The blatant obfuscation and chicanery that were hallmarks of the Bush Era (or any Presidential reign) continues to taint America and her armed forces. More evidence of torture, abuse and human rights violations against the US have been uncovered via Wikileaks. The mythological barrier that separates “us” and “them” grows ever thinner. The war mongers hide the facts from the people because they know that the population of the US would not permit these acts to be carried out in their name if they knew about them.
“Americans turned a blind eye to hundreds of reports of abuse, torture and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to reports in nearly 392,000 documents related to the Iraq war and released Friday by WikiLeaks.
The documents say the detainees were whipped, punched, kicked or subjected to electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee’s apparent death.”
The idea that we have some sort of moral superiority or higher ethical calling will still go on, it always does, but hopefully less people will believe the mendacity that is so kindly spun for them everyday.
But the report also said Americans often intervened when Iraqis were being tortured”
Is there any way to deny culpability now? The various departments of defense and state are now in their beset PR mode attempting to ameliorate the effects of these rather perverse revelations.
“U.S. Secretary of States Hillary Clinton slammed the release of the files.
“We should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any classified information by individuals and organizations which puts the lives of United States and partner service members and civilians at risk,” she said in Washington, D.C.”
Thanks Hillary. Nothing said toward what the reports actually say, or the actions of the people we are responsible for. Just the wagging finger giving us the ‘secrets of the state’ lecture and how this may negatively effect people as a result. How about standing up for what is right and condemning the apparatus that has allowed such egregious actions to happen in the first place.
No, that would be entirely too much to expect from an elected official as the state as opposed to the people are the interests that count.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
11 comments
October 25, 2010 at 10:04 am
tildeb
Culpability. So easy to apply. It’s like syrup: shake well and pour over everything to make it all sticky. Then sit back and make armchair tsk-tsk-ing sounds as if stickiness was always the problem rather than the result.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis as well as by US forces. But there is a difference that is entirely overlooked in such documents. And that difference is important: where the US was fighting a war of control to bring about regime change, the war in the streets was about local control. The nightly body count of murdered Iraqis was usually in the dozens, occasionally over a hundred in Baghdad alone. For years. And control of parts of Baghdad has been (and still is) under local militia and various aligned factions whose support varies. Sure, the US moves a thousand troops into a neighbourhood, does sweeps, makes arrests, and seems to be in control while the troops are there. When they leave to go to the next neighbourhood, control reverts to the militias and reprisals for and against supporting the US. This raises the legitimate question: If the US doesn’t have local control 24/7, is the US equally culpable for these reprisal deaths?
The devil is in the details when it comes to culpability. It’s easy to lay blame and easier still to find evidence of widespread abuse under US occupation, but few American soldiers and their commanders set out as a primary goal of occupation to cause widespread human rights abuses. Most I’ve talked to went to liberate a country and its people from a brutal dictator. As naive as that may have been, assigning culpability to the deaths of more than a hundred thousand Iraqis after the occupation must be mitigated by the poor political decision to invade and the unpreparedness of the military forces used to accomplish a political goal of peace and stability of good governance. Simply blaming the entire occupying country for this gong show does a disservice now to achieving the laudable goal of peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The Arbourist
This raises the legitimate question: If the US doesn’t have local control 24/7, is the US equally culpable for these reprisal deaths?
This is a interesting point. Perhaps it was to facile to equate US responsibility to ‘break it,you buy it’ model. I speculate though that if you intend to affect regime change forcibly, one should be prepared for the responsibilities that come with occupying a country. The onus is on the occupier to provide safety and security.
few American soldiers and their commanders set out as a primary goal of occupation to cause widespread human rights abuses
I would think not, but ‘good intentions’ does not lessen the responsibility of the US in Iraq.
Most I’ve talked to went to liberate a country and its people from a brutal dictator.
You mean a brutal dictator that stepped out of line with US foreign policy goals. Please see the rest of the middle east, central america, etc chock-full of ‘brutal dictators’ who happen to toe the US economic and foreign policy line. Not unlike Saddam in the 80’s.
assigning culpability to the deaths of more than a hundred thousand Iraqis after the occupation must be mitigated by the poor political decision to invade and the unpreparedness of the military forces
The more I think about, the more I like the ‘break it, bought it’ it model on second blush. Culpability for ones actions does not stop at the wall of poor political/military planning. The US went in and tore a country down from the inside out, stripping away civilian infrastructure and institutions that promulgated the rule of law. The resulting lawlessness is entirely the fault of the US and rightly deserved to be placed at the feet of the US armed forces that acted upon the will of the political body politic.
Who else would we assign responsibility for the civilian deaths to?
disservice now to achieving the laudable goal of peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq.
Stripping out economic barriers and hollowing out the Iraqi economy is a disservice. Protecting the oil fields while watching the rest of the country self-destruct into anarchy is a disservice. Not being aware or ignoring the ethnographically diverse make up of Iraq and the colonial legacy that defined the country before bombing the crap out it is a disservice to the country. Dismantling one of the few secular states in the region on false pretenses is a disservice to people of Iraq.
I would think that if peace and prosperity were an actual goal of the US, the above would not have been done. However, if this was an imperial venture to secure resources and a beachhead in the Middle East, then it makes a great deal of sense.
Simply blaming the entire occupying country […]
Absolutely. If the US was serious about peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq, war reparations would have started years ago. As well as the nationalization of that countries resources to benefit the people of Iraq. Peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq is clearly not the goal. The goal is a stable client state, and if a suitable strong man (see brutal dictator) can be found to discipline the populace and maintain “stability” it will be done.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Few American soldiers and their commanders set out as a primary goal of occupation to cause widespread human rights abuses.”
Right, and I’d say VERY few. In a war zone, however, unfortunately bad things happen and since this enemy chooses to fight (more like hide) in amongst its civilians, unfortunately civilians get harmed.
I’ve said this many times, but how people enjoy siding with an enemy who deliberately puts women and children in front of bullets that were meant for themselves remains absolutely shocking and beyond me. How they then support these enemies turning around and maiming, raping, and murdering their own people after the fact is shocking as well.
Although it may seem simple in theory from some moral high ground or cozy armchair somewhere, in reality I don’t think it is as simple as us (Western Coalition) telling the Iraqi military what they can and can’t do. Isn’t everyone screaming that we should leave them to their own rules and customs anyways? What if that includes torture? Or now is there a few Western standards that we’re now insisting be applied?
We’re not supposed to rule over them, but let’s dictate by force what their military can and can’t do. Let’s not allow them to torture an enemy in a prison cell, but let’s let torture people outside of one and let them rape, stone, and disfigure young girls at will. This makes sense. After all, it’s their country, and who are we to impose?
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 7:28 am
Wikileaks Iraq War Logs – illegal order Frago 242 « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff – Site News
[…] in Iraqi prisons, where they were turning over prisoners captured by American forces. No wonder Hillary Clinton was extra upset that this Top Secret database got leaked to the media through Wikileaks. If the law […]
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 7:44 am
tildeb
With the notion of “you break it, you buy it’ come the justification that when a country goes to war, it supports in principle total war because it will be fully responsible if victorious. That means dismantling the vanquished country and rebuilding it… including culture and religion and all institutions. If this is your position, then I support it, but it entails a full commitment to bring it about even if others who represent you have ordered the use of military force in spite of your personal disagreements. Do you think the citizenship of a western secular democracy has the political capital necessary to implement this? I don’t, so there will be a middle path chosen that necessarily opens the door to the kind of blanket criticism so easily applied to the victor without the means to rectify it: culpability.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 10:30 am
Vern R. Kaine
“Protecting the oil fields while watching the rest of the country self-destruct into anarchy is a disservice.”
Not sure what you’re saying here. The Iraqi economy is oil, so it is a win-win to have them safe. It also protects the environment, which I would think you would be supportive of. Stoning your neighbors wife doesn’t hurt the environment, however blowing up an oil well does, and it also will affect what food Iraqi’s can put on their table. So tell me how protecting oil wells is actually bad?
As for letting the rest of the country self-destruct, you make it seem as though it’s a choice between protecting wells and protecting the people. This makes no sense to me. For one, America can do both, but they’re prevented from interfering in Iraqi’s lives to the degree you suggest. What specifically would you have the troops do while they’re there? Get in-between tribal disputes? Pick a side and arm it? Arm both sides? Or do what the UN “Peacekeepers” do, and simply stand back and watch them kill each other, respecting their “sovereign rights”?
We weren’t supposed to go into Iraq and overthrow a brutal dictator, because if we did then “why don’t we go into every country that has one?” We’re also not supposed to go in there because we are to respect their sovereignty, which apparently to many of the left is to let them torture, stone, and rape at will. Now you say we should not stand back and watch the country fall into anarchy.
Economically, I believe you have your points. Socially and realistically when it comes to their own people, however, I disagree. You don’t inject money and so-called “economic freedom” into a place where there are no rules or control – you first implement rules and control, and the Iraqis (and Afghans) have proven they don’t have the means to.
These people don’t yet know how to run themselves – learned helplessness, and from a political perspective they’re largely uncivilized because religion and tribal traditions still trump laws and human rights there. This is the true “anarchy” that you speak of, and they brought it on themselves.
LikeLike
October 31, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The Arbourist
So tell me how protecting oil wells is actually bad?
It is bad when they are the only thing protected, and protected for the benefit of the foreign oil companies, that under the new US imposed regulations, contribute less to the Iraqi coffers than before.
you make it seem as though it’s a choice between protecting wells and protecting the people.
You miss the third point, that is, not invading a country on false pretences in the first place.
Or do what the UN “Peacekeepers” do, and simply stand back and watch them kill each other, respecting their “sovereign rights”?
Your contempt for the UN is thinly veiled. Respecting international law and perpetrating imperial actions are mutually exclusive notions. Because you choose to actively ignore successful peacekeeping actions does not mean that the UN is universally ineffective in the actions they undertake. Conversely:
“A 2005 RAND Corporation study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace.[4] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.[5]”
So, if a documented decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses is “just standing around”. I wholeheartedly endorse the plan. I also suspect your dislike of the UN comes with the standard US Exceptionalism that many people seem to possess.
The UN is an international body that supports multi-lateral action that at least makes the effort to be egalitarian in nature. Being treated as just another nation with the expectations to follow rules (human rights, Geneva Conventions, Land Mine Treaties, International Court of Justice) and behave as if self-interest was not the only hand on the foreign policy tiller must be particularly galling.
We’re also not supposed to go in there because we are to respect their sovereignty, which apparently to many of the left is to let them torture, stone, and rape at will.
We certainly respect the sovereignty of those states that rape, torture and murder at will when they are on our side. El Salvador, the Phillipines, Indonesia with regards to East Timor, Honduras, Iran w/the Shaw. The sort of moral straws you are grasping for simply do not exist and attempting to vilify the left for what is standard imperial policy for the United States is nonsensical given the historical record.
We weren’t supposed to go into Iraq and overthrow a brutal dictator,
No, you were not. If you have any conception of egalitarian morality. Consider when the US invaded Cuba in 1962 as the culminating act of a terrorist war against the Cuba and her people. Using the US justification for invading raq WMD and fighting ‘terror’ Cuba would be justified in invading and occupying the US. Absurd is it not? Of course it sounds absurd, but the case can be made using the same arguments, the only difference being that the US has a much bigger stick and can get away with the “might is right” ‘morality’.
You don’t inject money and so-called “economic freedom” into a place where there are no rules or control – you first implement rules and control,
So the ‘controls’ put in place essentially cracked the domestic economy of Iraq open to foreign investment and products consequently destroying the domestic economic capacity of Iraq. Do you really think Mr.Bermer was working for the best interests of the Iraqi people? Consider that almost every country has trade tariffs in place to protect their domestic economy.
Are you seriously purposing that ‘controls were being established’ by getting rid of all the controls and regulations in the Iraqi economy? It makes no sense if you are ‘freeing a country of an evil dictator’, but perfect sense if you are acquiring a militarily and economic foothold for the Empire.
– you first implement rules and control, and the Iraqis (and Afghans) have proven they don’t have the means to.
It somewhat difficult to implement the trappings of a modern state when you have a rapacious superpower attempting to bomb said state back into the bronze ages.
These people don’t yet know how to run themselves – learned helplessness, and from a political perspective they’re largely uncivilized because religion and tribal traditions still trump laws and human rights there.
The white man’s burden must weigh heavily on the US. Bringing democracy and freedom to the savages who cannot help themselves.
This is the true “anarchy” that you speak of, and they brought it on themselves.
Damn, those Iraqi’s were literally begging to be bombed and occupied because of their savagery. Their deaths were not even important enough to make public, at least until Wikileaks came along. It is pleasant and heart-warming to see the spirit of colonialism alive and well.
Iraq, pre-US destruction was a modern, secular state. People had access to the amenities and infrastructure of civilization. Certainly they had a dictator, but he was our friend for the longest time and there certainly were no moral compunctions back then, as business was good.
The US brought the anarchy and the misery and made the rational calculation that this would be best for the interests of the US. All other considerations were a distant second.
LikeLike
October 31, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“You miss the third point, that is, not invading a country on false pretences in the first place.”
No, I don’t miss it. I see that point (and to a large extent, agree with it), but there’s just no point in arguing it when US and Canadian forces are already there and a full withdrawal isn’t a humane or intelligent option at this point. Best to save that argument for the next conflict where it might actually be useful.
It somewhat difficult to implement the trappings of a modern state when you have a rapacious superpower attempting to bomb said state back into the bronze ages.
Now you’re missing a point. The only people who want to keep Iraqis and Afghans fearful, maimed, and in the stone age are the people who are deliberately and intentionally inflicting that harm upon them – i.e. their own citizens. Despite what you say and think is true from way back here, every member of the coalition forces – INCLUDING ITS MEN AND WOMEN ON THE GROUND – want to see civilians safe, secure, and self-sufficient.
The U.N.: My criticism for the UN as a whole is that it is largely a body of bureaucrats that talks lots and does little. I have nothing but respect for the people in its ranks, especially those who are on its front lines, but hold the organization up as a hero? No way. It doesn’t deserve the praise on the one hand, and receives hardly enough criticism or scrutiny on the other. Comparing the UN to the US is not a level comparison. As the only organization of its kind, instead compare the UN on what should be its own internal metrics:
1) The amount of time between when a problem is known, vs. when they decide to step in to a problem,
2) The amount of time between when they decide to step in to a problem and when they actually do,
3) How many lives are unnecessarily lost in-between.
4) How many dollars are wasted in-between
5) How long it takes that problem to get solved passively vs. how long it would have taken with a little bit of force.
Show me any real stats on 1-5 above, and I might start singing their praises and believing their statistics as you do.
So the ‘controls’ put in place essentially cracked the domestic economy of Iraq open to foreign investment and products consequently destroying the domestic economic capacity of Iraq.
Here’s what else destroys the domestic economic capacity of Iraq – it’s own insurgents. That’s doing more to hurt the Iraqi economy than any economic structure than the US could ever try to impose on even its worst day.
Contrary to your rhetoric, I’m not calling Afghan or Iraqi nationals savages – I’m calling them incompetent in being able to control or run their own country, and they’ve proven it. Fall back to the ideological arguments of Saddam being the U.S.’s guy, or it’s because of us that they’re useless if you want to, but the fact is, they’re useless NOW in being able to secure their physical or economic well-being at this point, and until the insurgents are beaten or their culture changes, none of that will change. (Btw, did the US miscalculate that? Sorely, but bitching about that, too, will also do nothing except allow someone an excuse to climb higher up on their intellectual or moral perch).
Instead, let’s focus on the primary reasons why the insurgents can’t be beaten and why neither country is able to get ahead: Because the armchair moral highgrounders back home won’t allow their own forces to fight, and worse, they won’t let them win.
Could Iraqis or Afghans protect themselves if the US left today? No. Therefore, 90% of your arguments (even the ones I agree with, like that the US went in on false pretenses for example) go out the window. Furthermore, your proposed solutions (the UN, withdrawal + financial “reparations”, etc.) lie all in the ideological stratosphere and do nothing to address the current problem on the ground, which is the (lack of) ability for Afghans and Iraqis to secure themselves, physically and economically. None of anything you’ve mentioned suggests anything regarding an actual solution to that effect.
“The US brought the anarchy and the misery and made the rational calculation that this would be best for the interests of the US. All other considerations were a distant second.”
I disagree with the anarchy and misery, but actually agree with the rest of the statement – at least at face value. Why I agree will likely be different than why you agree. To me, securing an economic and military foothold in the Middle East was a necessary evil that had to happen at some point. The U.S. acting in its own economic self-interest anywhere else in the world is a necessary evil too, in my opinion, as it serves the greater western good.
Here’s the “greater good”: the quality of life you enjoy with the cars, trucks, household goods, tv’s, boats at the cabin, prescription drugs, MRI machines, hair products, the movies, shoes, pants, dresses, suits, iPods – basically all manners of food, shelter, clothing plus any creature comforts we’ve come to hold dear. That’s the “greater good” everyone in the West stands for, despite what people may try and say to the contrary. Everything else that could be considered part of that “greater good” is secondary.
That’s why I think we need to end this “Bad, Bad, USA” chant, branding them as evil for holding any other considerations a “distant second”, because it’s exactly the same thing everyone does for 99.999% of their lifetimes.
Proof? Everyone commenting on this site has a car (or two), owns a house (or two), a computer (or two), and wears anything but homespun cotton on their backs. It’s only when people’s guilt for all these pleasures gets triggered, only THEN do we want to jump up and down and bitch about these other “considerations”. These are the people who won’t kill a cow, but will eat the steak, or will protest for PETA yet make sure they’re out there protesting in their designer clothes stitched by some four year old in Mumbai.
We should all get off our moral highground here. Unless we’re soldiers, social workers, aid workers, or actual victims in these countries, none of us have any right to blame or point the finger at anybody but ourselves for what’s happening. Or, just accept it and move on. If you wear, use, consume, and enjoy any product made by any company in the Western world, then you not only accept what these countries do on your behalf, you encourage it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are parts of this, and therefore claiming that the U.S. “supports torture” is only the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion, and is only an attempt to appease guilt.
This is life at the top of the food chain. Best we accept it and admit it, otherwise move to Iraq or Afghanistan ourselves.
LikeLike
October 31, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Let’s hope some good comes of this:
“US faces first scrutiny by UN rights council”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.3fda6adee976b3a33a4faade5f6c18cd.fb1&show_article=1
LikeLike
November 3, 2010 at 11:34 pm
The Arbourist
It may just get swept under the rug. Unfortunately for the UN, it can actually do very little to the US with regards to what sort of example the US wants to set to the rest of the world. I hope that the US will give a little ground and tighten up its human rights record because the US really is a barometer of how much freedom individuals actually have.
Great article Vern, thanks for the steer. :)
LikeLike
November 4, 2010 at 9:22 am
Vern R. Kaine
You’re welcome. :) I think we’ll see the US doing more to boost up it’s image that way, if anything, just to counter the WikiLeaks threat. On a grander scale, I agree with you – the U.S. should be the best example of power vs. freedom in the world. If there’s room to improve both, I’m all for it.
After all, us true capitalists are strong advocates of human and individual rights you know. :)
LikeLike