As If She Wanted To Change Her Skin

Via kos, a quote from Seymour Hersh:

"I get a call from a mother. She wants to see me somewhere in northeastern America. I go see her. There's a kid that was in the unit, the 372nd. They had all come home early. If you remember the timeline, they did their stuff in late 2003, reported in 2004. This mother is telling me -- I'm writing in the spring of 2004 -- March of 2004, the kid had come home in the same unit totally changed. Young, pretty woman, vibrant. Depressed, disconsolate, inconsolable, isolated. Had been newly married. Left her husband, left the family, moved to a nearby town, working a night job or whatever. And nobody could figure out what's going on.

She sees the stories about Abu Ghraib. She goes, knocks on the door, shows the young woman the newspaper, and door slams, bam! And at that point, as she tells me, later -- as she tells me in real time -- this is May, early May -- she goes back, the kid had been given a computer, a portable computer like. (...) So she claims -- this not a woman familiar with Freud or the unconscious -- she claims at that point she just decided to look at the computer after hearing about Abu Ghraib. She said she had -- she just hadn’t looked at it. She just was going to clean it up and take it to her office as a second computer. No thoughts. And she is deleting files. She sees a file marked “Iraq.” And she hits it, and out comes 60 or 80 digital photographs of the one that The New Yorker ran of the naked guy standing against a cell in terror, hands behind his back so he can’t protect his private parts, which is the instinct. And two snarling German dogs -- shepherds. Somebody said they're Belgian shepherds, perhaps, but two snarling shepherds, you know, on each side of him. And the sequence -- in the sequence, the dogs attack the man, blood all over. (...)

So she looks at this stuff and eventually calls me. And we do it all, and we get permission. We run the photographs, just one -- how much -- and the thought there of the editors was how much do you humiliate the Arab world and the Arab man. One is enough. You know, we can describe what else is on the picture. We just don't need more than one. And then, later the mother calls me back, and we became friends. This happens a lot to people in my business. You get to like people. And she says, you know, one thing I didn't tell you that you have to know about the young woman, when she came back, every weekend, she would go and get herself tattooed, and eventually, she said, she was filling her body with large, black tattoos, and eventually, they filled up every portion of her skin, was tattooed, at least all the portions you could see, and there was no reason to make assumptions about the other portions. She was tattooed completely. It was as if, the mother said, she wanted to change her skin." (emphasis added.)

We went off to fight a war we did not need to fight, and which we had decided to fight long before we had begun to exhaust our diplomatic options. We went in without a plan for our occupation of Iraq, with too few troops to maintain security, guard weapons caches, or nip any insurgencies that might arise in the bud. Why was that? Our clever Secretary of Defense wanted to prove his theories about a new leaner military. He originally considered going in with even fewer troops than he eventually sent, while the army originally wanted hundreds of thousands. And so:

"The challenge here for Rumsfeld is, he's got a guy [Tommy Franks] who comes really out of the classic Army background who is going to think, yep, let's go in big and heavy. Now, you know you don't have to go in as big in heavy as you did in '91 because Iraq has been under sanctions for 10 years ... but Franks wants still several hundred thousand troops to go in. And Rumsfeld has this process where he kind of chips away and chips away at this belief asking questions: "Why do you need that? Why do you need that?" The Pentagon dubs this "iterative process." Really, I think it is more process of erosion. And after several months into this, Franks is more or less persuaded."

And lo and behold, it turns out that the Army was right. We had an insurgency on our hands. We were desperate, and started to pressure people for more and better intelligence, and they in turn put pressure on the undertrained, understaffed reservists who were guarding prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But we would not have been so desperate had Rumsfeld listened to the Army in the first place and sent enough troops to maintain order. Nor would we have been in as much trouble had he bothered to formulate an actual plan for the occupation, other than trusting Ahmed Chalabi.

Here's a quote from an interview with Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper (U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.):

"I heard about the prison scandals like everybody else, in the media. I was horrified. It goes against anything I've ever seen in any of our armed forces. I think it's the result of two things. One is, it's Mr. Rumsfeld stepping above the law in some of the things he's supported, and that transfers down through the ranks quicker than you might imagine. And some of these things, which allegedly first occurred in Guantánamo, got transferred out to Iraq. That's the one side. The other side, if you have a unit that's poorly led and it gets this sort of a license, even if it's second-, third-, fourth-order information they get, it will get out of control very quickly. But it's not the American military, any service that I've ever known in the 41 years that I served. (...)

-- How rapidly does something like that move down through the ranks?

Months. [Over] several months, something like that can happen, not in terms of any sort of written instructions, not in terms of direct guidance, but you set this sort of a climate. Commanders at one level see it. Others witness it, like the results, or feel that it unencumbers what they're trying to do, and they pick up some version of it, usually a more expansive version. Even if it's constrained at one level, it becomes more expansive as it goes down. In a disciplined unit, you might be able to hold it together, but when you reach a level where the discipline is not what it should be, it all falls apart, and we get these tragic results.

And there is no excuse for it in terms of what the soldiers should have understood. Every person who comes in the military understands the Geneva Conventions. There are classes on it. They clearly understand this is not proper. In fact, what most of them are told, if not in these words, is something along this line: Treat every other human being with respect. You don't have to like them, you don't have to agree with them, but treat them with respect. And even if they're prisoners, there's a certain respect that they're due. That went out the window."

So: because we did not send enough troops to secure order in Iraq, and because we did not plan for the occupation, we were not able to suppress the insurgency we had, amazingly, failed to anticipate. Our officials pressured the military to get more and better intelligence, and as a result, Iraqis, many of whom were innocent of any crime, were humiliated, tortured, and killed. The Army is clear about how such failures are to be dealt with. Phil Carter quotes the Army Field Manual (Appendix A of FM 22-100):

"Command Responsibility

A-18. Command responsibility refers to collective or organizational accountability and includes how well units perform their missions. For example, a company commander is responsible for all the tasks and missions assigned to his company; his leaders hold him accountable for completing them. Military and DA civilian leaders have responsibility for what their sections, units, or organizations do or fail to do."

And (Chapter 8 of FM 27-10):

"501. Responsibility for Acts of Subordinates

In some cases, military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control. Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory or against prisoners of war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof."

That's not how we responded to Abu Ghraib. George Bush talks about personal responsibility:

"we stand for a culture of responsibility in America. We're changing the culture of America from one that says, "If it feels good, do it," and, "If you've got a problem, blame somebody else," to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the decisions we make."

But even though the buck supposedly stops at his desk, he has never accepted any responsibility for Abu Ghraib, or for any of the other failures of judgment that have occurred on his watch. Donald Rumsfeld has kept his job, and has not been held accountable in any way for his decisions. The generals in command of operations in Iraq have been exonerated, in apparent disregard of the military's doctrine of command responsibility. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski's military career is over, and a few reservists have been sent to jail.

And while Rumsfeld goes on fretting about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, and Bush lectures Putin on the rule of law and the importance of free and open debate, a woman who was once vibrant and open, but who has now left her husband and will not speak to her family, slowly and methodically covers her body with black tattoos.

Comments

[Anarch]

Donald Rumsfeld has kept his job, and has not been held accountable in any way for his decisions.

I do love -- in a sick, burning way -- how Rumsfeld "accepted responsibility" for Abu Ghraib... which, apparently, meant precisely nothing beyond the soundbite.

[Jesurgislac]

I gather Rumsfeld did offer his resignation. If true, that's a sliver of responsibility. (He deserves to be tried as a war criminal, but of course this never happens to the winners.)

But George W. Bush thinks Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense the US has ever had, remember? After all of the above.

[cleek]

He goes on to say:

But anyway, in the paper today, it’s the lead story in the Times, 100 rebels killed in western Iraq. We're back in the body count, by the way. Sometimes we call them “insurgents” or “rebels,” that's a great word because -- I'm wacko on this word “insurgency.” Just so you know, an “insurgency” means, suggests you’ve won the war and there are people who disagree. They’re rebels or they're insurgents, as I said. No. We're still fighting the war we started, folks. We started a war largely against Sunnis and Ba'athists, in many cases tribal groups that supported Saddam or were at least frightened enough to support him. We started a war against the people we’re still fighting. They gave us Baghdad very quickly. They retreated. They simply are not fighting the war in the way and the manner we want them to, that our press, you know, wants to tell you they did, that the government wants to tell the press, wants to suggest that we won and that an insurgency broke out again.

that's odd, cause i swear i heard the guy on NPR say yesterday that the war had been over for two years.

Mission Accomplished

[John Thullen]

Extensive body tatooing and perhaps some radical piercing is in order for the President, and Rumsfeld, and the usual suspects. I would like to see one eyeball each tatooed with the letters W.M.D. and the other eyeball with some scenes from Abu Ghraib.

No blinking permitting.

[Don Quijote]

that's odd, cause i swear i heard the guy on NPR say yesterday that the war had been over for two years.

The war will be over when the last American leaves Iraq, Kuwait and S.A or when the Oil runs out.

[votermom]

I have read of that story before.

Um.

Can someone explain again why pacifism is bad?

[Dianne]

One could point out that the US public also flubbed its chance to take responsibility. We failed to fire the commander in chief of the military, the man most directly responsible for this first strike war, the man ultimately responsible for the torture and death of civilians and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. No wonder lower ranked personnel think they can get away with it. Why should Rumsfeld or the generals accept responsibility when we let Bush get off?

[123concrete]

"One could point out that the US public also flubbed its chance to take responsibility."

One could also easily argue that the brave Americans who voted for Bush stood on principle against many naysayers and apologists around the world. And made the choice to do what is right versus turning a blind eye and doing what was easy.

I'm just saying... one could just as easily say that.

[cleek]

One could also easily argue that the brave Americans who voted for Bush stood on principle against many naysayers and apologists around the world.

but one would have to be a naysayer and apologist to do so.

[Dianne]

"One could also easily argue that the brave Americans who voted for Bush stood on principle against many naysayers and apologists around the world."

One could. But then one would be arguing that the US public condoned and even approved of torture and murder of civilians. If we collectively approve Bush's policies then we also collectively bear the responsibility for the outcomes. Time for the UN to invade to restore civilization to the US?

[hilzoy]

123concrete: "One could also easily argue that the brave Americans who voted for Bush stood on principle against many naysayers and apologists around the world."

Would you be kind enough to say what you think opponents of the war are apologists for?

[Edward_]

Time for the UN to invade to restore civilization to the US?

Why do you think there's the pressure there is behind getting Bolton in there? ;-)

[ral]

The war is over? It has been obvious since the Sgrena incident that we don't even control Baghdad. (It was true before that, of course, but not as obvious.)

Do what is right? Apart from the moral failure, this will go down in history as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes ever.

What is right is first to admit when one is wrong, then to do something about it.

[votermom]

While one is saying these things, one could also say that the electronic voting machines did not return an accurate count.

[hilzoy]

Two more quotes from the interview with Gen. van Riper:

"When I see any of these individuals on the television -- Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith -- I literally cannot stand it. I have to turn the television off. I'm so embittered about what they've done to a fine military -- more importantly, what they've done to our nation. They've hurt our nation."

"The military has traditionally conservative values. The Republican Party more often than not represents those values, so I've been a lifelong Republican, but I could not vote for Mr. Bush if Mr. Rumsfeld and his team are still in office."

[Katherine]

Possibly of interest: Jeanne d'Arc of Body & Soul is planning to site a website putting all of the allegations of torture into one accessible place, along with organizing tools for opposing it.

I'm moving 1/3 of the way across the country in about a week & have to study for the bar exam, apply for clerkships, all sorts of family obligations this summer, etc. But, IF I can find time for this, here's what I'm thinking should be the next step: making an excel spreadsheet of all the detainees who have allegedly been tortured or who are still being held & we don't know if they were abused: names (or ID#s or some way of identifying them as individuals if their names are not known), where they were imprisoned, date of capture, date of release/death, etc., links or cites to some source of information about them.

After this spreadsheet is complete or partially complete, we could start emailing it around to liberal bloggers (and conservatives, moderates and libertarians who would be receptive of course), and ask if they can volunteer to be assigned as few or as many prisoners as they like, and write a few paragraphs (accurately, w/ cites & links) summarizing what we know about their fate.

Then this information could be used to make an alphabetical directory of prisoners, which would be the heart of the anti-torture website.

The reason I like this idea is, I think a lot of people are really upset about this and want to do something, but they are sort of at a loss about what to do. I often feel that way. And, how many talented writers on various blogs have expressed that feeling since Abu Ghraib?

So this is something to do, that is really useful, quite specific, calls on skills that bloggers have, and can require as much or as little time commitment as you like.

I think there might be a really good response.

[bob mcmanus]

The Bush administration has implicated hundreds to thousands in war crimes and atrocities, who will never be publicly held to account, but will forever be in thrall to the people who hold the evidence. A generation of young Heritage kids who worked for the CPA. CIA and Army intelligence agents. Troops inadequately supervised and controlled. I worry about the ones with conscience who are damaged, but I worry more about those who thrived in the program and about the intended future applications of their recently acquired skills.

[LizardBreath]

Katherine-

I'm not a blogger, but consider me a volunteer for the torture project you describe. If you need workers, email me.

[rilkefan]

Katherine, doesn't AI have such a db?

[Katherine]

do they? they may well for internal purposes but I've not seen a public version and I've tooled around their site a fair bit. I could be wrong--post a link if you have one.

[rilkefan]

I know nothing - just suspecting. I would think people there know your work and would be happy to help the proposed project if asked.

[lily]

This is such a sad story. There will be more stories like this one. On the bulletin board at our community clubhouse a letter is posted. It's from the son of our president ( neighborhood, not nation), currently stationed in Baghdad, and he wrote that the people of Iraq hate Americans, especially the soldiers. He wrote that he was afraid of dying because he didn't want his life to be wasted on a war we shouln't be fighting. I can't even image the bitterness of the loss of a son or daughter in an unnecessary war.

[lily]

This is such a sad story. There will be more stories like this one. On the bulletin board at our community clubhouse a letter is posted. It's from the son of our president ( neighborhood, not nation), currently stationed in Baghdad, and he wrote that the people of Iraq hate Americans, especially the soldiers. He wrote that he was afraid of dying because he didn't want his life to be wasted on a war we shouln't be fighting. I can't even image the bitterness of the loss of a son or daughter in an unnecessary war.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

just for grins this link points to an interview between the Talking Dog and Joshua Dratel, attorney for the Australian David Hicks, still held at Gitmo.

For those of us who care about notions of due process, the interview stands as a stunning indictment of the Gitmo detainee review process. I'm just appalled.

This link tells a brutal story about the willingness of insurgents to die for their country, so long as they can inflict casualties on the US.

what are we doing?

[lily]

Sorry about the double post.

[Barry Freed]

Extensive body tatooing and perhaps some radical piercing is in order for the President, and Rumsfeld, and the usual suspects.

If I were the kind to endorse the use of torture even for the most heinous war-criminal proven guilty beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever I would suggest as most appropriate the use of The Harrow, as described by Franz Kafka in his story "In the Penal Colony." The text I propose to be inscribed: the relevant violated articles of the Geneva Conventions. But I am not one to endorse the use of torture even in such circumstance. So I'll hold out some small hope, for justice, in the next life.

[John Thullen]

Barry Freed:

I always throw it out there and then I need to drag it back and explain it. But that's O.K.; I love ambiguity. (; or ;).

Torture is not what I have in mind. Clean needles should be used in this purely symbolic act of tatooing to insure no disease transmission occurs.

The eyes are the sensory organ closest to whereever in the brain the conscience is seated, or at least there may be one nerve filament waggling its little message to the conscience in most brains. Should this be true of Bush and company, I figure a permanent text message on the eye might do the job. I admit the no blinking stricture would be tortuous over time.

For those with the usual objections, my punishment for Osama Bin Laden has to with bombs and caves and big explosions, all of it non-symbolic.

Tying guys to chairs and doing things to them in Iraq and Guantanamo? American exceptionalism, even for those who believed it in the first place, has disappeared with the pages of the Quran down the vortex (Nabokov) of the toilet.

The Kafka reference is fine.