you fully own your wrongdoing before pointing out another's. They never acknowledge theirs, so they are not credible as moral critics. It is legitimate to point this out, once you have accepted the blame for your own wrongdoing.

Just because you've done something wrong doesn't mean you have to shut up when someone else has done something far worse. If that someone repeatedly acts outraged over your wrongdoing but never apologizes for his own far worse wrongdoing, it is legitimate to point out his lack of credibility and attempt to get the upper hand by exploiting your honesty and willingness to take responsibility. If he acknowledges his own wrongdoing he gets his credibility back and his right to criticize you.

This works in relationships too.

War is hell. Bad things happen.

Allied soldiers committed atrocities in 1945 but the values of our civilisation survived. They will survive this incident also.

As far as I can tell these soldiers were (illegally) trying to extract information from these prisoners but have not inflicted any serious physical harm upon them. In past wars, much worse has been done.

Maybe we should celebrate the fact that our civilisation is learning to be more humane in its conduct of war (but still has a long way to go).

This means beans in Iraq. It meant beans in our Revolution (my paternal family were Loyalists - quite a few left for their health after the rebels won), in our Civil War, etc.

It wasn't policy. The perpetrators knew it wasn't policy. It happened because of lax supervision which the Army knew about at the time. Untrained people were made part of a coercive interrogation process which should have involved only specialists, and then ignored, so they ran wild.

Lots and lots of mandatory military procedures were violated, including ordinary physical security. Given all the unsupervised, unchecked access by spooks and contractors, we are very, very lucky that the Baathists didn't do a Trojan Horse entry to get a large armed group of their people into the place.

The Army eventually got around to doing its duty here. This story came out in January with the first arrests, and again in March, but the press didn't make a deal of it until there were pictures. It is the pictures which have people excited, not the awful things which were done. The press didn't care about the latter. They care only about the pictures.

At this point it looks mighty like hyper-ventilation by professional hyper-ventilators.

It is an experimenatally proven fact that prison staff will get out of hand when insufficiently supervised and given the task of "softening up" prisoners for interrogation thru PsyOps.
The travesty is: letting it get out of hand, publication of photographs, al-Jazeera publishing fake photographs incorporating fantasy porn site materials. Al-Jazeera is a tool of the terrorists.
The "blame" goes to the prison staff supervision only.
Allegations of wrongdoing were already being addressed.
The rest is election year posturing.
B-T-W, reportedly the same sort of thing happens in our own prisons stateside.

New abuse photos show apparent attack by dog

Photos of Dead May Indicate Graver Abuse

As far as I can tell these soldiers were (illegally) trying to extract information from these prisoners but have not inflicted any serious physical harm upon them.

Hunh??

"Islamofascists have been doing this sort of thing for years. It's an old story."

Of course they have. However, that does not mean we should sink to their level. We are touting the moral highroad after all.

"The prisoners who were abused may be seen as having been in opposition to the Coalition and as insurrectionists who tried to murder our soldiers and support the toppled regime (Note: I am not speculating as to whether they are guilty or innocent, but merely saying how their status may be perceived in that part of the world).. . ."

Given that the toppling of the regime was done illegally we don't have a leg to stand on! They would not be trying to "kill our troops" if we were not there.

Additionally, this war has done NOTHING to further the real war—the war on terror—except produce more terrorists!

". . .A few guards go nuts, and we are condemned by people whose policy is to torture prisoners. . . ."

It appears that it may have been more than just a "few" guards. It's getting uglier by the hour.

". . .We are trying to inculcate the Rule of Law in a society frozen in development for, maybe, 2000 years or more. . . "

We have NO business doing that! There are plenty of backward-cesspools in the world that need dragging into the 21st century. Are we doing that there? NO! The whole Iraq war is based on lies. A way for Sonny-boy to get revenge for papa.

". . . It is an experimenatally proven fact that prison staff will get out of hand when insufficiently supervised and given the task of "softening up" prisoners for interrogation thru PsyOps.. . ."

There are allegations that the same sorts of things happen in U.S. prisons. Not a "good thing!"

If Americans are going to puff themselves up as the carriers of the torch of morality and righteousness in this world then we had better be squeaky clean.

I would feel much better if we admitted that we will do whatever we deem necessary to get info out of people—including humiliation and torture—than this BS!

We constantly claim to be wearing the white hat, when everyone can see that it has been one too many times in the gutter.

Let's simply say: "Folks, you attacked us one too many times and because of that any one of you are fair game. You want to play, it will be by our rules—hard-ball." If nothing else, that will get their attention and make it clear as day.

This "we are shocked, shocked, shocked," posturing is sickening not to mention hypocritical!

Oh please.

We are in the middle of a media event that has little to do with the actual offenses, which are horrible and need to be punnished for the good conduct and order of the US military, and everything to do with the dysfunctional political-media culture of Washington DC-NY.

Consider these points:

1) There are a lot of pictures to dribble out a few at a time to keep the pot boiling.

2) It is safe for reporters to report. They are not going to have Islamists decapitating them like Danny Pearl and they don't risk the fortunes of war like Michael Kelly.

3) They can play press release reporting from NGOs like Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross so they don't have to work.

4) They can interview each other on the deeper meaning of this while being and anti-Bush and as anti-American as they wanna be.

There are a lot of horrors involved in this mess. The biggest unreported on is the dysfunction of American and Western media culture in time of war.

2) It is safe for reporters to report. They are not going to have Islamists decapitating them like Danny Pearl and they don't risk the fortunes of war like Michael Kelly.

And you are writing about it from exactly where, Mr. Telenko?

There is much wrong with the Army organizationally which critics should focus on. There needs to be stronger and closer supervision or prisons and prisoners plus better definition between intelligence agency and Army troop roles. I agree with justdanny that these problems exist. I believe the Army and CIA now recognize these as structural problems apart from the details of these incidents. The current instances are already being handled by the judicial part of the Army. The media, meanwhile, is inhibiting the process of correction, by failing to bring out the underlying problems in favor of exploitation of symptoms for perceived political gain and/or self-aggranding. Despite this media failure, strong corrective actions by the Army line commands will, IMHO, take place.

Ironically, the media feeding frenzy will not attain its clear political objectives either. Due to overplaying the scandal 24/7, the American polity will become habituated resulting in an impact of less than zero as counter-revulsion sets in. By ignoring its real duty to instead push its biased agenda, the media will manage to fail on both counts. Unlike most organisms, the media will continue to avoid learning from its mistakes.

Andrew J.L.- If he said "Baghdad" would it matter? He was commenting on the media, not writing the news. You've misread his point.

Never stand between a Congressman and a photographer. Compare my post yesterday with today's Washington Times:

"This story came out in January with the first arrests, and again in March, but the press didn't make a deal of it until there were pictures. It is the pictures which have people excited, not the awful things which were done. The press didn't care about the latter. They care only about the pictures."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/pruden.htm

"What did they know? When did they care?

By Wesley Pruden

Published May 11, 2004

What did our important (just ask them) members of Congress know about the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison, and when did they know it?

Several congresspersons conceded yesterday that they knew about the abuses months ago, sort of, when the Pentagon first put out the news that the abuses were under investigation. But they didn't get excited until they saw the network television technicians arrive on the Hill and start unpacking their cameras.

"A press release from Central Command isn't good enough," sniffs Lara Battles, a spokeswoman for Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri. "The Pentagon communicates with the Hill ... and that did not occur in this instance."

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, another Democrat, grumps that he doesn't "want to be on notice every time there's a news release." Anyone else could figure out that if he's getting wet it's probably raining, but not our senators. Learning something important from a news conference, Mr. Nelson says, "is not a substitute for congressional notification."

Teddy Kennedy thinks the Pentagon news about abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison was pretty much a hoot, anyway. The "alleged announcements" in January and March, he says, "were laughable in terms of communicating what was happening to Congress." Don Nickles of Oklahoma, a Republican, recalls that a general mentioned something in a briefing, but the abuses didn't make an impression until he saw the photographs in the newspapers and on television.

This is pretty much what the likes of Lindsey Graham and John Warner and Carl Levin said last week when they opened the Senate ring of the congressional circus. So to get it all straight: Congressmen can't bother with the words in newspapers and magazines, but they understand the pictures in a newspaper or magazine. The abuses aren't important; what's important is how Congress gets the word. Congress is the third branch of government, after all, which makes every one of the 535 members of Congress 1/535th of that important one-third, which works out to, hmmmm, well, someone else can do the math. You wouldn't think such little wheels could make so much noise.

A new Annenberg public-opinion poll, completed Sunday and out yesterday, suggests that a majority of Americans think the Pentagon "covered up" the abuses, but nearly seven out of 10 Americans think Donald Rumsfeld should keep his job. This figure is almost identical to the result of an ABC-Washington Post poll completed earlier (which The Post, leading the media frenzy, relegated to Page 12).

There's certainly no cover-up; the Pentagon first revealed the abuses on Jan. 12, in a press release that Congress couldn't bother to read, and followed it up with a March 20 announcement that criminal charges would be brought against six soldiers for "dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another." But the public is so contemptuous of Washington that it assumes that everything wrong will be covered up.

But if there's no cover-up, there's certainly a congressional sleepover. "For many politicians," Kate O'Beirne observes in National Review Online, "the danger posed to our troops by the photos that fuel a murderous hatred pales in comparison to the offense to their self-importance ... . In the future, military press releases and announcements should probably be accompanied by personal phone calls to John Warner and Joe Biden and to Martin Frost and Christopher Shays. Other congressmen likewise concerned about missing a media opportunity could sign up for a special call list. They need not be bothered unless pictures are involved."

President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld, having run out of people to apologize to, looked over additional photographs yesterday, and the White House said the president reacted with "deep disgust and disbelief" that anyone who wears the uniform would indulge such behavior. Don Rumsfeld should send videos on to the Hill. The congressmen will think they haven't had such fun since the Elks lodge cut out the blue movies on Saturday night."

The maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison by the U. S. military is reprehensible. And it is being overblown in the media.

What concerns me most is neither the maltreatment nor the press feeding frenzy. What concerns me the most is that, if we're still around in 5 or 10 or 40 years, we'll still be fighting the same war. And we'll have long ago stopped worrying about the treatment of prisoners. And that neither the proposals of the Democrats nor the plans of the Republicans or the ideas of either the Left or the Right have any real prospect of bringing the conflict to a speedy conclusion. And that without a speedy conclusion our society becoming increasingly brutal is inevitable.

Stan wrote:

As far as I can tell these soldiers were (illegally) trying to extract information from these prisoners but have not inflicted any serious physical harm upon them.

My understanding that the abuse was done after the detainees had beaten up a fellow detainee who was cooperating with Coalition forces. Where did you hear that this was part of an interrogation? Or are we perhaps thinking of two different incidents?

Lili wrote:

Given that the toppling of the regime was done illegally we don't have a leg to stand on!

A statement which is not a “given” but rather an outright lie since Congress legally authorized the use of force in Iraq and Iraq had previously broken the terms of the cease-fire agreement.

They would not be trying to "kill our troops" if we were not there.

Nope they would be free to rape, pillage, and murder at will instead of trying to kill our troops and usually getting killed in the process.

Additionally, this war has done NOTHING to further the real war—the war on terror—except produce more terrorists!

Actually it’s done quite a bit to further the larger war. Every terrorist killed in Iraq by our troops is one less terrorist that could be murdering our civilians on our own soil. We’ve already seen that the successful toppling of one of the most powerful regimes in the area with a fraction of our strength has put pressure on the comparatively weaker regimes of Iran, Syria, and Libya (and probably North Korea as well). With Saddam Hussein gone, we have one less government in the region that was known to be sponsoring and harboring terrorists. Liberating Iraq will able us to withdraw our troops from Saudia Arabia while putting further pressure on the Saudi royal family to reform. We’ve been able to end the sanctions which were devastating the Iraqi populace. All of which (plus future benefits) puts us in a far better position that we were before.

TT writes:

Where are the broken bones?

Where are the severed limbs?

Where are the genital electrocution burns?

Where are the deep laceration wounds?

There are not any because none of that happened in those pictures.

Only on WindsOfChange would one find incomplete data¹ and comparing ourselves to the standards of dictators themselves.

One might also ponder that if the screaming libs did not exist, then what would the motivation be for any sort of serious handling of this issue?

[1] Report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War; Executive Summary

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/red-cross-report.pdf

"Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury"

"Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment"

"2) It is safe for reporters to report. They are not going to have Islamists decapitating them like Danny Pearl and they don't risk the fortunes of war like Michael Kelly."

And you are writing about it from exactly where, Mr. Telenko?

Not worthy of you, AJL. You're better than this.

Lila took the Way-Back Machine to 1997 but unfortunately only retained her memory up to that time:

Given that the toppling of the regime was done illegally we don't have a leg to stand on! They would not be trying to "kill our troops" if we were not there.

And now it is time for her to catch up.

Sheesh.

". . .We are in the middle of a media event that has little to do with the actual offenses, which are horrible and need to be punnished for the good conduct and order of the US military, and everything to do with the dysfunctional political-media culture of Washington DC-NY. . ."

So, in effect you are saying that it's all O.K. because it was not as "bad" as that which the Islamofascists do?

I reviewed many of the photos last night, both online and in print. I am sorry, but naked men being accosted by attack dogs and naked men on leashes held by women, and naked men with hoods over their heads in compromising positions are not my idea of humane treatment.

Like I said, IF we say, "we will do whatever necessary" that is different that claiming to have the moral high-ground—and then saying "our abuse is not as bad as their abuse."

"They can interview each other on the deeper meaning of this while being and anti-Bush and as anti-American as they wanna be.

There are a lot of horrors involved in this mess. The biggest unreported on is the dysfunction of American and Western media culture in time of war."

Being anti-Bush does not automatically equate to being anti-American. Indeed, I would say that being FOR Bush equates to being anti-American principles! Because what the this administration is doing is not American!

This administration is what is dysfunctional and the media have played
right along. Now, however the media are finally waking up to their collusion with the Bushies.

"Where did you hear that this was part of an interrogation?"

Try News Week and Time. The print media CIA et al. are claiming this is part of how we "interrogate" especially humiliating Arabs with nudity and women.

"A statement which is not a “given” but rather an outright lie since Congress legally authorized the use of force in Iraq and Iraq had previously broken the terms of the cease-fire agreement."

The go-ahead by Congress was based on administration LIES! The whole world was against this war. It is an immoral and illegitimate war.

"Actually it’s done quite a bit to further the larger war. Every terrorist killed in Iraq by our troops is one less terrorist that could be murdering our civilians on our own soil. We’ve already seen that the successful toppling of one of the most powerful regimes in the area with a fraction of our strength has put pressure on the comparatively weaker regimes of Iran, Syria, and Libya (and probably North Korea as well). With Saddam Hussein gone, we have one less government in the region that was known to be sponsoring and harboring terrorists. Liberating Iraq will able us to withdraw our troops from Saudia Arabia while putting further pressure on the Saudi royal family to reform. We’ve been able to end the sanctions which were devastating the Iraqi populace. All of which (plus future benefits) puts us in a far better position that we were before."

Thorley, that is the biggest load of CRAP being pushed by the Bushies and swallowed, hook, line and sinker by the ignorant. For every terrorist we kill in Iraq 100 or 1000 more are "inspired." The other countries were coming around way before Iraq. The Saudis are not about to reform their ties are too close to Bush. Sanctions could and should have been lifted via the U.N. We should have gone to war ONLY with the help of our allies and the approval of the U.N. Because we have NO legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

As for being in a "far better position that we were before." That is the laugh of the century! No analyst agrees. Latest polls show the U.S. populace believes it was not worth fighting! We have the HIGHEST deficit in the HISTORY of this nation; we have instigated Islamofascist terror around the world on a scale never seen before; we have paid and will continue to pay in blood and treasure for decades if not centuries to come. Your children, grandchildren and their descendants will thank you for the bill.

Even the republicans are admonishing the "spend like a drunken sailor" president. Heads at the very top should roll for lies and deception. There have been war crimes committed. Someone at the top should be held accountable and be put on trial!

Already the "revenge" killings have started:

Al Qaeda-Linked Group Beheads American in Iraq
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5107738

". . .Coalition military intelligence officers estimated that about 70 percent to 90 percent of the thousands of prisoners detained in Iraq had been "arrested by mistake," according to a report by Red Cross given to the Bush administration last year and leaked this week.

The report said the mistreatment of prisoners apparently tolerated by U.S. and other coalition forces in Iraq involved widespread abuse that was "in some cases tantamount to torture." . . " http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YOE3PS42P34IECRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5107322

There will be no end to this. We are in for another 100 year war thanks to the incompetency of the Bush administration!

Revenge killing? Right. And what was the Fallujah dismemberment/hanging about? What about Daniel Perle?
They don't need an excuse to do things like this. They just like cutting people's heads off.

Brandon, as Lili so correctly has pointed out, they like cutting people's heads off "thanks to the incompetency of the Bush administration!"

If we had a Democrat in the White House, they wouldn't like to cut off Americans' heads near so much, as they would not have GWB to get them so upset on the nightly news and Democrats are so much smarter than Republicans anyway.

95% of all college profs will tell you so.

T.B.

AJL has proved his lack of personal integrity here on Winds more than once. His repetition of the same conduct is merely his living down to his earlier standards of conduct.

T.R.

Too Quote Holsinger:

"At this point it looks mighty like hyper-ventilation by professional hyper-ventilators."

I think a lot of people are missing the fundamental simplicity of all this. The basic fact is: the administration was notified of the existence of torture in March 2003. The torture did not end in March, 2003. The rest is mere details.

Brandon says:

Revenge killing? Right. And what was the Fallujah dismemberment/hanging about? What about Daniel Perle?
They don't need an excuse to do things like this. They just like cutting people's heads off.

1 Why is it our violence is individual and regrettable, while "theirs" is systemic and a character trait?

2 If it is a character trait why are we over there bring democracy to the rabid dogs? And if not, they he might want to rethink the racist comment.

Well, quite a lot of reportage that isn't favorable to the war is coming from journalists who have at least visited (or perhaps are even based in) Iraq. Check out any of the past several Newsweek magazines for bylines. Indeed, of the journalists he calls out by name, I think both Friedman and Zakaria have been in Iraq since the war. Telenko's assertion that journalists prefer covering the Abu Ghraib scandal because of the relative safety is rather peculiar. War news sells papers too. (Remember CNN and Gulf War I?)

In his shoes I think I would have suggested that the scandal is being overplayed (although I don't think it's overplayed) because it's salacious. Sex also sells newspapers. But Telenko ascribes the most dastardly motives possible (anti-American, cowardly, etc.) to anyone unenchanted with the way the war is going.

Consider two things: he hasn't made any further comment on this thread about what actually happened at Abu Ghraib, even though the photographs of deep lacerations (e.g., dog bites) he said don't exist now exist on Page One. Dishonest. While its true that Arab media resorted to forgeries of abuse, his allegation that "even the unreleased Abu Ghraib may be too tame for them" suggests that the media have access to the unreleased material and it wasn't negative enough. Given that a conservative Republican senator says they include rape and murder, I doubt that lack of tameness is why we don't see then. Lack of access, more likely. Dishonest. At least Telenko is honest enough to show that for him, this war has nothing to do with hearts and minds of the Arab world. It's about our showing you can kick the most butt. Literally.

When you add Telenko's cavalier dismissal of our wholesale violation of the laws of war to his earlier endorsement of a first strike nuclear attack on Iran, you get that this is one sick and twisted dude.

" as Lili so correctly has pointed out, they like cutting people's heads off "thanks to the incompetency of the Bush administration!""

Just LOVE the way you twist my words around Tom. LOL

I have no sympathy for the Islamofascists for revenge or otherwise, if you have read any of my posts you would know that. I have no problem whatsoever killing them or jailing them for life. Indeed, In my darkest moments, I fantasize about bringing back some medieval methods in the town square. However, that does not make this administration any more competent nor lefty college profs any more competent either. ;-)

"The basic fact is: the administration was notified of the existence of torture in March 2003. The torture did not end in March, 2003. The rest is mere details."

Actually, Josh, the Red Cross report came out in October. There are serious allegations being raised of beatings, murder and even rape. Now, again I say, IF we are going to take the moral high-road then we had better be squeaky clean!

Otherwise we should just say: "Islamofascists attacked us one too many times. Islam breeds, supports and exports terror. We are out for revenge on them and anyone who remotely supports them. Innocents getting in the way are simply so much "collateral damage."

Now, that would put the world on notice that we are "suspending" American principles for the duration. But, this pretending that we are there for democracy, freedom, truth and justice when all the while we are there to protect ourselves and secure oil while making a place for the Haliburtons is a crock!

Why can't we simply be honest? "You attacked us, ALL of you who support mad-Mo's cult of hate are going to pay!"

I have no problem with honest revenge and an all out war against the Islamofascists. (Not that it is ethical nor will it work.) It's the LIARS I can't stomach!

A 100 year war is what the Bushies have wrought with their wrong-headed policies. :-(

Oh, and BTW, I don't think that actually saying, "We are securing oil for the world," is necessarily a bad thing. We can get the others off their high-horses. After all the WHOLE world uses oil. States need to either sell it or buy it—but, we ALL use it.

What is bad is lying about it. Islam, via ObL declared war on us. We give notice to ALL supporters of mad-Mo that you are fair game if you support Islamic terror. No mincing of words, no BS about "freedom and democracy." Just— you play, you pay!

After all, we (the West) don't give a tinker's damn if Muslims live in the 7th century or the middle ages. We just care about salvaging our own way of life.

Let's just put the cards on the table. If they want to come into the 21st century, fine. But, not on their terms—on ours! Mussies want to live in the West then they had better adjust and assimilate and not try to turn our lands into Dar al Islam.

Like I said. It's the LYING I cannot stand. That and the fact that this administration never takes responsibility for anything. They appear to be above the law. Already the little guys are going to take the fall. The higher-ups claim they knew nothing about it—thus—"It's not our fault," is the mantra of blame.

Looks like the Bushies have learned something from the Mussies. Bah! :-(

>Josh: "The basic fact is: the administration was notified of the existence of torture in March 2003. The torture did not end in March, 2003. The rest is mere details."

>Lili: "Actually, Josh, the Red Cross report came out in October."

Well, I'm reading a BBC news article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3694521.stm

Red Cross Representative: "Our findings were discussed at different moments between March and November 2003, either in direct face-to-face conversations or in written interventions," he said.

So Red Cross says they notified the administration of the existence of a problem in March. In addition, Amnesty international added its own notification in June 2003.

So, we can quibble about the exact date that they first learned about the problem, but it was in the spring or early summer of 2003.

That leaves the open question: why didn't the torture end on the day the administration learned about it?

"That leaves the open question: why didn't the torture end on the day the administration learned about it?"

Because this administration is into hiding things and considers itself above the law.

". . . Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been "just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable. . . "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/11KRUG.html

". . .Of course the violence at Abu Ghraib was primarily psychological — hey, only a few people were killed — and the trophies were pictorial, like the results of a photo safari. Some commentators have made a point of noting this very relative nonviolence, contrasting it with the lynching of the four American military contractors in Falluja last month. This line of argument is notable for what it leaves out: there is a difference between the rage of a people who feel themselves invaded and the contempt of a victorious nation for a civilian population whom it has ostensibly liberated. . .

The possible consequences of the Abu Ghraib archive are numerous, many of them horrifying. Perhaps, though, the digital camera will haunt the future career of George W. Bush the way the tape recorder sealed the fate of Richard Nixon. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/11SANT.html

Let us hope this is true. Like I have said before, it is time for SOMEONE at the top in this administration to take responsibility for this WHOLE Iraq mess—and pay for it!

Golly, Bottom line is we are not there, we are here and have the ability to sit and type, read and think of what we wish. There are some in this world who want to stop us from doing this and others who would give their eye teeth to be able to do the same. The world is grey, one can not force black and white views in a grey world.
I do belive we are not given the whole truth and there is nothing that I or anyone in here can do about it.

Some people just don't believe in evil unless it is committed by the American military or Republicans.

Bad things happen in war. They are often done by Americans in uniform. That is the nature of war.

What happened in Abu Ghraib was a bunch of state prison guards called up from the reserves acted out what they do in American prisons in Iraq. The chain of command that let this happened needs to be cashiered from the service as well as these thugs in uniform.

Anyone saying this was official policy, and there are quite a few in this comments section who are, is either a useful fool for the other side or is on the other side in this war.

This isn't the end of the war or major defeat. It is a scandal that needs to be dealth with for the good of American military service and the confidence of the American public.

I said the following in my post above:

Given that both WorldNetDaily and The Guardian are reporting that Arab news sources are raiding a Western porn site for pictures graphic enough for their audience’s taste for Al-Qaeda snuff videos, even the unreleased Abu Ghraib may be too tame for them.

Remember for a moment that one of the most popular series of videos in Iraq are the torture tapes made by the Ba'athists and particularly those by Saddam's sons. That is what the Al-Jihad TV station's airing of those American prison pictures is being compared to Iraq over and over.

We just found out that Al-Qaeda thought that it needed something more substantial than American prison guard BDSM photos and pictures.

The video "Snuff" murder of an American contractor of jewish extraction that is now available on the net (with many American talk radio web sites running still of it) has just settled in the minds of the American public the nature of both the Abu Ghraib scandal and our Islamist enemies.

Those pictures and sounds of the screams have trumped the pictures of Abu Ghraib in the minds of Americans. The further playing up of the scandal for ratings will isolate the scandal mongers yet more from the main stream of American public opinion.

The war corsening of the American public proceeds apace and the Belmont Club "Three Conjectures" future is coming closer. Remember, "victory" in this war will result in several million to several score million Arab and other Mulsims dying.

"Defeat" will mean more than 20 times that will die and we are inching our way to that worse case outcome by our unwillingness to do what is necessary to prevent it.

Welcome to "Incrementalism on the Road to Hell."

Those were two enthusiastic replies. But I noticed that neither answered the question: why didn't the torture end on the day the administration learned about it?

Give me a plausible answer. And DVK, I don't think "some things are just unknowable" is really a satisfying answer.

Josh,

You have a most interesting view of real life.

"why didn't the torture end on the day the administration learned about it?"

Governments act that swiftly only in movies, novels, and televison. I also liked your earlier comment putting all this a year earlier:

"The basic fact is: the administration was notified of the existence of torture in March 2003. The torture did not end in March, 2003. The rest is mere details."

So the torture started when we invaded, and you feel the Bush administration should have done something about it before we had won.

Or are you blaming the Bush administration for the torture inflicted by the Baathist regime, and contend that we should have invaded earlier?

Now if my criticism of you errs because your typographical mistakes have given the wrong impression, please tell us what you really meant.

". . The world is grey, one can not force black and white views in a grey world. I do belive we are not given the whole truth and there is nothing that I or anyone in here can do about it. . . "

This administration appears to believe that the world is black and white—specifically "good" (us) and "evil" (them.)

One could perhaps excuse beatings as the "stuff of war," but these crimes are clearly meant to humiliate the Arab psyche—and it has been admitted by the brass in the C.I.A. as a clear tactic to "soften" prisoners up with women, sex and dogs.

Every commander should know what those below him or her are doing—that is their job. Clearly there was no plan to deal with thousands of detainees, just as there was no plan to secure the country "after" the war.

Regardless of whether the guards were "trained" as such, DECENT human beings know what is right and wrong. The torture should have stopped the day it was discovered via the note with photos slipped under the commander's door. The warnings of the Red Cross and its report last year should have been heeded!

If we claim moral superiority this is not the way to prove it. We should, very publicly, punish those responsible, not just the grunts AND demand that those who are responsible for Islamist atrocities against our people—the butchering, burning and hanging as well as the decapitating be brought to justice. There are videos of many of the perps. It should be possible in at least some cases.

The U.S. needs to enlist the Iraqis as well as the rest of the world in this— or leave!

> Josh: "why didn't the torture end on the day the administration learned about it?"

> Tom: "Governments act that swiftly only in movies, novels, and televison."

If we were talking about the department of health and human services, I'd agree. But this is the military: it is designed to respond quickly to orders from the commander in chief. One valid answer to my question ("why didn't the torture stop") would be "because Bush ordered them to stop torturing people, but the military chose not to obey the order."

> Josh: "the administration was notified of the existence of torture in March 2003."

> Tom: "So the torture started when we invaded"

According to that red cross representative, yes. I don't know how accurate that is. I know that we captured a lot of POWs during the early days of fighting, so it's quite possible.

> Tom: "and you feel the Bush administration should have done something about it before we had won."

Yes. They wouldn't necessarily have to do anything complicated. It would have sufficed to send out a command:

"All soldiers: I have received notification that some of our detainees have not been treated according to the rules of the Geneva conventions. Mistreatment of prisoners is a grave mistake that undermines our mission. After we remove Hussein, we must build a new government here. If the locals do not trust us, or suspect us of cruelty, they will reject the government we help them create. If you suspect that your unit is being harsh to detainees, for example, if you see them deprived of sleep or food or water, or if you see them being insulted or humiliated, please contact the following people: x,y,z. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to our mission. George W. Bush."

A simple memo like that would have strongly motivated the whistleblowers, and had a chilling effect on those breaking the rules.

Let me clarify my view:

I find it hard to believe that the president was actively doing anything about the problem. I think that if he had been, the military would have responded --- maybe not instantly, but within a week or two. I suppose, theoretically, it's possible that Bush was really trying to get the military to stop torturing people, and the military was simply ignoring his command for months on end --- in other words, I suppose it's possible that Bush has no control over the military at all. However, I don't really buy that explanation. I think it's more likely that Bush simply didn't make a serious effort to get the military to stop torturing people.

Josh,

Are you complaining about Abu Ghraib in particular, or about an alleged pattern or American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners from early on in the invasion through roughly the present? If there is a stopping point for you in this, when is it? January when the main investigation started, or May when the first pictures appeared in the press, or do you contend that the pattern of mistreatment never ended?

Please be informed that these are not innocent questions. I am setting a trap for you.

Tom, let me fall into the trap on Josh's behalf.

As far as I've read, the torture at Abu Ghraib did not continue after January, after the low-level guards had been caught. However, the Army's announcement of the investigation was so understated as to be incomplete, and did nothing to indicate the scope of the problem. I think it's likely, therefore, that in the absence of Gen. Taguba's investigation, the practice would have resumed, given that at least one MI contractor cited unfavorably in the Taguba report was still working there until last week, and given that Gen. Karpinski seems to have been inadequate to the task of controlling the prison.

However, I think it's only since the public revelation of the (illegally?) classified Taguba report that we get a sense Abu Ghraib fits into a pattern and practice. As John McCain asked, what exactly does "Gitmo-ize" mean, in terms of a prison? The ICRC says much the same, that the abuse was not isolated.

If you think Myers and Rumsfeld would have made any apologies after finally reading the Taguba report that they shoved into the bottom-most section of their inbox, had it remained secret, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Small note: the ICRC began complaining of abuse of POWs almost from the moment we established detention centers. March 2003 is correct. They complained again in October 2003. And remember, the prison system was hiding various cellblocks and prisoners from them.]

> If there is a stopping point for you in this

Here's what I know:

1. According to the red cross rep, they continued to notify the administration through nov 2003. That would suggest that there was still a problem in nov 2003.

2. According to the taguba report, the nasty photos were taken between oct and dec 2003.

3. I know that some of the people involved in these acts were removed from the prison in Jan. I know that at least one person still remained as of a few weeks ago.

I presume that the torture has stopped, on the simple basis that they'd have to be completely crazy to still be torturing people.

So, that would seem to suggest that it stopped sometime between Dec 2003 and a few weeks ago.

I'm sorry, I neglected to answer your other question:

> Are you complaining about Abu Ghraib in particular, or about an alleged pattern or American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners from early on in the invasion through roughly the present?

I'm complaining about serious mistreatment: forced sleep deprivation, food deprivation, water deprivation (this is very serious in the desert), physical harm, intentional humiliation. I know that these occurred at Abu Ghraib. I vaguely recall reading that these have occurred at a number of other camps as well, but since I can't quote a source, let's just take that as the vague recollection that it is.

Josh,

Sorry for the delay. I discovered a malware attack in progress on my pc when I tried to respond last night (crossing fingers and hoping this one gets through).

The trap was your attempt to make a pattern from the first Red Cross complaints during the invasion phase to whenever you chose as the end point, i.e., I distracted you from my real objective by getting you to focus on the end point.

There are major differences between a military captor's responsibility towards prisoners, even unlawful combatants, as a campaign goes on. This responsibility is least in combat areas during the conquest phase, and greatest at the end in formal prisons. The situation at Abu Ghraib was a bit mixed in that they have been under intermittent mortar attack from the onset of its use as a prison by American forces, but it was still a fixed high-security detention facility, as opposed to a temporary holding facility with just a tent camp, etc.

Your implication that American forces have been consistently neglectful of their responsibilities as captors, given this dramatic difference in the degree of responsibility based on circumstances, therefore trivializes the gravity of the offenses at Abu Ghraib.

This says much about your judgment. It is like equating a paper cut with a fatal gunshot wound.

Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard column today, concerning Ted Kennedy's comparisons of the misconduct of our forces at Abu Ghraib to what the Baathists did there, made a point which is appropriate here:

"The inability to distinguish between categories of evil is evidence of the inability to distinguish between evil and good."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/081sxmwk.asp

There is much to criticize about Abu Ghraib, but those who have consistently overstated their case in opposing American actions in Iraq, and/or in the war on terror, have little credibility in this matter (the boy who cried "Wolf!" too often), find themselves blind to the real causes of Abu Ghraib, and thereby miss opportunities to further some causes which lead them to such overstatement in the first place.

As an example, there is a direct correlation between Abu Ghraib and Congress's recent one-year only period of relief concerning the alternative minimum tax, which would help the Democrats defeat President Bush if they only had the wit and objectivity to recognize it.

"Follow the money. Always follow the money." - Deep Throat.

". . .There is much to criticize about Abu Ghraib, but those who have consistently overstated their case in opposing American actions in Iraq, and/or in the war on terror, have little credibility in this matter (the boy who cried "Wolf!" too often), find themselves blind to the real causes of Abu Ghraib, and thereby miss opportunities to further some causes which lead them to such overstatement in the first place. . ."

Ah, kinda like being a "little bit pregnant"?

Either your are—or—you are not.

WRONG is WRONG! The level of degree matters not to those who have to live with this the rest of their lives. Who are you to say that sexual misuse of prisoners is any less traumatic than physical torture? BTW—leaving people naked on concrete floors, beatings and hanging them up on hooks IS torture!

Shame on those who are trying to justify this by saying, "it was not as bad as what uncle Saddam did."

That is NOT the point!

So, tell us Tom, what sort of punishment should these people receive for their "lesser" prisoner abuse?

You can't give Saddam enough punishment. What little can our offending soldiers receive?

Hugh Hewitt is just offering a tarted-up version of "But, Mommy, Jimmy did it even worser."

We seem to have copied Saddam's practices, not even excluding rape and homicide. We excoriated the Hussein sons for ghoulishly filming their atrocities, then we did the same. About the only difference in degree is that we didn't use any giant shredders (that I know of), and we didn't torture nearly as many people. Of course, Saddam had 30 years' practice. What's next, "But our gas chambers only killed one million people"? Or to phrase it as Hugh Hewitt would, were liberals using this disgraceful argument,

The evasion of responsibility for evil by pointing to even greater evil is evidence of the inability to distinguish good from evil.

Amen!

Regarding Tom's point about Abu Ghraib and the alternative minimum tax, that was a one-year period of relief. The US military had a year at least, prior to the invasion, to plan it, and a year from April 2003 to make good any mistakes.

Seems that if you plan a war of occupation, you might expect to bag the enemy's armed forces and a large number of suspects if you win. The 15-6 report makes it plain that the Administration provided little in its OPLAN either for sufficient forces for rear-area security -- a major MP mission, by doctrine -- nor mass-prisoner operations. Nor were people like the 800th MP Bde adequately trained either during mobilization nor in theater.

So, combine poorly-trained and inadequately-deployed soldiers, give them more prisoners than they can handle and inadequate backup, and the only surprise is that the Abu Ghraib incident wasn't worse.

Finally, Tom, it doesn't matter what someone else did, the people who actually did this thing, and their superiors, are the ones who should have known better. Go back and look at the Yamashita case. Go back and re-view "Breaker Morant," if that doesn't work. One thing that they hammered into me, in my MP training, was that it's their job to confine them, and any neglect or abuse could result in your own court-martial, never mind what someone else did some other time.

As for your suggestion that the Democrats can win the election by blaming Abu Ghraib on the alternative minimum tax ... besides the fact that it would be purely silly, seems that the real thing they should say is what Andrew Sullivan noted, "The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong."

Alternative minimum tax, indeed.

Oh, and one point to Trent, who started this whole thread, we do have a question of national strategy. (Not military strategy, though it does follow the former). G.W. said that one reason for the Iraq enterprise was to bring democracy and humanitarian values to that part of the world, etc. Having said that, it does follow that we would want our forces to reflect that, in a way that we wouldn't need to if we simply stated that realpolitik was the reason.

And besides, if our differences with Saddam were so great that we went to war with him ... well, it seems the whole point is lost if one starts to become one's enemy.

National strategy does work if it isn't contradicted. "Unconditional surrender" in WWII, the fact that we imposed a Marshall Plan and not a Morgenthau Plan on Germany after it was over, Emancipation in the Civil War, the Fourteen Points in WWI. And it works if unbroken: Emancipation may have kept Britain out of our Civil War, and when the Imperial German fleet mutinied in fall 1918, it was President Wilson's name they were cheering.

So if we are Americans we do have to act the part. Or as Justice Robert Jackson once said, "If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime."

>G.W. said that one reason for the Iraq
>enterprise was to bring democracy and
>humanitarian values to that part of the world,
>etc. Having said that, it does follow that we
>would want our forces to reflect that, in a way
>that we wouldn't need to if we simply stated
>that realpolitik was the reason.

Bob,

That we Americans are not perfect is hardly news. That is one of the reasons for the Uniform Code of Military Justice after all.

The Abuses of Abu Ghraib are an accurate reflection of one part of American culture -- that of our state prison systems -- imported directly to Iraq by several of the Reservists in the Abu Ghraib scandal. The cover your ass moves of the American military bureaucracy and its elected Federal civilian leadership to avopid accountability in this affair is another.

So is the investigation, trial and punishment of the abusers. It is also a reflection of American culture. It is our trying to deal with the failure to live up to our ideals. That is a damned rare thing in this world. People and institutions trying to be better after they have failed.

People learn a great deal more from failures than success. As I pointed out at the start of this, it is the message of that contrast that will make or break us in Iraq.

Remember, the Iraqis lived through the "Success" of the Saddam regime. They know the difference between Al-Jazeera fantasy and the reality of their lives under Saddam.

See this from Roger Simon on that contrast:

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000951.htm#comments

05/14/2004: The Real Picture Show

I don't often get scoops on this site and there is no reason you should trust me, but I have one today. The following events ... light years beyond what you have seen from our troops in Abu Ghraib... are now in the hands of the new Arab-language Television network Alhurra. They are videotapes and, in one grisly case, photographs. These are all acts performed by Saddam's soldiers and police in uniform. I am not sure what Al Ahurra will broadcast, but they will be culled from among the following. I am told that when their people saw these tapes, they were unable to watch them. I can understand why. It is hard for me to type them.

First, the photographs. They are of actual live castrations of Kurds.

Now, the video tapes:

Two beheadings, during one of which "Happy Birthday, Saddam" is being sung in Arabic.

Fingers being cut off one by one from a hand tied to a board.

People being thrown off four-story buildings, one forced to wear a Superman costume.

A man scourged ninety-nine times.

Three different instances of gas poisonings (probably employing different types), including dead babies.

There may be more. I don't know. I would like to know if any of these torturers is actually in Abu Ghraib right now. Let's hope they were not among those let out. I also would like to know what Senator Kennedy has to say about the moral equivalence of our actions after watching these tapes. And finally, I would like to know why it took so long for these to come out.

To answer Roger's plaintive question, it isn't hard to miss something when you are trying hard not to look. The one thing tha the partisan Democrat mainstrean media won't do is make Bush's case for Iraq for him.

While Hugh Hewitt put it this way:

"The inability to distinguish between categories of evil is evidence of the inability to distinguish between evil and good."

I think the defining charactoristic of those opposed to the war is their inability to admit to any evil other than what is done by an American Republican President or his Administration.

When the whole world is nothing but shades of gray with no absolutes of right and wrong, black and white, then the only thing that concerns you is power.

If you have power you are not only safe, you an lord it over whomever you want. If you don't, then you are forever in danger and you must do anything and everything to get it.

This is a very Arab world view and it is the one that most Democrats have versus any Republican President. Several of the "gray men" here in our comment's section make that overwhelmingly clear.

Trent,

It doesn't matter who is president. An expeditionary force performs on a world stage, and you do not embarrass the cause, nor the Commander in Chief, if you're on a mission s/he sent you on. These creeps took pictures, and that's appallingly stupid in and of itself.

Second, we did not make these kinds of representations -- democracy, human values, Shining City on a Hill -- when we went into Afghanistan. We wanted to rip al-Qaeda up wherever it took root, and the Taliban with it, and we did so. That worked, partly because we were quite candid about wanting to do unto others before they did unto us.

Third, it really doesn't matter what other people do on video. I've seen some of Saddam's snuff videos from Operation al-Anfal, not to mention what al-Qaeda did to Daniel Pearl and Mr. Berg. What matters is that we are not in the picture.

Finally -- and this is the whole point of the 15-6 report -- it's not a question of what a few thugs did but the fact that it's a symptom of a wider problem: failure to plan and support an occupation, however brief. This atrocity wasn't planned, it happened because of lousy training and lousy staffwork and lousy discipline and a force structure totally inadequate for the mission. The Bataan Death March grew out of similar failures (MG Taguba's father survived that one). I like to think we can do better.

If we ever again carry out a war of conquest, in which an entire population and an entire enemy armed force is in our custody, DoD really has to do better than this. Discipline means doing your job, which in staff or command means training your people to do their jobs and providing the wherewithal. Never mind the moral issues: achieve the METL and bad stuff is less apt to happen.

Bob,

Bad things happen in war and some of them are done by your own people. That can't be helped. It can only be dealt with as and when it arrises.

The Army Brass went well out of its way to destroy its own professional credibility with the Bush Administration in general and with Rummie in particular in the run up to Iraq.

Once you blow your "expert credibility badge" trying to interfere in political policy making decisions, you are going to be ignored afterwards for both good and for ill. That being the case, sh-- was guarenteed to happen.

As I have said repeatedly, it is too soon to see how this will turn our on the ground in Iraq.

As for the larger Sunni Tribal-Arab world outside Iraq, we are going to take away their patromony of unearned oil income and their control of their women's sexuality.

We are going to be hated by them unconditionally and forever.

People will more likely forgive you killing their relatives than destroying their property and power as General Sherman's March to the Sea proved with the American South.

Oh, I don't doubt that our people sometimes do bad things. Please do not assume that this is something that all Americans are apt to do. We are a nation of laws and we do uphold them, and the rogues get punished.

One point the MP training made to me was that we follow investigative procedure, and do not indulge personal abuses, as a wholesome form of discipline.

Rummy is the one who has a lot to answer for. There is the whole doctrine of command responsibility -- the Yamashita precedent -- and he not only failed to provide adequate force structure (we needed more MPs than that) but apparently let a dicey interrogation program get sloppy and out of control. I really don't care what the Sunnis think of us but I do care that our people use force -- personal or otherwise -- on command and by the numbers. The combat arms understand that. The rear echelons and the command staffs apparently do not.

Frankly, the lower-ranking MPs and dog handlers that refused to go along, and blew the whistle, were the ones with credibility. They knew what their job was, and was not. Discipline, again. You don't send an MP to do a job MI should do, any more than you send an infantry PFC to do a job EOD should handle.

And if you sail close to the wind on international law then you damn well better do it precisely and for important reasons of state. This was sheer sloppiness.

> Why is the media so quick to show pictures of alleged American abuse of detainees while refusing to post pictures of Islamofascist atrocities?

Because there's a vast left wing conspiracy and it's name is 'The Media'?

I'm no Bush apologist but until the media stops editorializing and starts reporting we won't get the whole story anytime anywhere.

Have you read Edith Efrom's book 'The News Twisters'? It's 30 years old but still on Amazon and the News is still being 'twisted' only now we call it 'spin'.

Bill, You have a point, and I have tried to pin my analysis on the Army's 15-6 report, not the early press reports. The report suggested major weaknesses in our planning and execution of the invasion, at least in the combat-support and service-support operations. Under Army doctrine the rear-area battle is a major arena even in a conventional war, not to mention something like this where it IS the war once enemy conventional forces are out of business. And it appears we didn't deploy enough people, with enough training, with enough planning and forethought.

Also, those pictures out of Abu Ghraib weren't taken by AP photographers, which suggests appalling stupidity in and of itself. Our people took those. I realize that Saddam did far worse in that jail (why did we not bulldoze it?) but the important point is, that WE should not be in the picture. An expeditionary force performs on a world stage, after all.

I fully agree with the thesis in this article that there have been far worse deeds and images perpetrated by Iraqis than those in/of the Abu Ghraib photos. I agree with this reasoning because I used to use it when I would score low on a test in school and had to face my father. I would tell dad that I knew of other kids who received far lower grades than I. But my father never seed interested in the other kids. He instead held me to a standard independent from the others. No matter what I, you, or we (as a country) do, we will always be able to find someone doing worse. The question one need ask, however, is "Am I doing my best?"