My last post about this...(?)
I feel compelled to write a little bit more about the Iraq war, the Iraqi prisoner abuse photos, the resulting scandal, and the brutal beheading as a response by Islamic militants. For those of you that might actually be reading this, I promise I won't write about 'issues' all the time. But the recent events have just been stuck in my mind, and I think that by writing things down I can crystallize my thoughts and get this jumble of things in my head to settle down a little bit.
First off, I want to say that although I am opposed to war in general, I'm not completely against a justified use of force. The recent activities of our government in Afghanistan, for instance, were a great model of how things SHOULD be done. The Taliban, an oppressive, atrocious regime, were quickly removed, and freedom was restored to the country. The changes in the country were immediate and dramatic.
But things should have stopped there. The problem is that Bush used the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment that had been brewing in the US due to 9/11 and the Afghanistan conflict to justify his war on Iraq. While it is true that Sadaam Hussein was a brutal, violent leader, there was no evidence to link him to the events of 9/11, and (as we found out much later) there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, which was the entire justification for the war on Iraq from the beginning. The United States and Great Britain have been heavily criticized by many nations for the war, yet Bush seems to have a completely uncaring attitude as to what the rest of the world thinks.
But on to the main topic here --- the recent photos that have been all over the news, showing prison guards humiliating and abusing prisoners, and forcing them to commit sexual acts. These photos are horrible and sickening, and we have now been told that there are even worse pictures. Our representatives have seen them, and they describe them as even worse.
What can we make of this? Essentially there are two possibilities:
1. The photos were made 'for kicks' by a few sadistic, perverted, low-ranking army personnel without proper supervision. This is the version that Rumsfeld and Bush want us to believe.
2. The photos were produced specifically to be used as part of military intelligence operations; intelligence officials specifically chose the most humiliating, degrading, horrible poses they could think of and posed the pictures. The pictures would then be used to frighten other, higher-ranking prisoners into sharing information. This is the version that the low-ranking officers who are in the photos want us to believe.
So what is the real answer here? I can't know for sure; we probably never will. But I for one am more inclined to believe the second version of the story. The pictures are specifically designed to be degrading to Muslims. Muslim men are strictly forbidden to commit homosexual acts or to expose themselves to other men. A bunch of low-ranking officers just out 'for kicks' wouldn't create pictures like this I think. They seem too deliberate, too staged. So if the pictures were specifically designed to intimidate, how far up the chain of command did the authorization go? That's a question to which we'll probably never know the answer.
Which is worse, a few sadistic people abusing people for kicks, or a cold, calculating policy of abuse used for purposes of intimidation? I'd say the latter. While I sincerely hope that this kind of behavior wasn't approved by ANYONE, I'm afraid to say that I believe it probably was approved, at least by some folks in military intelligence.
And then we have the brutal decapitation of the American civilian by Islamic militants. What a horrible, horrible act. This 'eye for an eye', vigilante justice disgusts me. When I see things like this, I have trouble believing that we aren't evolving in reverse. Have humans learned nothing but violence, hatred, and blind rage? However, many Arabs expressed outrage over the decapitation as well. In an article I read earlier today, one Arab noted that many Americans think of Iraqis as 'animals', and this kind of thing only serves to justify that belief.
To close, I just want to restate my belief that people everywhere are pretty much the same. Iraqis are no different from Americans, essentially. Some people are kind, forgiving, and moral. Others are brutal, sadistic, and power hungry. The problem comes when the wrong people assume a position of power in a country, as has happened in Iraq and elsewhere with a few militant groups. Fortunately, our country has a system of checks and balances to prevent too much power from going to one person. We have so much freedom here: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to vote, etc. As Americans we should stand proud of what we have, and demonstrate our principles to the world. Unfortunately, the recent events in Iraq have tarnished our reputation, and I can only hope that we can change that in the months and years to come.
First off, I want to say that although I am opposed to war in general, I'm not completely against a justified use of force. The recent activities of our government in Afghanistan, for instance, were a great model of how things SHOULD be done. The Taliban, an oppressive, atrocious regime, were quickly removed, and freedom was restored to the country. The changes in the country were immediate and dramatic.
But things should have stopped there. The problem is that Bush used the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment that had been brewing in the US due to 9/11 and the Afghanistan conflict to justify his war on Iraq. While it is true that Sadaam Hussein was a brutal, violent leader, there was no evidence to link him to the events of 9/11, and (as we found out much later) there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, which was the entire justification for the war on Iraq from the beginning. The United States and Great Britain have been heavily criticized by many nations for the war, yet Bush seems to have a completely uncaring attitude as to what the rest of the world thinks.
But on to the main topic here --- the recent photos that have been all over the news, showing prison guards humiliating and abusing prisoners, and forcing them to commit sexual acts. These photos are horrible and sickening, and we have now been told that there are even worse pictures. Our representatives have seen them, and they describe them as even worse.
What can we make of this? Essentially there are two possibilities:
1. The photos were made 'for kicks' by a few sadistic, perverted, low-ranking army personnel without proper supervision. This is the version that Rumsfeld and Bush want us to believe.
2. The photos were produced specifically to be used as part of military intelligence operations; intelligence officials specifically chose the most humiliating, degrading, horrible poses they could think of and posed the pictures. The pictures would then be used to frighten other, higher-ranking prisoners into sharing information. This is the version that the low-ranking officers who are in the photos want us to believe.
So what is the real answer here? I can't know for sure; we probably never will. But I for one am more inclined to believe the second version of the story. The pictures are specifically designed to be degrading to Muslims. Muslim men are strictly forbidden to commit homosexual acts or to expose themselves to other men. A bunch of low-ranking officers just out 'for kicks' wouldn't create pictures like this I think. They seem too deliberate, too staged. So if the pictures were specifically designed to intimidate, how far up the chain of command did the authorization go? That's a question to which we'll probably never know the answer.
Which is worse, a few sadistic people abusing people for kicks, or a cold, calculating policy of abuse used for purposes of intimidation? I'd say the latter. While I sincerely hope that this kind of behavior wasn't approved by ANYONE, I'm afraid to say that I believe it probably was approved, at least by some folks in military intelligence.
And then we have the brutal decapitation of the American civilian by Islamic militants. What a horrible, horrible act. This 'eye for an eye', vigilante justice disgusts me. When I see things like this, I have trouble believing that we aren't evolving in reverse. Have humans learned nothing but violence, hatred, and blind rage? However, many Arabs expressed outrage over the decapitation as well. In an article I read earlier today, one Arab noted that many Americans think of Iraqis as 'animals', and this kind of thing only serves to justify that belief.
To close, I just want to restate my belief that people everywhere are pretty much the same. Iraqis are no different from Americans, essentially. Some people are kind, forgiving, and moral. Others are brutal, sadistic, and power hungry. The problem comes when the wrong people assume a position of power in a country, as has happened in Iraq and elsewhere with a few militant groups. Fortunately, our country has a system of checks and balances to prevent too much power from going to one person. We have so much freedom here: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to vote, etc. As Americans we should stand proud of what we have, and demonstrate our principles to the world. Unfortunately, the recent events in Iraq have tarnished our reputation, and I can only hope that we can change that in the months and years to come.