Something bothers me about a foolish assumption I keep hearing. Many Democrats but also Republicans, including Olympia Snow of Maine and Bob Dole, have declared that we know the soldiers who perpetrated the abuses against Iraqis were following orders because these reservists couldn’t have thought of the various humiliations themselves.
P-lease. Go to any college fraternity or sorority in the country during hazings; go the bathroom in a tough high school (not my old high school, but I’ve heard). Forget that, go to domestic prisons and jails. These declarations assume that “ordinary” folks (the frequent use of “reservists” condescendingly implies simpletons from Iowa or some other vowel-starting state) couldn’t come up with the torments we’ve seen because (1) they’re too decent and (2) they’re not clever enough. That’s how I read the comments, anyway.
The abuses may very well have been ordered. But the images of the abuses themselves don’t prove that or, the way I see it, even imply it. In any given population, there’s a number of people capable of deep sociopathic behavior (not the same as saying there’s a number of sociopaths) — especially when put in groups. The abuses were so sloppy and pointless, as far as interrogation methods go, it actually seems to suggest that the plans for them (to whatever extent they existed) didn’t go very far up. I saw Lyndie England interviewed and she claims her actions were ordered by soldiers of “higher rank.” Now, England is a private first class. I’m not an expert on military rank, but wouldn’t anyone be of higher rank than her? Gene I think you’re higher rank than she is. Obviously a handful (small or large) of soldiers were involved and probably were a grab-bag of ranks. An aside: she seemed to me barely coherent.
That’s not to say there weren’t orders from above — or the equivalent through neglect or poisoned atmosphere. But the pictures aren’t evidence in themselves for that point.
Oh, a related gripe. All the talk of how the humiliation was specifically mortifying to Muslims. Hm. Maybe. But again — humiliation, hazing, are pretty similar here, aren’t they? I mean, would the same soldiers, if they wanted to humiliate Americans, have overdressed them in heavy clothes? Not to make light of it, I just think it’s a projection.
Wow, a heavy first post. Gene, I’ll have to listen to that O’Reilly interview. I saw him talking about it on his show and he persuaded me he was sandbagged. But I didn’t hear the actual NPR interview. I think I have some thoughts on TV commercials and comics, too. Am on a slow computer because I’m visiting my family. Where are all the other ex-roommates?
There’s definite evidence that the abuse was systemic and intentional. According to Seymour Hersh in this week’s New Yorker, Gen. Sanchez gave 205th Military Intelligence Brigade tactical control over Abu Ghraib. This, Gen. Taguba’s report states:
Essentially, M.I.’s were given a rather hazy command over what should have been a police situation.
Specifically in response to your frat comments, though, I was deeply struck by the statements of soldiers who resisted M.I. pressure to soften up detainees. One M.P. captain showed considerably more judgment than I would have had in the same situation:
Reading between the lines, I would say that MI was relying precisely on the kind of frat-house mentality you’re describing… they just weren’t stupid enough to make it a direct order.
<hr/>
I was thinking of making this a separate post, but I may as well just tack this on: What bothers me the most about what happened in Abu Ghraib is that it represents a strategic failure. Whether the scandal results from mismanagement or from deliberate policy, the most disturbing thing about the whole thing is how poorly the Administration and the Pentagon anticipated and handled the situation. Tragedies like this are the inevitable byproduct of war: there should have been a contingency plan. This is no way to run a war, and it’s no way to make the peace.
The main problem with this situation is that it’s antithetical to our (most recent) stated goals of bringing democracy to Iraq, so either (a) those aren’t really our goals, or (b) we have become incompetent to achieve those goals. Maybe both.
A couple things though — sleep deprivation on its own would not have caused the international uproar going on now (whether or not it would still violate international law and military policy seems in dispute). “Creative” could have been blasting rock music all night in their cells. Again, whether or not this would have been legal or wise, it would not have created this backlash. What I’m saying is their form of “creativity” — stacking nude prisoners, taking posed photos, simulating sexual situations — does not prove or even suggest those specific forms were ordered from above. You’re right, mismanagement created the environment for it. But that’s not the same thing. I’m just objecting to the leap of logic that because the forms of humiliation/torture/abuse were so [fill in the blank, sophisticated, cruel, humiliating] they had to have been directed from above. The quote you include for Hersh’s article actually suggests otherwise.
That’s not to say it absolves anyone from responsibility who was not directly involved. Just to suggest that we have to recognize there is an innate capacity for generic cruelty, a “frat mentality,” in many situations. I don’t think you’re disagreeing above, but rather reworking it as something relied upon by higher-ups. This could be the case, although I don’t think that ambiguous reliance would go very far up.
This is from The New York Times, posted also by Glenn Reynolds at http://www.instapundit.com:
“Physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, similar to what has been uncovered in Iraq, takes place in American prisons with little public knowledge or concern, according to corrections officials, inmates and human rights advocates.
In Pennsylvania and some other states, inmates are routinely stripped in front of other inmates before being moved to a new prison or a new unit within their prison. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women’s pink underwear as a form of humiliation.”
If you’re only making the small point that the media plays up every stereotype of the redneck yokel (even the fact that Lyndie is from West Virginia) and mistakes stereotype for logic, I agree. I also agree that we all have the capacity for evil (as the well-cited Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated), and it’s all to easy to make the MP’s the “Other,” yadda yadda yadda.
My point from the Hersh quote was simply that leaving prisoners in the hands of untrained Reservists with vague instructions to “loosen them up” has predictable results — it’s deliberate negligence, if you will.
My point is that these abuses were not the height of a sophisticated cultural attack on Islam — it was frat boys and girls gone wild (and maybe drunk or on drugs). I think that’s important. Maybe it’s a small point, I guess, but you don’t have to make me feel bad about it! I guess I’m still trying to figure out the point of blogging, but isn’t the whole point to make small points?
Once, I was having lunch with our former roommate JB in college and I said that they should just rewrite the constitution altogether. He got up and stormed out. I think that made me feel I should make smaller points.
I thought you made excellent points, Argus, big or small. In particular, I agree with the point that the sexual nature of the humiliations were not necessarily intended as a cultural attack on Islam but rather the product of the frat-mentality, prison-guard mentality, and maybe a few charismatic MPs fascination with sexual violence. The others just followed along, losing their grip on reality and wanting to fit in.
Today’s NY Times quotes Specialist Sivits on why he didn’t report the incidents:
“I was asked not to, and I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost you.”
Sounds pretty immature and actually kind of pathetic to me. The problem is, that MPs with relatively petty motives will have a much larger impact. Isn’t that how WW1 began? An anarchist shooting an Archduke or something? I’m not really up on my history.
I’m not trying to belittle your point, just separate it from the other possible points. Maybe I should have written, “specific point.”
Thanks for the encouragement. Just making sure I’m not already a bad blogger.