I have yet to read the local papers but that is the front page news over here today. There has been lots of interest in the 60 Minutes II story that resulted from the pictures of Americans torturing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Reprehensible behavior and I would like to see those concerned spend a few years in Leavenworth (including some punishment for their commanding officer). This sort of thing cannot help the occupation effort (let's call it that, shall we?).
I remain convinced that the US has to pull out.
On the other hand, putting former Sadaam generals in power over Iraqi units seems to be a strategy. We gather that US troops are pulling out from around Fallujah and will be replaced by former Nazi^H^H^H^HSadaam-controlled units.
The obvious parallel can be drawn to the Allied decision to re-arm Germany after the threat of war with Russia became a reality. Shall we just call them "Mamelukes"?
I think the difference from the previous plan to have US forces withdraw to laagers and have the Iraqis "police" themselves is that now we have the prospect of putting the same ruthless bastards back into power with which Sadaam controlled his country (as opposed to training new general offices from the ranks). This has both advantages and disadvantages.
The immediate advantage is deniability. They can be as savage as they want (necessary to quell the insurrection) and its Arab on Arab violence and so will likely not result in too much negative coverage for the US (nobody really cared about what Sadaam did to his people). The second advantage is that they are willing and capable of this savagery. (The disadvantages, I should think, are manifest to most people).
Or am I just cynical?
Parenthetically, my uncle calls me a "liberal" and I guess certain aspects of my thinking definitely fit the bill. But I'm not against the war in Iraq just because its war. But rather because I think it was unnecessary and wasteful. Conversely, I think pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a very good idea and that we should spend more resources rather than less there. I prefer to think of myself as a liberal pragmatist (who is also a student of empires). I've felt for quite a while that if you have an empire, it's best to run it like one. Be sensible, predictable and ruthless. The world will be a better place. That was the thing about the British Empire. If any of the Great Powers wanted to know what would happen in a given geo-political arena where Britain was involved all they had to do was ask themselves the question "What is in Britain's best interests?". Then they had a guide to go on. That isn't the case with American foreign policy. We (America) frequently do things that hurt our interests in both the short and long-term. It's as if paranoid schizophrenics were running the only superpower. It makes the world a very much more dangerous place to live in than it has to be.
What, I wonder, is the reaction back home in America to this news? (Both the torture and the re-hiring of Sadaam generals.)
Fron a U.S. citizen:
Please remember that it was Donald Rumsfeld, with George Bush's approval, who declared that the United States was not obligated to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
This was not a decision taken by the troops who committed the atrocities. The responsibility lies with the president of the United States as the commander in chief. George Bush is now distancing himself from this issue with "I wasn't aware". We call that "plausable deniability" (read lies).
Posted by: Les Waggoner at May 7, 2004 09:48 PM