This is one of the most disappointing posts I've seen on WoC. The tone is the snarky, faux-aggressive posturing of the The 101st Fighting Keyboarders and is more appropriate for the comments section, if anywhere.

The so-called fisking isn't really well done either, largely because the author is so enraged over Mr Schachtman's refusing to self-delude that he leaves his mind unconnected to the keyboard.

Here's a reverse fisking:

"...after more than 750 of our soldiers have been killed in a war that was supposed to be a cakewalk;"

By any measure of operational art, going in against an enemy fielding 389,000 personnel with a force of roughly 120,000 and overrunning a country roughly the size of California in three weeks with 134 fatalities by the end of major combat operations is a pretty impressive feat.

Well, yes, but I don't think anything in the original post says that the first phase of the battle was difficult. Doubtless Mr. Schachtman was suggesting that the pre-war expectation was that the occupation would also be a cakewalk (round up the usual links), and the amazing thing is, Bravo concedes the point, just very ungraciously:

Well, in point of fact, they did have a plan. It just didn't work as planned. I know it's shocking, but sometimes this happens in warfare when confronted with real, live opponents.

Well, yes, and the result is exactly what the original article claimed: we're running Iraq a year later than planned and may be there indefinitely.

Would he have suggested that FDR hold off on this whole World War II thing until he got British and Soviet consensus on the structure of the post-war German government? While we're at it, I would dearly love to see his take on reconstruction after the Civil War.

We started planning the government of Occupied Germany as early as 1943. We had jurists, engineers, linguists (Arabic training, anyone?) all ready to go after victory. Lincoln had a plan for Reconstruction (the 10% plan) and indeed it was partly implemented in Louisiana even before the end of the war. Now, to some extent events overtook these plans: the split with the Soviets and the assassination of Lincoln. But the truth is, we put a ton more effort into planning then than we did with the Iraq occupation. Our "The Chalabi Hope is Our Plan" couldn't be more different from the very history cited!

First, I would like to know by what metrics he can assess the [prison guard] reservists and deem them "half-trained."

Well, how about by the metric that many of them had been trained as clerks and mechanics and were hastily converted to guards? That sounds like half-trained to me! (Poor Bravo seems to be so upset he hasn't been able to read a newspaper in six months.)

Here, Noah first likes to make the implicit assertion that the photo which has a picture of a contractor with four other military personnel (not to mention the plethora of photos of military personnel without contractors) somehow means that the contractors are at the center of things.

Let's see: the Taguba report [how about fisking that, Bravo?] says that guards thought they were now reporting to MI including contractors, Gen. Karpinski says she understood that the MI people (including contractors) were now in charge, and Cpl. Granger is intending to use it as his defense. I would indeed say that the newly-released photograph with four contractors and one enlisted man in the reserves around the naked detainees suggests that the contractors are running the show. Bravo seems to be way behind the curve, since the Taguba report singles out two contractors as abusers by name, and we're just learning of an entire off-the-books network of prisons and probably torture chambers, presumably with CIA and other civilian personnel.

I don't know much about the military, never having served (sight unseen, I'm guessing Mr. Bravo didn't either), but I believe this post is what the military folks call Bravo Sierra.

This bears repeating

Tom Holsinger posted elsewhere on Winds from Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard column concerning Ted Kennedy's comparisons of the misconduct of our forces at Abu Ghraib to what the Baathists did there:

"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

We seem to have that in spades the moment any element of the Iraqi occupation campaign is brought up here on Winds of Change.

I don't usually find myself in agreement with Lazarus, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day: who lent this guy the keys? Joe, this is one of my favourite blogs, but one main reason for that is the generally cordial tone of discourse. Even if I partially agree with the poster's substance, vitriolic posts like this just make me wince. Thumbs down.

Well Andy and Andrew (and others)-

I apologize for the tone of the post. This is my first crack at Winds of Change, and it seems that my tone has vastly overtaken any substance that I may have been trying for.

I apologize for not only being inconsistent with the well-reasoned tone of discourse that you've come to expect, but also for burying what could have been an otherwise fruitful discussion in vitriol.

Please accept my apologies, and I'll try to do a far better job the next time around. I would appreciate it if your readers would be so kind as to give me another chance.

To A. Lazarus, the one question that I had intended to tackle at the outset, but I evidently lost along the way, is whether or not events since late March of 2003 merit the resignation of the Secretary of Defense. Clearly one could deduce that I do not think the conduct rises to this level. Evidently others disagree. I thank you for the time you put into your response and would welcome a chance to recast my arguments in a more civil tone.

Thanks,

BRD

It's alright, I'm all for second chances. It's just that you have to be mindful of your environment. If people want fire and brimstone, they read Emperor Misha. Most people come to WoC looking for thoughtful factual analysis which is fairly free of acid.

As for the idea that Rummy should resign: anyone who advocates this needs to step back and think about the implications of what they're saying. If this were applied consistently, the entire chain of command from the MPs in the prison on up to the SecDef would have to be fired and replaced every an instance of abuse happened on their watch. Doesn't seem like such a defensible position when you put it in that light, does it?

It warms my heart to see that a polite and frank criticism followed by introspection can still happen in this world where venomous barbs and 'vitrol' (I love that word!) are the norm for our intelectual leaders. Thank you Bravo Romeo Delta, Andrew J. Lazarus and Andy Danger.

Andy, thanks, and point taken.

Among other things, I was trying to go back and recall when we've pitched out various and sundry cabinet members.

Clearly, Janet Reno didn't get the axe after Waco, although I don't seem to remember much public outcry for that.

As for the other SecDef's that bailed under in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind is Les Aspin, who bailed some eight or ten months after Somalia. Among other things, this guy actually turned down Powell for additional forces, so he evidently wasn't from the blood and guts school of thought. If you click on the bio above, it isn't entirely clear if he resigned because of Somalia or his health. Or both.

Past that, I really can't think of a lot of cases of cabinet level folks bailing (but that may just be my failing memory). Really, if McNamara stayed in as long as he did, then is it time for Rummy to go?

Andrew J. Lazarus writes: "we're running Iraq a year later than planned and may be there indefinitely". How can the first half of this statement possibly be true? It's been less than 14 months since U.S. forces entered Iraq. Were we really planning on removing Saddam and his henchmen from power, setting up a democratic government, and pulling all our forces back out again in less than two months? As I recall, most people thought there would be a 3-month siege of Baghdad with thousands of Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

Of course, the second half of the Lazarus quotation is also dubious, though the trouble may be more rhetorical than historical. "May be there indefinitely"? There's no specific time-table for departure, so we are most certainly there indefinitely, just as we are in Korea and Kosovo and Germany and everywhere else outside the U.S. we have troops. However, indefinitely is not the same thing as forever and does not mean we'll be there for many years. It all depends on events.

I fail to understand why the idea of having troops in Iraq indefinitely is at all shocking. The US still has troops in Germany, FYI.

When coming late to a WoC party, one tries to avoid posting "me-too." To break that rule: I appreciate AJL's and Andy Danger's criticisms of the snarky tone of this post, and also Bravo Delta Romeo's introspective comments in response.

One point that I wish to clarify, is that in the original article, the writer goes from talking about being half trained and then descending into sadism and torture, aside from being a rhetorical flourish, speaks to much of the central debate.

Those who tend to subscribe to the nobel citizen soldier model would probably bristle at the idea that soldiers need to be trained not to be sadistic, and that they need constant supervision so they don't run off the leash and go on a rampage.

The contrary view of hyper-adrenalized kill bots tends to make the contrary argument.

It seems that the microcosm of the debate over Abu Ghraib (and don't get me wrong, I think that the folks involved should be strung up) reflects to a very real extent the opinions of the reader on the American soldier today.

Since this is a whopper of a generalization, I am quite curious to see if there are folks out there who have a contrary frame of mind - e.g. they believe the best in our soldiers, but think that the amount of training alone would have been sufficient to stop the behaviors.

NB: I am not speaking of the reservists who were trained as MPs, or who were correction officers in civilian life, but rather the fabled mechanics, et al.

Andrew,

Mr. Shachtman links to a comment by Rumsfeld about the length of the war. The war lasted 3 weeks. The original article did not make a distinction between "phases" of the war. If you disagree, please provide evidence that the original article makes a distinction between "phases" of the war in its criticism of Rumsfeld. Mr. Shachtman conflates the war and the reconstruction/occupation, then attributes Rumsfeld's comments to the entire project. He improperly attributes a prediction to Rumsfeld so that it might be easily falsified. It is yet another form of revisionism we get from the anti-war left in its quest to regain syllogistic credibility. And I say again: you cannot easily engage in this sort of conduct in the age of google and hyperlinks.

I note that, in support of your contention that the Administration claimed the occupation/reconstruction was going to be a "cakewalk", you linked a Time magazine article. I disagree that this proves what you claim. The article presents one journalist's opinion of the Administration's view. Your reliance on it is an interpretation of an interpretation of events. Given that these issues are highly contentious, I don't think it is too much to ask a participant in the discussion to make their own arguments using directly sourced quotes.

But we've been over this before: the Administration did not say the liberation of Iraq and its reconstruction were going to be a cakewalk. The administration repeatedly claimed that the Coalition was in for a long, difficult task. I've argued with you about this on another thread. If you still want make the "cakewalk" argument, you could start be refuting my linked quotes there. (Or start again here, in which case I'll just redirect you to my previously linked quotes that you failed to address.)

You assert that "the original article claimed: we're running Iraq a year later than planned and may be there indefinitely."

The original article doesn't say this at all. It says we invaded Iraq "without a plan for the occupation". If you disagree, please provide relevant quotes form Mr. Shachtman's article.

The original article sets up straw man arguments, knocks them down, and hopes the reader won't notice. BRD does a reasonably good job of demonstrating this.

So, if I understand this correctly, all the "cakewalk" contention comes from the media's and military pundits'opinion of the pre-invasion plan, to which Rummy tactfully suggested they did not have access. The press tries set the expectations of the outcome for American public, and consistently gets it wrong. Is that plain oversight or is it intentional?

I'll add my 'attaboys' to the group's - BRD's wilingness to admit error and promise improvement is to me what disatinguishes real argument from simple disagreement.

Thanks for that...

A.L.

A diatribe worthy of one of my more intemperate moments.

I hate to break it to the pessimists, but Iraq is STILL a cakewalk in military-historical terms.

That in no way denigrates the losses, sacrifices and challenges involved, which are formidable.

But let us be honest. If the casualty threshold for US retreat is less than 1,000 deaths over more than a year, we are simply finished as a great power.

The assertation that no one knew who was in charge is a joke. First, placing prisoners under the operational control of Military Intelligence is a violation of Geneva. That will not happen. I would believe the MI guys would like to see them "softened up", that usually means forgetting to turn the lights off at night, making it noisy and hard to sleep, and nice and cold for discomfort. These things weaken a person's morale and possibly provides an opening for the interrogators. What was being done by those sadists was counterproductive (besides disgustingly wrong) as it builds rage and resistance. I have worked with Interrogators during my time in the military, any one with any clue to his/her job will tell you this. These are some sick freaks with no discipline under poor leadership. End of Story.

Geoff,

I started to write a response to your "cakewalk contention" question. The comment grew long, but the gist of it is that the expectations that people had prior to the war were based in large part on who they were listening to (which isn't a big surprise). The odder bit, is that the war was generally most oversold to those who were typically dovish, but were subjected to a hard sell by political leaders who backed the war.

Thus, more naturally anti-war constinuencies heard a lot more noise about WMD, imminent threat, and cakewalk than were other more hawkish constituencies.

Long and boring version here.

Bravo.

I sometimes despair when I read articles on defense/war issues by authors who clearly think that anything big and green is a "tank"; but how much more depressing is it when those who should have the ability to understand war are no better in their analysis?

And they are worse in fact, since they have the aura of knowledge. They just can't see the war with all the acronyms they know in the way.

"We started planning the government of Occupied Germany as early as 1943. We had jurists, engineers, linguists (Arabic training, anyone?) all ready to go after victory. Lincoln had a plan for Reconstruction (the 10% plan) and indeed it was partly implemented in Louisiana even before the end of the war."

Yes, and it was ultimately rejected by Congress and discarded. Then, after the war, Reconstruction went on for a dozen years and ultimately failed, and no further serious attempts were made for nearly a century.

"Now, to some extent events overtook these plans: the split with the Soviets and the assassination of Lincoln. But the truth is, we put a ton more effort into planning then than we did with the Iraq occupation."

And, in the case of the occupation of the Confederacy, all that "planning" bore little fruit.

Actually the "planning" for the occupation of Germany by the FDR administration was a confused mess. FDR fostered a turf war over who would do such planning and encouraged his Secretary of the Treasury to draft and publically discuss the infamous "Morganthau Plan" which drew outrage from Gen. George Marshall.

Once the occupation actually began, it was a far greater example of plans falling apart, and improvisation than the current occupation of Iraq. Much of the effective programs of occupation took years to assemble. Citing to the occupation of Germany as an example of how such should be done is a rather blatant misrepresentation of history.

I sometimes despair when I read articles on defense/war issues by authors who clearly think that anything big and green is a "tank"; but how much more depressing is it when those who should have the ability to understand war are no better in their analysis?

And they are worse in fact, since they have the aura of knowledge. They just can't see the war with all the acronyms they know in the way.

Schactman is not a military / war expert. He's a journalist who took up defense issues as a common topic he writes about.

I have never heard one word that suggests he has spent time in uniform, studied mil arts or otherwise has an operational clue.

And that, I suspect, is what BRD is so annoyed (and more) about. (My own snarky comments re: Defensetech deleted here.)

I would honestly be quite ahppy if with a good course in history (and none of this revisionist, apologist garbage) or the classics. It gets under my skin that the guy is calling for the head of the SecDef given even the history of warfare in the last century, let alone something prior to 1900.

There are some journalists who have really made an effort to learn about warfare and warfighting before they report on it, and it shows. Or there are cases like Mark Bowden who knows zip about zilch when it comes to war, but he was incredibly meticulous in his research and reporting and produced a masterful book.

Schactman isn't that bad when he sticks to his competency, but he's used as an excuse to editorialize without point or argument. That is what got under my skin so very much.

Sadly, irked ain't a defense (and an even worse reason), but nothing to do but get back on the bike and ride again.

I want to discuss the Abu Ghraib assertions that exist in the defenseTech blog. Specifically, the allusion "moonlighting in torture" and its associate assertions.

• Is what has been factually reported about AG torture?

I found different definitions some of which included mental angiush and others the did not, including only extreme pain. At the least, I would argue that the use of the word torture for the treament of the prisoners is unwarranted because the meme of torture should be reserved for acts that involve bodily, physical harm. One could also argue that the photo's I've seen to-date from AG are not torture; they certainly haven't demonstrated bodily harm (which, btw, is allowed if needed to control the prisoner).

• Is what has been factually reported about AG against the Geneva convention?

No, the prisoners in AG are not covered under the GC because they are not part of a uniformed army, or a militia operating under the laws of war.

link to GC

Simply put, I don't believe that the treatment at AG was illegal, unwarranted, or unjust.

I respect those that are careful to examine the treament of prisoners, but in this case I don't find much to get outraged about.

Very good thread overall. Congrats to BRA for bringing out the snark in Lazarus, and causing some unforced errors from that gentleman.

Fred, I suggest you re-read the Third Geneva Convention, Articles 3 and 4B. The prohibition against torture applies at all times, and the Convention also applies to former members of the Iraqi Armed Forces who are interned even after return to civilian life, if their allegiance be suspect, which probably covers most of the detainees. The US acknowledged it was bound by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. If you have any authority other than wishful thinking, go ahead and cite.

At least two of the prisoners were beaten to death, which I view as bodily harm. I think you could also argue that requiring prisoners to fellate each other at gunpoint is torture, but your mileage may vary. How a compelled orgy was necessary to "control" prisoners, you'll have to explain more slowly.

On the off-chance that your outrageous comment is really liberal trolling, we're (me, Abu Frank, etc.) holding up our end OK and don't need this kind of "help".

Ken, I'm not denying that our Occupation plans for Germany had to be revised, but I claim that the Occupation went forth with much less loss of American life. The food situation was dire, but I wonder if the personal security of Germans was better in the Allied Zone than in Iraq?!

A. J. Lazarus,

Had the security situation in Iraq been OK, but the food situation dire, would you have not leveled a mirror criticism?

Unlawful combatants may be executed upon capture under the Geneva Conventions, though they rarely are, but I believe the prohibition of torture nominally applies at all times. I say nominally because prosecutions almost never happen, while brutal field interrogations are common. The rules are enforced more rigorously as battle grows more distant.

My uncle was a military police officer in the U.S. 1st Army during the World War Two Battle of the Bulge. He was chief of the honor guard for the Duchess of Luxembourg at the onset but, when the south flank of the Bulge was placed under the 3rd Army (Patton), his MP group took a round-about route to get back to the 1st Army on the north side of the Bulge, and he was then briefed (this was about Xmas 1944) on the procedure for dealing with German infiltrators, aka Skorzeny's commandoes, wearing American uniforms.

They were supposed to immediately notify higher authority of the capture and try to get information about other infiltrators anyway they could from the prisoners (i.e., torture was impliedly authorized), then hold a summary military court (not a court-martial) before executing them. They had to get permission from HQ to hold the summary court because the outcome was certain - conviction and immediate execution.

Any officer handy could be grabbed to sit on the summary court, or serve as prosecutor. No officer was to serve as defense counsel, though the accused was to be offered a chance to speak. They had to keep a written record of the proceedings and the officers sitting on the court could not be witnesses (i.e., have seen the capture at all).

This procedure, save the expedient field torture, was and is quite proper under the Geneva Conventions. We could do it today in Iraq with any unlawful combatants we capture. We don't because captured unlawful combatants have intelligence value. We do not seem to have yet reached the point where some of the prisoners have no further value to us. When we do, quick simple military trials and immediate execution would be lawful. Whether such would be politically expedient is another matter.

At some point we'll have to make that call. By then it might be a lot easier.

I am not the Fred who posted above. Apparently, there are two of us. Maybe I should call myself Fred1 since I'm the first Fred I know of to post here. Having said that, though, I don't entirely disagree with Fred2. Yes, Andrew, beating someone to death would certainly qualify as torture. So would sodomizing people with broomsticks, but you'll have to prove to me those were widespread, sytematic occurrences and not aberrations. What seems to have been widespread is the use of humiliation and extreme discomfort like sleep deprivation, making them listen to loud music and/or putting them in uncomfortable positions for long periods, etc. I think Fred2 is right that those do not, or should not, qualify as torture. I'm not an expert on the Geneva convention, but if memory serves, there is no Iraqi army any more. The prisoners in Abu Ghraib are terrorists or irregular guerrillas. In any case not legal combatants.

Let me get this straight.

Schachtman argues that there was no plan for the reconstruction for Iraq and that this is a disaster. BRD disputes this, and suggests that the Administration did have a plan, but that it was revised. He notes that plans are often revised, and this doesn't automatically lead to failure. As evidence for this proposition, he notes that post-WW2 plans were also heavily revised and left unfinished, with eventual success.

Andrew then states that the US did more planning for WW2 reconstruction than Iraqi reconstruction, to the detriment of the Iraqi project, presumably.

It is then pointed out (by Robin Roberts) that the US largely revised and improvised the WW2 reconstruction plans (with eventual success). This goes towards BRDs proposition, above, that improvised, changed plans do not automatically lead to a failure of reconstruction.

Andrew then concedes the point, but then claims that "the Occupation went forth with much less loss of American life" and suggests that security was better in post-WW2 Germany than Iraq.

So, now it is not the "plan revision" that is indicative of US failure, but "loss of life" and "lack of security", neither of which (as far as I can tell) were initially mentioned in Andrew's comments as relevant. Goalpost moving aside, I think we are entitled to ask why "lack of security" is preferenced over "food scarcity", what level of casualties will count as failure of reconstruction and what indicia of security Andrew is using in his analysis.

I liked the snarkiness myself, especially the bit about strawberry sherbet and soapy showers, but whatever shrug ;-)

To (slightly) echo Mark above, I can only find myself wondering just who exactly ever made the claim (now, seemingly, being disputed here by Andrew Lazarus) that the Occupation of Germany went forth with more loss of American life than has the Occupation of Iraq...

More general to this point, I also have never quite figured out what these fabled "Plan For Occupying A Country" things are supposed to look like; huge crates chock full of 3-ring binders, presumably. Let alone why "Not Having a Plan" for occupation is supposed to serve as some kind of all-encompassing deal-breaking criticism of military leadership (who do, after all, have other responsibilities on their table, like, you know, fighting and winning that whole "war" thing...).

It seems to have been established and conceded, anyway, that they Had A "Plan" ™, and that like most such "Plans" in the context of warfare, it did not long survive contact with reality. I guess the example of WW2 Germany is then lauded as a contradictory example because that "Plan" (I gather) survived contact with reality somewhat longer, and in any event, less American troops lost their lives. No kidding.

Is it worth reminding anyone that we (well, the Soviets...) had just gone through more-than-decimating the German army (probably) as well as, perhaps, even the German populace, through fire-bombing etc? And that that can actually make a big difference as to whether one is left with determined insurgents, dead-enders, and power-grabbers afterwards? Indeed, that the war against Germany was in fact a "total war" whereas this thing we're trying to do in Iraq was not?

Also, if it's true that the Germany "Plan" began to be written/conceived/hatched? in 1943 (a time at which it was actually known for certain that the U.S. was involved in a war with Germany..), that gave the U.S. two years, perhaps more, to refine and flesh out said "Plan". Presumably, they didn't start writing the "Plan" in mid April 1945 three weeks before V-E day. Alternatively, had the war against Germany been launched, waged and concluded in some three weeks in 1942 right after Pearl Harbor and resulted in our occupying Nazi Berlin in the face of a Germany army most of which didn't fight but quit and went home to their families (instead of being killed in Russian frost and their families being fire-bombed), I doubt we'd be looking back and patting our backs over how great our German Occupation "Plan" was starting in 1942.

Back in our universe, in 2003 the U.S. knew it was at war with Iraq for three weeks before they found they had up and won the thing and thus a "Plan" became necessary. Perhaps one can say that they ought to have been working (more) on that "Plan" during the "Run-Up To" ™ the war. I don't know. Nor do I know why this criticism is supposed to be some kind of bull's-eye against the SecDef.

Seems to me that to stave off this whole "no plan" criticism Rummy should have just fought this war dumber and slower, more reliance on air power and trenches, more casualties on our side during regular combat but (apparently more importantly) killing off more of the Iraqi Army, slowly tightening the circle, and never occupying a city until all men of fighting age in that city were dead or cowed. Meanwhile the slowness of the campaign would have given the Occupation "Plan"ners more time to write their vaunted "Plan", which no doubt would have proceeded far more smoothly. If he'd have just done the war that way Rummy wouldn't have to resign in disgrace. But he does now. Right? ;-)

Bear in mind that Mr. Lazarus is not a worthy adversary. He engages in misrepresentations and makes personal attacks devoid of humor.

I have not responded to him in some time.

Sorry to confuse the thread, but call me "Fred2"

Andrew wrote:
At least two of the prisoners were beaten to death, which I view as bodily harm. I think you could also argue that requiring prisoners to fellate each other at gunpoint is torture, but your mileage may vary. How a compelled orgy was necessary to "control" prisoners, you'll have to explain more slowly.

Fred2 says:
I haven't seen documentation about beatings, perhaps you can cite definitive evidence. I haven't seen any pictures of this. If this happened it certainly qualifies as torture and mistreatment.

I don't agree that all the prisoners qualify for protection under the GC. I cite specifically section 4.2.c and d which state that the prisoners must practice:

(c That of carrying arms openly;

(d That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Caching of arms in hospitals and schools, and firing from positions behind women/children/civilians is not in accordance with (d) nor is bombing the civilian population and the UN building.

I will concur that the US may extend these levels of treatment as a humane policy, and that the reading of the GC does not make my interpretation or yours entirely certain.

Finally, forcing the prisoners to perform sex acts is humiliation. As a matter of semantics we can agree to disagree that it is or is not torture. If the prisoners qualified for GC treatment, forced sex acts would be prohibited in any case.

The treatment of the prisoners seems to have exceeded the appetite of humane, non-combatants in the US. It seems that the civilian and military leadership is changing this and has been in the process of changing this for the past 4 to 5 months.

The purpose of the humiliation may have been to encourage the prisoners to release information relevant to the battle actively being fought outside the prison. My argument is that this is "in accordance with the laws and customs of war." given that we are pursuing victory and an end to the current conflict and bloodshed (and having completed the removal of the previous murdering and torturing regime). Those that are "outraged" by the photos seem to disagree.

One final point. The GC was intended to apply to both parties in a conflict. It is clear that our enemies are not adhering to the GC ( hostage taking, summary executions, defaming the dead, harming civilians, etc, etc ). While the US seems to be making an effort to extend GC type protections to the detainees as much as is possible. Viewed in this context I feel it is reasonable to argue that rough but not harmful treatment of prisoners is waranted, legal, and just.

--Fred2

Forgive my off topicness and excuse my ignorance, but this thread is grazing a question I've mulled but haven't sought the answer yet.

As opportunity may be at hand, perhaps Fred2K can enlighten me or anyone else with knowledge.

If the GC is a treaty signed by various nations as agreement to future conflict, what obligation does a nation have when fighting a non-signing entity?

I understand political price, etc...

I'm just wondering what the GC or any other binding document says, if anything, about our current situation in re: non state, non treatied combatants?

Has there been any consideration to updating the GC to include such provisions if, as I assume, they are lacking?

CBK

CBK,

"If the GC is a treaty signed by various nations as agreement to future conflict, what obligation does a nation have when fighting a non-signing entity?"

I believe this is the pertinent article:

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The whole thing is here.

There is a certain lack of clarity in the language used to describe "protected persons". That ambiguity leads to assertions of rights for individuals who may not legally possess them.

It seems to me that Bravo Romeo Delta doesn't need to apologize for anything, and Andrew is a bit of a "barracks lawyer". Shachtman does seem to have a "cranially impacted colon", what ever that could mean, and there is an awful lot of hyperventalation going on. Relax Gentlemen; read a little Niall Ferguson. We have a long way to go. Best Regards Che

I think as the comment threads have developed, there are two not-closely-related points at issue here. On one of them, torture, I think it should be a slam dunk. The other, on occupation planning, I think that, although not in so many words, the right wing is putting forth a good claim that my earlier posts on relative Occupations suffers from the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I should bring more evidence there.

1A. Are the prisoners at Abu Ghraib protected by the Geneva Conventions?

Well, when we went into Iraq, we said that we were following the Geneva Conventions. To this day, that's official policy (unlike Guantánamo). Was this required, or is it ex gratia? It's required. Articles 2, 3 and 4B of the Third Geneva Convention make clear application to occupations, that torture is always prohibited, and that former members of the Iraqi Armed Forces are entitiled to protection even if they have returned to civilian life. Of course, if a competent tribunal established that a particular detainee was an illegal combatant, then he could be punished. In the actual event, we are holding tribunals but they are not finding illegal combatants: they are releasing hundreds of prisoners who constitute no threat.

1B. Even if somehow the GC didn't apply, torture is absolutely prohibited by American Law. I wasn't aware of this earlier, but we've ratified the International Convention Against Torture and passed laws implementing it. This includes torture committed by US nationals overseas.

"(a) Offense. -
Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

I admit, I didn't look for a "suspected terrorist" or "unlawful combatant" exception. If you guys find one, let me know </sarcasm>

1C. The acts committed at Abu Ghraib constitute torture. We really have to argue this? Beatings, dog maulings, prisoners forced to sodomize each other at gunpoint, prisoners forced to anally penetrate themselves with foreign objects at gunpoint, and this isn't torture? You must be joking. Paul Wolfowitz and some unifomed general admitted yesterday that some of the lesser procedures we were practicing were prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Our own POWs captured by Iraq are embarrassed.

1D. The incidents photographed were not isolated incidents. On one side we have the Taguba report, the ICRC, Colin Powell. On the other we have wishful thinking. It's only getting worse as the covers are torn off our Gitmo and Afghan black holes.

The Occupation question is more interesting, saving for later. In arguing over whether this is torture, you're even putting our own soldiers at risk, when they're captured. What goes around comes around. Ever think of that?

Hahaha.

Putting our soldiers at risk?

Wha!

You're kidding, right?

Oops, I forgot, the Islamists and Baathists have always treated their prisoners with the utmost respect.

No beheadings here, no rapings there, no brutal beatings and no forced confessions to be aired on CNN et al. (remember Gulf War I?)

What a joke, Andrew.

Oh, and to go along with that absurdity, Andrew adds a wholly disingenuous statement, regarding whether what happened was widespread.

Let me quote from Taguba himself, in his opening statement as he was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"The criminal acts of a few stand in stark contrast to the high professionalism, competence and moral integrity of countless active, Guard and Army Reserve soldiers that we encountered in this investigation.

At the end of the day, a few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international law and the Geneva Convention."

jr3l, two reasons our professional military are aghast at the torture incidents: their own honor, and their own safety. No, the Islamists don't play buy our rules, but more-or-less the Iraq Army did. (Click the link in my previous post.) It's in our Army's own self-interest to observe correct behavior in regards to POWs.

As far as the isolated incidents, you should keep up with the news. Earlier Jail Seen as Incubator for Abuses in Iraq. The particularly hideousness of Abu Ghreib may be the worst (Cpl. Graner seems to have been a sadist, judging from his civilian record), but the bankrupt system in place for interrogations guarantees that stepping over the line was widespread.

That may be the "latest news" but it still doesn't explain what seems to be your disingenuousness in citing Taguba. Further you can say it was widespread all you want, but the man who investigated it, months ago, says otherwise, speaking very recently.

As to your other point, of course our troops' safety is involved, but (a) we're not fighting the Iraqi army (b) you said "what goes around comes around", implying that any subsequent violence vs any of us -- whether troops, contractors, or otherwise employed Us civilians in Iraq -- would be a tit-for-tat, a cycle of violence, as if torture, mutilations, beheadings etc weren't par for the course with those whom we fight.

jr3l, you are (on purpose?) missing the point: General Taguba didn't investigate Camp Copper, or Bagram in Afghanistan, or Guantánamo. When I say that abuse was widespread, I don't mean it was perpetrated by more guards at Abu Ghraib than have already been accused (although I'm still waiting for charges against people like Col. Pappas, who was in charge of the MI Brigade at both Abu Ghraib and Camp Copper). I mean that the rules of interrogation we established guaranteed abuse wheresoever they were in force.

Since this thread began, Seymour Hersh has more:

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Isn't it interesting that most of our senior officer cadre continue to insist upon the Geneva Conventions, even though they know perfectly well whom we fight? The left's alleged over-romanticization of the so-called poor and oppressed is here mirrored by the certain the radical right's closet affection for barbarity.

Andrew thanks for clarifying your points. Let me address.

1A. Are the prisoners at Abu Ghraib protected by the Geneva Conventions?

I have argued that the GC does not apply to insurgents. I concur with your point that it does apply to former iraqi army personnel, but only if they are acting according to the laws of war. If they are hiding in schools, acting like civilians, etc. etc. the GC specifically is excluded.

Obviously, this is a case by case judgement.

1B. Even if somehow the GC didn't apply, torture is absolutely prohibited by American Law.

Agreed. Define torture.

I concur that some of the alledged acts at AG may have been torture, but that much of what I have seen/heard and has been documented is NOT torture. I'm beginning to wonder if this confusion is intentially being used to discredit the detention practices IN ALL cases, when perhaps only a few cases deserve to be in the category of torture/mistreatment.

To cite a particular example, is forced wearing of women's underware torture? If not, why include it in the discussion implicity by refering to "wide spread abuses?"

Let us seperate the discussion into instances of torture (rape, murder, beheadings, limb severing, electocution, and the like) and instances of abuse.

In the cases of torture, we can agree that they are horrible, illegal, immoral and deserving of our outrage. Can you cite these cases? How many have occured under the US watch? Are they being addressed if they occured? Were they part of policy? I have not screen these photographed.

In the cases of severe abuse we may agree that they are wrong, politically unexpediante, and deserves our attention so that the practice is immediately stopped.

In the cases of mild abuse we may completely disagree. I may think it is appropriate if it has a specific justified, military purpose, such as extracting battlefield intel.

1C. The acts committed at Abu Ghraib constitute torture. We really have to argue this?

Yes, we do. Please see above.

Beatings, dog maulings, prisoners forced to sodomize each other at gunpoint, prisoners forced to anally penetrate themselves with foreign objects at gunpoint, and this isn't torture? You must be joking.

Without implying what you say is or is not true, please cite. I haven't seen photo's of this.

1D. The incidents photographed were not isolated incidents.

I don't know. See above re my concern about the lumping together of practices.

It is worth stating again that I am not advocating torture, and that I value the concern of american that question our operation of AG.

Fred2,

I do not consider the women's underwear to be torture. If you thought that the prisoners were entitled to the Geneva Conventions (as the White House Counsel agreed was the case)], then the nakedness was probably prohibited as degrading. That seems to be the opinion of our own armed forces. But I concur it didn't rise to the level of torture. [Remember, up to 90% of the detainees were simply picked up in sweeps. Few seem to be guerrillas.

The original dump of photos has a picture of a man beaten to death. A photo of a naked man menaced by dogs is in Seymour Hersh's article and it seems to be widely rumored that a subsequent photograph after the man has been bitten is in the pictures reserved for the U.S. Senate. The dog mauling and the anally sodomizing detainees with chemical lightsticks is in the Taguba Report, and I believe a photograph of the latter. Here is the AP story with Senators' reactions after the session where they saw the pictures.

"I saw cruel, sadistic torture,” said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who said some of the images were of male prisoners masturbating. She said she saw a man hitting himself against a wall as though to knock himself unconscious.
Others said they saw images of corpses, military dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, women commanded to expose their breasts and sex acts, including forced homosexual sex.

“There were people who were forced to have sex with each other,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said, “There were some pictures where it looked like a prisoner was sodomizing himself” with an object. He said blood was visible in the photograph.

Not everyone reacted the same way to the additional photos.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he thought “some people are overreacting.”

I have to admit, since my posting I have read liberal law prof Mark Kleiman, who claims that forcing prisoners to sodomize each other might only be torture if the act were physically extremely painful. (Actually, his analysis was having the guards rape prisoners, and I think the cases are similar.) I'm still very skeptical of this analysis (although I am not a lawyer), but if it's correct, I think we owe Uday and Qusay posthumous apologies for exaggerating the significance of their own rape and sodomy policies. Kleiman also points out Pres. Bush's Rovian genius in establishing military tribunals of dubious constitutionality both enabled him to portray Democrats as weak on terror, and to create courts where (worthless) evidence extracted by torture would be accepted.

Don't forget, the photos we haven't seen yet are stated by conservative Republicans to be even worse than the ones we have.

As far as the idea that the torture will turn out to be the work of a few bad apples, the fire has jumped that break long ago. Which of our secret prisons engaged in more or less torture is an open question to which we may never find the answer, but if you believe a network of secret prisons operating with no independent oversight, staffed with cowboys answerable to no legal authority, won't produce torture, you've lived in a different world than I have.