Prison Abuse - Where's the Outrage?
I think all of us at one time or another have watched an event with complete incredulity, jaws dropped, wondering why those around us don't see that event in the same way we do.
Admittedly, I have had that experience more during this presidency then at any other time in my life. But the situation in Iraq these past few months - especially this last week - have left me disoriented and ashamed.
But I seem to be in the minority.
Locally, I've heard some outrage, but I've heard just as much, if not more, affirmation of the abuse. Comments have ranged from, "War is hell," to "If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs."
Nationally, it's been a little better, with some notable exceptions.
At the Senate hearings probing the scandal on Tuesday, May 11, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe expressed outrage at the outrage: "These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," Inhofe said. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
Incidentally, American military officials estimate that 70 percent to 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were there by mistake, rounded up in dragnet operations.
Then there's the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh on his radio talk show last week: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?"
Obviously, history is littered with far greater outrages then the abuses at Abu Ghraib. But when did Americans reach the doling out end of this kind of stuff? How did this happen to us morally? The main reason for invading Iraq, we were told, was to bring an end to tyranny and oppression and win the hearts and minds of a people who were largely anti-American. This self-inflicted wound is incomprehensible and possibly even irreversible. The one (and only) thing we had going for us in this whole ill-planned crusade was the moral high ground.
We've lost that now.
The bottom line is obvious. Postwar Iraq operations have been a comedy of errors. Open criticism of troop strength from within the military, international support (what little we had) drying up, the constant revelations of a credibility gap among the exiles relied on by military intelligence, the back and forth assignments and reassignments of Saddam's cronies and now the abuse of prisoners of war at the hands of an occupying force hell-bent on "liberating" Iraq - at any cost. If real people weren't dying by the truckloads, it might make a good comedy movie.
The Bush administration is absolutely right about one thing. There is a new Iraq in the making. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that this new Iraq will be occupied by an ever-increasing number of people who are willing to devote their lives to avenging the death, torture and humiliation of relatives at the hands of U.S. and British troops who had no business being there in the first place.
Admittedly, I have had that experience more during this presidency then at any other time in my life. But the situation in Iraq these past few months - especially this last week - have left me disoriented and ashamed.
But I seem to be in the minority.
Locally, I've heard some outrage, but I've heard just as much, if not more, affirmation of the abuse. Comments have ranged from, "War is hell," to "If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs."
Nationally, it's been a little better, with some notable exceptions.
At the Senate hearings probing the scandal on Tuesday, May 11, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe expressed outrage at the outrage: "These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," Inhofe said. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
Incidentally, American military officials estimate that 70 percent to 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were there by mistake, rounded up in dragnet operations.
Then there's the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh on his radio talk show last week: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?"
Obviously, history is littered with far greater outrages then the abuses at Abu Ghraib. But when did Americans reach the doling out end of this kind of stuff? How did this happen to us morally? The main reason for invading Iraq, we were told, was to bring an end to tyranny and oppression and win the hearts and minds of a people who were largely anti-American. This self-inflicted wound is incomprehensible and possibly even irreversible. The one (and only) thing we had going for us in this whole ill-planned crusade was the moral high ground.
We've lost that now.
The bottom line is obvious. Postwar Iraq operations have been a comedy of errors. Open criticism of troop strength from within the military, international support (what little we had) drying up, the constant revelations of a credibility gap among the exiles relied on by military intelligence, the back and forth assignments and reassignments of Saddam's cronies and now the abuse of prisoners of war at the hands of an occupying force hell-bent on "liberating" Iraq - at any cost. If real people weren't dying by the truckloads, it might make a good comedy movie.
The Bush administration is absolutely right about one thing. There is a new Iraq in the making. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that this new Iraq will be occupied by an ever-increasing number of people who are willing to devote their lives to avenging the death, torture and humiliation of relatives at the hands of U.S. and British troops who had no business being there in the first place.
Comments