Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba must be having a rough couple of months. By late February, he finished penning some 53 pages of what was originally intended to be an internal report summarizing the findings of an investigation of conditions at U.S. military prisons in Iraq. The investigation, commissioned by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (the senior commander in Iraq), revealed a pattern of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” — torture, both physical and psychological — at the Abu Ghraib prison.
The torture disturbs all but the sickest sensibilities and threatens to cloud a military campaign that already suffers from strategic ambiguity and regional unpopularity.
The revolting and inhumane behavior detailed included: “Breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees, pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; (and) sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.”
Taguba’s report fingered the 372nd Military Police Company as chiefly responsible for the abuse, the photos and videos of which were sometimes not included in the account because of their “extremely sensitive nature.” In one of these offending photos, a young private points at the genitals of an Iraqi man — naked except for a sandbag covering his head — as he masturbates. Another picture depicts the beaten face of (now dead) prisoner No. 153,399.
The conduct is — in Bush’s words — abhorrent, from a human rights standpoint. But, this behavior points, at least circumstantially, to a wider problem that reaches upward into the chain of command, and at least above the rank of staff sergeant (the rank of Ivan “Chip” Frederick II, the highest ranking of the indicted officers).
For one, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, reported that Frederick said he and his colleagues had not received any “training guidelines.” This clearly does not absolve the offending soldiers of the inhumane behavior, but it points to a dangerous lack of organization. Taguba found, too, that the prison was filled beyond capacity, and that the guard force was understaffed and underequipped.
At the least, inhumane treatment seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Hayder Sabbar Abd, one of the Iraqis depicted in the incriminating photos, told The New York Times that during his first six months as a prisoner, soldiers treated him well.
The revelation of the gross prisoner abuse presents a damaging philosophical challenge that doubles as a maybe irreparable public (and foreign) relations disaster in the region. These problems complicate the United States’ efforts to build a rapport with the Arab and Islamic worlds, which have, since the beginning of the war, proved marginally successful at best.
Mansoor al-Jamri, editor in chief of Bahrain’s Al Wasat newspaper, suggested, “This is basically a very good and useful piece of propaganda to be used by the extremist forces who are waging war right now in several countries, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia.” The military has pressed charges against at least six soldiers, and — since these allegations were made public — the United States has taken the issue head-on. The Army is now delving into at least 35 cases of possible abuse or torture.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the officer currently overseeing Abu Ghraib (Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was relieved of command of the prison), plans to reduce the compound’s population from about 3,800 to fewer than 2,000 in the coming months. Given that Taguba’s report concluded that some 60 percent of the prisoners appeared to be innocent, the move is both politically and philosophically prudent.
Even the often media-shy President Bush granted interviews about the subject to Arabic-language news networks Al-Arabiya and (the U.S.-sponsored) Al Hurra, condemning the abuse as antithetical to American policy in Iraq, and more broadly, American ideology.
“The America I know has sent troops into Iraq to promote freedom; good, honorable citizens that are helping Iraqis every day,” Bush said on Al Hurra. Still, seeing such inhumane acts in a prison that Hussein’s Baathist regime once used to
imprison and torture Iraqis (in grossly overcrowded conditions) doesn’t draw a contrast dramatic enough for many in the Arab world.
“I can’t describe what I felt when I saw those scenes; they revolted me and proved the barbarity of the occupation forces,” traffic policeman Mohammad Salman told Reuters. “What’s the difference between them and Saddam? They are finishing what he started.”
And such is the philosophical crux of this heinous disaster: If American soldiers are committing gross human rights violations in the line of duty, what ethical coherence remains in the legacy of the Iraq regime change?
Bush’s Arabic network interviews, which offered a defense largely worded in generalities, evidently haven’t quelled the region’s man-on-the-street driven, and increasingly deserved, cynicism of the American mission in Iraq. Bush did highlight, though, the most important difference between the American occupational forces and the ousted Hussein regime: that of principle.
“We’re an open society, we’re a society that’s going to investigate — fully investigate — in this case, what took place in that prison,” Bush asserted. “That stands in stark contrast to life under Saddam Hussein. His trained torturers were never brought to justice under his regime. There were no investigations about mistreatment of people.”
The Bush administration’s wavering openness aside, at least the American political structure makes room for inquiry and constructive dissent. And herein lies the true, extant legacy of regime change — at least as Iraq stands at present.
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that the price for unsatisfactory answers from defense officials should be resignation — including, possibly, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s.
But, before the details of accountability are hashed out, any soldiers criminally involved in the abuse or torture of Iraqis — no matter the reason — should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Not only for their gross misconduct and their negligence of the basic rights of others, but for flagrantly and myopically jeopardizing the already precarious American mission in Iraq.