The media and public are outraged and embarrassed by new
photographs of abused Iraqis, which seem to surface every day.
This outrage has been most notably manifested in calls for the
resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The New Yorker
claims he knew of, and perhaps even ordered, harsh treatment of
prisoners to get information. More diplomatic, but still deluded in
their efforts, several congressmen concede Rumsfeld did not order
the abuses but should resign anyway.
For one thing, it makes no sense that Rumsfeld would have
approved the abuse. While interrogation is obviously a part of the
war in Iraq, it is unthinkable that Rumsfeld would have backed the
horrible and pointless sexual and physical abuse that occurred.
Moreover, in January, it was Rumsfeld’s own department
that issued a press release reporting the abuses and prompting
further investigation. Those who believe Rumsfeld approved the
abuse are lost in their own myopic vision and cannot possibly be
persuaded.
But to those who heard and assessed the reports of abuse with
relative objectivity, I can make an important offering ““ a
hackneyed and often misused concept: context.
The abuse in Iraq is not the first time U.S. soldiers have
stepped out of line.
In Vietnam, American soldiers and commanders were guilty of
colossal human rights violations. In the infamous My Lai Massacre
of 1968, our soldiers besieged the southern Vietnam town of My Lai
and murdered 300 civilians, including the elderly, women and
children.
In the 1991 Gulf War, reports of prisoner abuse surfaced as
well. In fact, the United States has fought no war without at least
some digression from its ideals. The prisoner abuse scandal in this
war is no exception.
We must also look at the abuses of Iraqi POWs in the context of
Iraqi treatment of Americans. U.S. soldiers put underwear on
prisoners’ heads; al-Qaeda terrorists videotape and publicize
the beheadings of American civilians.
The exceptionally stupid American soldiers sexually assault
captured suspected Iraqi insurgents; the rather-more-common Iraqi
insurgents kill captured American civilians.
With this consideration, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners can be
better understood. There will always be soldiers who act recklessly
and decadently. But the deviations of the United States have been
remarkably benign ““ and uncommon ““ especially when
compared to our past actions in war and the present actions of the
Iraqis.
Again, there is no excuse for the abuse of POWs, much like there
is no excuse for police brutality. But just as police brutality has
no bearing on whether police should exist or not, the abuse of POWs
should have no bearing on whether the war has been good or not.
Of course, as Americans we should feel ashamed and embarrassed.
But we should not let these feelings translate into
self-destructive outrage and, much worse, calls for reform.
Reform, you see, is completely unnecessary. The American
soldiers who took part in the prison abuses in Iraq were not doing
what they were supposed to. They were violating the standards of
human decency, the codes of conduct of the U.S. Army and the
guidelines of the Geneva Convention. The soldiers are now facing
criminal charges and will be punished according to their
crimes.
But this, according to the reform-seekers, is not enough. They
want soldiers to be trained in the delicate art and subtle science
of capturing and treating prisoners civilly.
Is this really necessary? Should U.S. soldiers also be trained
to avoid throwing grenades at other soldiers? Do we need to spell
everything out ““ again?
The Geneva Convention, Army regulations, human decency and a
justice system all agree that abusing POWs is reprehensible.
The American soldiers responsible for the abuse in Iraq were not
slaves of a rigged system. They acted against the system and will
be punished once the courts determine exactly who is guilty of
what.
Preventive action must be taken, but not in the form of
reorganization. The hierarchy of power and the system of
information must reinvigorate sharing. Captains must have knowledge
of their lieutenants, the majors of their captains, and so forth.
It is by the vital reinforcement of the present system, not by its
reformation, that abuses can be prevented.
All wars have negative effects. In a cultural context, we must
keep in mind that we consider the abuse of prisoners a dreadful and
unintended consequence of war. The enemy considers the murder of
our prisoners a consciously decided purpose of war.
In the face of unavoidable human imperfection, the United States
has acted with humility and good faith. For this, we have much
reason to be proud and patriotic.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.