The Abu Ghraib abuse culture

[linuxdude32]

Well, here's an interesting story that says there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with this war and Rumsfeld in the military and the torture photo's are being used as a means to express that dissatisfaction.

I think that's a far more likely scenario, Ibe. If the pictures were released to strike fear into the Iraqis, they would've been released a lot longer. I've read articles that say that many in the administration have known about the practices for up to a year and the photos for several months. I get the impression they were hoping they'd never be released. Someone clearly leaked them. Why do leaks like that happen? Many are disheartened with the war in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners there. Check out this section of the article:

The photos from Abu Ghraib may have only recently been published but many in the American media have known of their existence for months. Barbara Starr of CNN's Washington Bureau wrote a news report about the photos four months ago, on 21 January. She reported that a source from inside the Pentagon had told CNN that US military command's investigation of abuse was 'focused on Abu Ghraib', and that 'US soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners', photographs 'which may depict male and female soldiers' (9). Why didn't CNN pursue the story further, and try to get hold of the photos that its rivals CBS would eventually unveil 100 days later on 29 April? Both Barbara Starr and CNN's PR spokesperson decline to comment on how CNN appears to have lost such a big story.

So the press has known since January but now it's all coming out and it's because of possibly guys in the Pentagon who are waging a public relations war against Runsfeld. I think I might be the turn of the tide.Fascinating article, Ibe!

[ebrke]

Our soldiers did things they never should have done. If they did these things because they wanted to, they should be punished. If they did these things under orders, they should have refused. Yes, they probably would have been court-martialed, but they are being court-martialed now anyway, and if they had refused to carry out illegal orders, we all would not have to feel so ashamed now. It goes to something no one seems to want to think about anymore--personal responsibility for your actions.I'm sure there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the Pentagon against Rumsfeld, et al. I'm against this war, I'm against most wars, but if you have to go to war, you don't go "on the cheap". This war has robbed us here in the U.S. of many of the troops who should be here to defend us in case of national emergency, and there still aren't enough boots on the ground in Iraq to get the job done. The "privatization" of more and more military tasks to civilian contractors is a windfall to government cronies and, I think, the cause of a lot of trouble in the war zone. The civilian contractors are basically accountable to no one but their employers and are no better than mercenaries--in fact, at least some of them have been mercenaries in other wars. The idea of bringing democracy at gunpoint to people who on the whole don't appear to really want it is insane, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when the result is chaos. The most noteworthy thing we've accomplished is uniting Suni and Shiite muslims in Iraq, probably for the first time. They'll just go back to fighting each other when we leave.

[Peachy]

Civilian Contractors = Mercenaries, period.The term civilian contractors I believe was dreamt up by Pentagon spin doctors. It's a politically-correct, euphemism that masks the fact that the U.S. military can't admit they don't have enough troops on the ground.

[ebrke]

I think some of the military are quite willing to admit it, and it seems that Colin Powell believed it all along. I just wish he had had the courage to resign in protest.

[ibe98765]

The Vatican doesn't appear to be real happy about what has been going on:

LinkU.S. Cardinal Accuses Bush of Moral Failure in IraqTue May 18, 2004 10:48 AM ET   VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A senior American cardinal in the Vatican has accused the U.S. administration of "moral failure" and deception in Iraq and warned the war had severely compromised future relations with the Arab world. In an interview due to be published in the June edition of "Inside the Vatican" magazine, Cardinal James Francis Stafford also said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was the work of "barbarians." An advance copy was made available to Reuters. Stafford, the former archbishop of Denver who has been working in the Vatican since 1996, said the reasons for starting the war in Iraq were a "moral failure" because there had been no conclusive proof of weapons of mass destruction. "Why did the president, the vice-president and the secretary of defense say there was an immediate danger to the peace of American society by the proximate use of weapons that would come from Iraq, either directly or through al Qaeda?" he said. "Why did they say that when they didn't have direct evidence?" Stafford said. Stafford, who is close to Pope John Paul, said he feared the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military would have long-term consequences on relations with Arabs and Muslims. "Muslims are outraged and truly deceived because we are imposing the same type of life upon Iraqi society that we said we were going to rescue them from. It's the very opposite of what we said we were going to do," he said. "Not only have we humiliated the Iraqi people, but we've deceived them. We've deceived the Arab peoples," he said. "Is this what American democracy is producing? Men and women who, just below the surface, are barbarians ... Is that what we're producing?" he said. The pope strongly opposed the war and dispatched envoys to both President Bush and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to try to avert the conflict.

[longgone]

Morning all,,, (at least where I am) ... I like this thread ... where to start .. humm ... "boots on the ground" , there is a very and real good reason that has happened. It is called "politics/politicians", I say that as being retired and keeping a very close eye on what happens to/in the military as it has an indirect effect on myself. I have watched over the past 20-30 years as the military has been down sized/privatized all in the name of cutting the budget due to a congress that "we the people" elect with the assumption that "we the people" are putting the best people in Washington D.C. that are available at the time. Their theme is and always has been "saving the taxpayers dollars ((so we can waste it someplace else)), cut the defense budget and we can save XXX billion dollars. First thing to get cut is the high dollar items(i.e. a super duper all purpose multi use aircraft that both the Navy and Air Force can use and it is still capable of landing on an aircraft carrier), or another ship, or main battle tank, or an entire squadron of UAV's. In the end of the cut/slash comes the closeure of military bases all over the world, which in turn (by attrition) cuts the number of troops on the active roster, which, once again in turn creates less "boots on the ground", "ships in the fleet", "fighter jets in the sky" and all in the name of cutting costs. The one thing about this whole scenario that just "chaps my hide" or "frosts my cookies" is that we the people let the politicos do it in the name of cost cutting. The put out a line when they run for office that sounds good, after they are in, the line breaks and they cut and run. We may no longer be involved in the "cold war", but "we the people" should never have let our duely elected politicians get away with the mass reductions in our military that they have accomplished in the name of saving "taxpayers dollars" .... well all .... have a nice day ...

[ebrke]

I think some military expenditure has been over the top and rightly curtailed--things like that hybrid--what was it Osprey?--that killed some Marines on a training flight and appeared to have been a disaster from its inception. Or some of the outlandish "star wars" proposals. I don't like war, and I oppose the one we're in now. As a realist, I know we need to be able to protect ourselves, and I admire and am grateful to the military personnel willing to defend my country, and I don't think their families should have to apply for food stamps so their kids can eat. War should not be fought by civilian contractors and defense department civilians trying to prove a point about their philosophy du jour. This lack of planning and coherent command structure is what lead to the deplorable events at Abu Ghraib.

[longgone]

Military spending over the top, "never" ( ), just somewhat out of hand and at times totally senseless. The OV-22 might be OH-22 Osprey is still alive and kicking. It has just slipped into the backround due to the current combat in the middle east (politico speak). The "star wars" satellite lasers that was supposed to be the hot item during the Reagen years was a bit (????) over the cutting edge. Not enough thought and way to many variables to be feaseable. Part (big part really) of military expenditures is the old "he got a new one, I want a new one" theory. Prime example recent (within last 20 years) example is the F-14 Tomcat/F-15 Eagle, outside, exact same aircraft, inside (airframe) lot different. Takes a lot to get snatched up on an arresting cable by that tail hook and not get ripped right out of the plane.I agree that "war is -ell", but it has been with the human population since way back when. The only difference between way back then and now is that it takes a lot less time to destroy they same amount of people/area. I also agree about the military families having to use food stamps and food banks in order to put a decent healthy meal on the table for the family. That usually only applies to the lower enlisted ranks though. I see it here in my area all the time and it does go against the grain. An amazing (to me) thing is that since I have retired (back in 84) I have seen two different studies done on the comparison of military pay versus a like civilian position and in some of them the military pay is higher (this is only after they include the fringe bennies an pay the military get), on the other hand there are some military job specialities that are not in the civilian market at all. So in that case the studies try to get a close match to compare.Now to mercenaries "soldiers of fortune", after much thought on them I would have to say that they have there place and their purpose. It is just that it does not follow the "rules of engagement", the Geneva convention or any sense of fair play (when is war fair??). They are IMHO, the special forces and they have no rules to follow, and no one to obey except themselves and they provide 100% deniability for any government officials.Thats my viewpoint,,,,, what's yours

[ibe98765]

The "star wars" satellite lasers that was supposed to be the hot item during the Reagen years was a bit (????) over the cutting edge. Not enough thought and way to many variables to be feaseable.

Well, they haven't given up on this idea. They recently did a test of a laser weapon. Read about it here: Laser link

[linuxdude32]

Seeing as how the US spends more on military spending than most other nations combined, I don't think the problem is how much they spend, it's probably a question of allocation.The laser program is alive and well. Our prime minister had already agreed to sign unto this ridiculous program. It's Star Wars again by a different name.I have no problem with military spending to defend your own nation or other nations and even peacekeepers (i.e. I'm not a peacenik), but very little military spending is used for these things And Bush has increased military spending dramatically although I don't know if he's increased it to the pre-Clinton levels.

[ebrke]

You're right, Dale, war is never fair and it's certainly never pretty. But somehow the idea of a person who will fight for anything or anyone for money is pretty repugnant. Some of the mercenaries in Iraq now appear to be some of the same ones who fought in South Africa under the regime supporting apartheid. If you have to pay someone to do something you can't bring yourself to do, I think it's a pretty sure bet that whatever it is you're trying to do shouldn't be done.An aside on the food stamp issue--I realize it's the lower-ranking enlisted personnel who are affected, but those are the people who die and are maimed in the greatest numbers during any war. How can we ask them to be ready to die for us if we don't pay them enough to feed their families?

[BarryB]

How money is allocated for the military is a funny thing...because from the larger view the military doesn't decide where it goes...that is done by elected officials...many times the military has told congress they don't need something only to have congress order it...or worse to have pay increased to certain levels and have congress vote it down...congress sets manpower levels for the military forces( The boots on the ground is many ways is controled by congress too, by overall manpower levels)..the Pentagon request the congress sets. Also, Military funding isn't static..it can vary and be pulled..DOD does have some ability to move funds around, but it must lose or underfund something in order to do it..our elected officals on many times have ordered the military into missions or processes (like increasing the guard and reserves mission requirements and not inceasing funding for equipment(which in part is determined by mission and manpower levels)Wasteful programs are a strange issue. Heck the internet was at one time a "wasteful" military program. And some of the most advances in technology that we all use come from Military R&D programs(doesn't mean they aren't all good...and latest and greatest may not be the best)..However,The most uneducated thing people say is the technology isn't there yet...because that is the purpose of R&D ..define concepts.and create supporting technology( most people are clueless of the technology history of things we use every day or the cost of development. Also keep in mind that most spending is based on 3 / 5/ and beyond plans...the life cycle of a project is usually measured in Years and many project are funded in one year only to go away (the increase in spending recently has been the result of Iraq, not great new weapons systems..remember they are still cutting forces and reducing numbers of bases and cutting programs for future development.Contractors aren't new( and some of the more evil ones are doctors, educators and enviro heath folks..)..and the US is hardly the first to use them...and as much as professional military doesn't like it, they are less expensive in the long term(pay in "todays dollars Vs tomorrows dollars...also most of the "security contractors" in Iraq aren't DOD ..they are private hired by companies to protect businesses and other contractors( this includes the very same newsmedia that talks about the contractors) and they all aren't American either (the contractors)...many ummm Nations opposed to the war" have poured contractors into Iraq now the rebuild is started and there is money to be made.Funny how supposed morals(or politics) take a back seat to money.

[BarryB]

An aside on the food stamp issue--I realize it's the lower-ranking enlisted personnel who are affected, but those are the people who die and are maimed in the greatest numbers during any war.  How can we ask them to be ready to die for us if we don't pay them enough to feed their families?

For the same reason we underpay teachers, police, fighters etc....we pay them through taxes..we don't like taxes! really think bout it..the biggest cost to any organization is labor...and to pay them more, or increase size we have to pay more...we want it both ways. your right though WE are the problem....

[longgone]

How money is allocated for the military is a funny thing...because from the larger view the military doesn't decide where it goes...that is done by elected officials...many times the This is very true to a point,, usually the military along with the R&D folks get together and try to come up with a system, vehicle, etc etc to meet several needs at once. Then it goes to design and if they are lucky it may or may not get funded. As Barry stated there are times when the military does not (and they can be emphatic on it) want something only to have it forced upon them by politicos (the purse strings) who are cow towing to lobbyists. Two prime examples in the recent past (maybe not real recent) are the Bradley fighting vehicle which the Army did not want. They had numerous reasons and flaws which the Army said made it more cost than it was worth and the limitations were to great on it. Another one (and this was caused by Sen. Trent Lott ® MS) was LHD7 (USS Iwo Jima) which the Navy did not want, but which was forced on them and funded to boot. The major problem with the Iwo Jima is that the first ship(lead ship) in that class of vessel is not even close to being retired (they are working on a 30 year life cycle for major combatant vessels), so in order to get a crew, they have to rob from peter to pay paul. The unseen thing is that the taxpayers will be paying for something that was not wanted nor needed until they retire one of those ships somewhere in the next 5-6 years down the line. That is a lot of dollars even in Donald Trumps wallet.Now onto taxes .... #$@%$&++(^&%% ... there got that off my chest. No one that I know likes taxes, unfortunately it has become an evil, insidious way of life for us. It would be much more palatable if it all went to good use but it surely does not. In order for it to all go to good use, first the IRS must stop losing it in the paper shuffle. I have seen two different articles which cover two different time frames and both say the IRS has lost millions of dollars in tax revenue, it just disappears an they can't seem to find it. Well .... there's my viewpoint ... your turn now

[Peachy]

Not to condone anything the seven Americans did in the prison, but you have to feel sorry for them to some degree. Victims of not only some higher up cover-up, but victims of US government economic policies. Perhaps the main reason these people signed up was because they were unemployed or in dead-end jobs (pizza store manager, chicken plant processor, prison guard, etc.) For example, Pfc. England told the press she signed up so she could pay for college. And here they are, embroiled in a shameful, seedy, affair, and they pose for photos with the "thumbs up!" salute. We all know the labour market is like an hour glass: lots of jobs at the bottom and quite a few at the top, but very little in the middle. Guess where all the unemployed burger flippers and prison guards are: Iraq.It really irks me to see history repeat itself. Wars are fought by the young so that their elders can seek blood vengeance for past wrongs (Bush), economic gain (Cheney), or misguided religious zealotry (bin Laden)

[linuxdude32]

So very true, Phil. I don't think anybody that is young and signs up for the military really understands what they're getting into, though they should. There is a disproportionate number of people in the military from low income backgrounds and minorities in the US and I know that here in Canada, a woman I used to talk to online said that a lot of people from her town signed up because unemployment was so high. She was from Trois Rivieres, Quebec. Only differences is that Canadian reservists and even regular troops are much more unlikely to be serving in dangerous assignments though any military assignment has risk.