I mostly agree with you on inevitability, but the fact that we know ahead of time that certain situations foster abuse enables us to take steps to reduce the incidence and severity.
Rumsfeld and the administration did NOT commit themselves to commit necessary resources for maintaining order in Iraq. In fact, the administration forced the resignation of a general who testified the troop numbers needed in Iraq were far greater than the administration was planning on committing. (He was right.)
When you have a prison that is overcrowded and understaffed, the likelihood of widespread abuses go way up. I've seen nothing to suggest that the understaffing and overcrowding were things Rumsfeld wasn't aware of.
His culpability is way beyond the "mea culpa" he's offered so far.
posted
I'm not excusing anyone (even Rumsfeld), and I'm trying to keep my own opinion of the occurance and conduct of the war out of it (although it shouldn't be hard to figure out).
I just think that even all possible preventions are...the best-laid plans. When deciding whether or not to go to war, you have to account for the consequences that almost always go along with war, despite the best of intentions.
I'm really not speaking to Hatrackers here, I think. I'm just furious at the press for cheering the droppings of bombs and conquering of a country and then turning away from the consequences for as long as they did.
No, its the the-number-of-casualties-nowadays-is-at-least-two-orders-of-magnitude-less-and-the-atrocities-of-today-are-merely-par-for-the-course-in-the-past-while-the-atrocities-of-the-past-ar e-incredibly-horrific-today defense. By my book, that's better. I certainly prefer, given the choice, wars with a relatively tiny number of casualties and fewer, less grotesque atrocities.
Unfortunately, modern war is a very recent development, post-world war 2.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost inevitable = Nearly impossible to prevent.
...
"Did you think when the soldiers got to Iraq, everyone was going to hold hands and skip? (The above was directed not to Hatrackers, but to the media that overwhelmingly supported the war and then was Shocked! Shocked! when it turns out that war-like actions occurred.)"
...
It makes me angry that we can think of this dumbass behaviour in those terms. How we've gotten to the point where criminal behaviour and "war-like actions" are believed to be similar in purpose and motive is what's so damned scary about this country and the public's downright ignorance when it comes to our end-game foreign policy objectives.
A veritable mountain of social science intelligence can tell you that these kinds of abuses were predictable given the circumstances. In fact, the Geneva Conventions were enacted and the United States became a signatory precisely BECAUSE it is known that soldiers in war will misbehave.
The Geneva Conventions were designed to REDEFINE "war-like actions" to the extent that one could not behave unjustly under the banner of 'war is hell'.
I cannot think of any sane reason to disagree with the need to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable methods of making war and to have everyone accountable to those agreed-upon guidelines.
The fact of the matter is that these abuses (to say nothing of their apparent systematic nature) ought not to be expected eventualities of the occupation process; because the American people and the press rightly assume that our soldiers will behave honorably and that there is a command structure in place to ensure that they do so.
No, we didn't expect everyone in Iraq to hold hands and skip around the country together. In fact many of us expected unending conflict and were wary of occupying Iraq because of it. But we have a frickin' right to expect our military personnel to behave in a manner befitting the American uniform.
Perhaps moreso in this particular war than ever before. It is THIS administration that has taken up the arrogant mantle of 'winning the hearts and minds' of Arabs. It is THIS administration that has delivered absolutely nothing to forward that goal outside of toppling Saddam Hussein while doing as little as possible to convince Arabs that this was done for their own benefit rather than ours. It is THIS Secretary of Defense whose blatant disregard for international law has led us to a position where the Iraq War (and its intended consequences) has, in a very large way, already been lost.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
