YAY!! I have looked at that blank page in anguish for months, checking week after week, only to see nothing but white.
Thanks for the heads up, Bill.

Every night my little daughter and I pray for President Bush. That picture says everything I believe about our President.

Got to go finish crying now.

All is right with the world.

Mr. Whittle is posting aviation related pieces and "The Slam Critique" is back.

I am so looking forward to the next few months........

Now that we can read Rachel's archives, you needn't worry about posting Chapter Three anytime soon (c:

Because she has her comments turned off, I'll just say "Yay!" here.

And that Bush piece says everything I need to know about the man... especially that the *only* picture was taken by that girl's father. Anyone else (not naming names... *cough*Kerry*cough*) would have held a press conference.

Rachel's back!!! That new just made my day. I really, really missed her piquant rants and sassy impudence. If you're reading this,Rachel, Welcome back, and really, don't worry about what the asshats think of you. After all, they're asshats.

The White Screen Of Oblivion is over - the Sassy Kid is back!!

Rachel - if you read this, PLEASE consider turning the comments back on! Don't worry - those of us who appreciate good rants will wrangle the trolls, so you don't have to - it's understood that you're busy with the necessities of paying the bills, and fulfilling the real-world job obligations.

You Go, Girl!!

(Tell her, Bill -)

Dog pics. NOW!

How's this for dog pics? Very cool clip of one competitor at a dog show. And I thought my dog was smart...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/smartdog.html

Oh, and YAY Rachel. I'd actually forgotten who she was. Hers was one of the first sites I ever clicked a link to, and it closed up right after, so I only experienced it once.

Woo woo!

Okay then.

This isn't an easy thing to say, but it appears that in the last week or so, the US has managed to lose the war in Iraq (and yes, I am referring to "those" pictures from Abu Ghraib). Given that our current position is more or less completely untenable (not like it wasn't before), what do you propose that we do next?

I propose that we not allow the actions of a very small number of idiots to overshadow all the good things that have come out of the military's effort.

I propose that the coalition continue to root out individuals who want instability in Iraq for their personal gain.

And I propose that Lachlan make comments related to Bill's posts (c:

Well, Lachlan,

Since you seem to be in a distinct minority here regarding the situation in Iraq, perhaps you'd agree that it's incumbent upon you to suggest a new direction?

On a completely different subject...

I've just come into possession of a scanned copy of John Kerry's book "The New Soldier." It's the one that he won't allow anyone to reprint because it makes him look so bad. It's all stuff from his Viet Nam Veterans Against the War days.

I'm trying to share it through Kazaa, but I'm not sure if it's working. If anyone out there has Kazaa (and experience with it, I'm a newbee at P2P) would you search and see if you can find it on my machine? There are 4 files - all the same thing, just 2 each zip and self extracting, and rtf and doc. They should be the only files I'm sharing.

New Soldier doc files.zip
New Soldier doc files.exe
New Soldier rtf files.zip
New Soldier rtf files.exe

They range from 188k to 250k, there are 12 files in each archive. The kazaa user name is svolich.

Recovering Liberal,

Sorry for being off-topic. I deleted the part of my comment relating to the article Bill's post linked to, because I didn't feel right criticising Bush for showing some rare humanity.

The situation in Abu Ghraib is obviously not a case of a few bad apples. US Military Police were encouraged by their superiors (including commanding officers and contractors serving in an advisory role) to get information out of their prisoners by any means necessary, including "pressure tactics" (read: torture). The Red Cross was denied access to several areas of the prison in direct violation of the Geneva convention. Not surprising, considering the news that very few copies of the Geneva Convention were handed out to prison guards.

Like I said, Iraq is lost. There's nobody with any credibility to transfer sovereignty to on June 30, the infrastructure is shattered and the majority of Iraqis no longer want the US there. I'd also bet that since the images of Iraqi men being sexually humiliated became public, recruitment drives for any number of Islamist terror groups have never been so successful.

Given the current practice of giving ex-Baathist generals their old commands back, and the use of rape and torture as tools of interrogation, what have we really changed, and what do we have to be proud of?

Lachlan: For starters, we're not promoting the torturers for their efforts -- we're punishing them. If "nothing had changed", they'd be getting pay raises and high rank for their "efficiency".

We can be proud that the people who leaked these photos won't simply be "disappeared" for "treason against the State".

We can be proud that you aren't risking your life at the hands of an Internal Security Directorate by posting this criticism; that you won't be quietly taken away and bastinadoed to death for daring to criticize the "Great Leader".

We can be proud that this entire abomination is an outrage to us, not something we find acceptable. We can be proud that this is, in journalistic terms, a "man bites dog" story -- newsworthy PRECISELY because it is not "business as usual" for us.

We have removed one of the most vicious, brutal thugs imaginable from a position of utterly unaccountable power. We have given the Iraqi people the ability to talk to CNN and be outraged in public, without becoming shredder-fodder.

We should be ashamed of the barbarians of Abu Ghraib. Ashamed... not paralyzed with despair.

If we throw out hands up and walk away from this, then we have given the victory to evil.

Despair is classically considered a deadly failing for a reason.

Lachlan,

I still think the number of idiots who abused Iraqi prisoners is "a case of a few bad apples" in light of the number of deployed U.S. soldiers and Marines. As best I can tell, more than 250,000 are deployed in Iraq, while only six soldiers face charges and seven have received reprimands or been relieved of their duties.

Granted, the number of involved soldiers likely is larger than that, but still... it's not like we're dealing with widespread corruption.

I refuse to believe that Iraq is lost. I refuse to believe that the positive actions of hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians are obliterated by this very unfortunate lapse in judgment.

Where's the poll that proves "the majority of Iraqis no longer want the US there"?

As krakatoa suggested, what is your proposal for a new direction? Do you suggest that we just skedaddle pronto? Or do we stick around and help to rebuild the country so that average Iraqis have a fighting chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

P.S.

Lachlan, please read this piece at VodkaPundit: http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/005798.php#005798

P.P.S.

And this, too, Lachlan: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10974_They_Killed_us_Like_Rats

Iraq is not lost if these Iraqis' reactions to the prisoner abuse are typical.

First of all, Lachlan, thanks for presenting your views so civilly. It allows for civil responses.

However, I too disagree with your assessment of debacle and irredeemable disaster. The North's cause in the American Civil War didn't fold up and drag the newly reunited nation to ruin as a result of the reprehensible activities of the Carpetbaggers, and they were a hell of a lot more pervasive, widespread, and in many cases, even formally supported by conquering commanders and governors. Similarly, despite a deservedly outraged public reaction to the massacre at My Lai, the end of the world did not immediately follow that either.

Funny -- coincidentally -- I've been re-reading Stephen King's "The Stand," and had JUST read a pertinent quote of his just before coming on-line here tonight. And even if it's pure fiction, it's eloquently stated, I think.

It's attributed to a high-ranking general who had been playing poker with a bunch of his high-ranking buddies when the news hit the TV about the scandal and "systemic corruption" of the My Lai massacre. The general had listened to his buddies fretting and stewing and prophesizing doom for several minutes, then set down his cards, shushed them all to silence, and said the following...

"Gentlemen, a regrettable incident has occurred. And when a regettable incident occurs which involves any branch of the United States Military, we don't question the roots of that incident, but rather how the branches may best be pruned. The service is mother and father to us. And if you find your mother raped, or your father beaten and robbed, before you call the police or begin an investigation, you cover their nakedness, because you love them."

It doesn't SOLVE the problem, it just points out the steps to follow (which I think was the original point of your question -- "what to do?"), and in what order. And it starts with covering the nakedness of our military, with both a realistic perspective, and an honest admission of a grievous error committed.

Then we kick the shit out of the idiots who did this (figuratively speaking) -- did this TO US. As a nation! Who embarrassed every one of us, and put a stain on an otherwise noble cause, and on otherwise noble actions.

One talk-show host down here in Orlando has been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, on the basis that this was a "systemic" problem, and needed to be rooted out all the way to the top... that we here in the United States needed to make a resounding point that this is NOT who we are, and that, in THIS system, the man at the top is responsible for the actions of all those beneath him, whether he was as shocked by the news as the rest of us, or not.

Well, first of all, I don't buy FOR A SECOND that this is a "systemic" issue. That implies that this kind of behavior is either taught, sanctioned, or at least overlooked system-wide, and that is just flat WRONG. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was revolting and unacceptable, and heads will be rolling for some time to come, but it was NOT typical, it was NOT condoned, and it was, to generalize a bit, "isolated." To suggest otherwise is to do an injustice to all those doing such good work over there, and to cause more damage than has already been done.

As for the "Rumsfeld resignation" idea... I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I DON'T think he deserves it, and I don't think it fixes anything... on OUR side of the ocean anyway.

If, however, the international outcry (particularly Iraqi) was to become strident and insistent enough, I COULD see his removal having a placating effect, if for no other reason than because it would indicate that we take the issue THAT SERIOUSLY. It would be a gesture only, in my opinion -- it would have little relevance to the despicable actions that caused all this, and it would have precisely ZERO curative effect. But it WOULD make a statement about what WE think is important.

I don't think it'll come anywhere near to that though. Right now, I think the biggest hew and cry is coming from the friggin' sensationalist American media -- again -- and if most Americans will just refuse to bite, it'll fizzle out just like every other snipe attack before it.

It was disgusting. It is an embarrassment and an outrage. And it's NOT US. Show the world that, show them what WE think of that kind of behavior, and the ruffled feathers will settle down again.

That's what I think.

GHS

Nicely put, GHS. I agree with the sentiment that the prisoners weren't the only victims in these crimes. That those reprehensible actions were perpetrated against US as well. Also included are the free men and women of Iraq, who's future very much depends on the success or failure of our efforts there.

GHS, the biggest reason that Rumsfeld shouldn't resign is that we'd never get another secretary of defense, as long as Bush is in office. We haven't had a secretary of the Army for what, 2 years? The dems wouldn't approve of anyone to the right of Ramsey Clark for the job, they'll filibuster it for the next 5 years.

Come to think of it, that's why we can't afford to have Colin Powell resign, either.

But I think he's probably got to go anyway, unfortunately. There has to be accountability, and that goes all the way to the top. And the more serious the matter, the further it should go. This, in the current climate, is probably about as serious as you could imagine, and if you're going to stand on a platform of decency, honesty & democracy, then the top man has to go.

Bullshit & hedging, excuses and "greater good" arguements are just the same crap as all those other bastards (Clinton top of the heap) pulled on - you've got to be different, and be seen to be different, and live it, rough or smooth, every day. That's a tough ask, but that's what it's gotta be.

Rachel, It is great to see that your back. It is great to hear your voice again. Just enjoy your writing, and don't waste a moment of your time thinking about what people think of your efforts. Have Fun, and yes, more dog pictures.

Personally, I believe that the Brigade and Bn Cdrs. should be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty. Read the AR 15-6 report. I do not for one second believe that Relief for Cause and a Letter of Reprimand are enough. I spent a career in the service, and I evaluated many National Guard units, but I never saw any unit so completly screwed up due to the inactions of the Officers in command. Note that I do not call them Leaders, or what they performed Leadership.

These two couldn't lead a starving Ranger to Burger King.

I apologize, got off on a rant, and missed what I wanted to say.

WELCOME BACK, RACHEL!!!!!!!!!

Recovering Liberal,

I read the two posts you pointed me in the direction of. They put an interesting angle on this incident, but I'm still not sold on the idea that this is something that can simply be either justified or forgiven and forgotten. There are major changes that need to be made in every aspect of the occupation as it stands.

GHS,

I read "the Stand" a few years ago, and I guess I need to take another look at it. I remember the line you referenced, and I took it to be more critical of the military.

As for a new direction? First off, Rumsfeld has to go. He needed to go six months ago, when it became apparent just how badly he'd misjudged the way things would head after Saddam was deposed. After Fallujah and now Abu Ghraib, he should do the noble thing and quit. And if he won't, Bush should demonstrate some of this famed leadership I'm always hearing about yet never seeing, and kick Rumsfeld out on his ear.

If you want to show the world that Abu Ghraib isn't representative of the US, it's time to close down Camp X-Ray. Charge the prisoners and give them their day in court, or let 'em walk like they did with those four Brits a month or two ago. Just today Australian media carried stories relaying that our Guantanamo Bay prisoner, David Hicks, has received surgery twice during the course of his incarceration, probably in relation to mistreatment and torture. America are signitaries to the Geneva Convention, and they need to start acting like it, before they hand the Jihadis yet another propaganda coupe.

If the US is serious about rebuilding Iraq, get some actual peacekeepers in there - people who know the language and the customs, and have the training and equipment to maintain law and order in a predominantly Arab-Muslim country. This will probably mean involving the UN and a slow withdrawal of coalition troops. No matter how well or poorly the coalition soldiers conducting themselves, they're not the right tool for the job.

The contractors have got to go. The Marshall plan worked because it gave war-ravaged nations the funds and resources to decide their own destinies. It isn't right that Halliburton and Bechtel are turning a profit just because members of their asinine peer group are currently in charge of handing out the cheques. This, to me, is a form of looting, and doesn't benefit the Iraqis at all.

For reference, the poll which states that Iraqis would feel safer if the US immediately left was conducted by Iraqi polling agents at the behest of the coalition military. USA today did a roundup here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Juan Cole has a look at the demographic involved here:

http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108327652464287857

Lachlan says I'm still not sold on the idea that this is something that can simply be either justified or forgiven and forgotten. There are major changes that need to be made in every aspect of the occupation as it stands.

Agreed. I did not mean to imply that the abuse can be forgiven and forgotten.

Changes definitely need to be made; however, I don't agree with the vast changes that you advocate.

Lachlan:

Get rid of Rumsfeld for a misjudgement on the Arab world? Accepting the premise for the sake of argument, were you calling for the heads of Clinton's or Carter's administration after their disastrous misjudgements on the Arab world?

Whether your answer is yes or no is relevant only insofar as establishing your objectivity. I'm hopeful that it was yes.

I would disagree in either case, based simply on the fact that I want an experienced and proven person for the job of SECDEF. Rumsfeld has prosecuted two wars with historical success. That's the kind of person I want around and calling shots. I think it's a bit early to declare with certainty that vast mistakes were made in the reconstruction of Iraq. Agreed there have been lesser mistakes made, but I have confidence that things are moving in the right direction there with an understanding that bumps in the diplomatic road are inevitable.

Get some real peacekeepers in there?

On what historical evidence do you place such reliance on UN peacekeepers?

How do you expect to convince the Iraqis that the UN is going to handle the situation in a fair and objective way after the corruption of the oil for food scandal? Much less convince someone like me who saw UN inaction instrumental in the deaths of some 800000 people in Rwanda, or continue it's bungling and corruption in the Balkans.

And even if you do convince them, how to you propose to keep the UN from the type of profiteering over principles guidelines that they have operated under for the past decade or so?

The battle in Iraq right now is to enable them to have democratic elections. Do you really believe the UN has the influence, or the power, or even the moral convictions to deliver on that goal?

I don't, and I'd be really interested to see what rationale and evidence you have supporting the UN as the moral arbiter of the world.

Good to see Rachel back. I disagree with a lot of which she blogs, but always an entertaining read nonetheless :)

GHS "It was disgusting. It is an embarrassment and an outrage. And it's NOT US."

I want to think this also, but I've never served in a military prison under those conditions... one lesson supposedly learned from the Germans in WW2, is that ordinary people can do some extra-ordinarily horrible things under certain circumstances. We're at war, and as Mr. Limbaugh says, what our citizens did at Abu Graib was "good intimidation"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070002

Obviously you disagree with Rush on this point, even if the White House won't

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070004

best regards

Kurt

Lachlan,

If your referring to the poll USA today released a few days ago, IMO the most pertinent piece of news in the poll was buried about 3/4 of the way down. And I quote:

"That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.

Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now)

Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.

More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.

Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers."

Which, to me at least, smacks of grapevine rumor mongering at best.

You're going to trust a poll in which only a confirmed 7% say they are answering based on incidents that actually happened to them?

I will agree Rumsfelds made some mistakes, but thats going to happen. As soeone more pithy than myself once said, the problem with finding a smoking gun is that it's already gone off...

I wonder if Genral Shinseki is feeling any validation right about now...

Thresh

the guy that blew the whistle on the abu gharain prison should be tried for treason! sure the abuse is wrong, but now a lot more people will die because of this idiot

I must vehemently disagree with you hansel. The fact that this atrocity was uncovered and is causing outrage speaks volumes about the quality of western civilization. As has been pointed out many times, where was the outrage in the Arab world when Saddam publically tortured and executed his people? By exposing the torture at Abu Ghraib and punishing those reponsible, we had the opportunity to show that Saddam-era behavior was unacceptable.

These acts are a cancer on the credibility of the American occupation, and they must be eliminated with overwhelming force, not merely covered up. And I wouldn't call career-ending reprimands to officers "overwhelming force." I want to know why they aren't spending the rest of their lives making big rocks into little rocks. The perpetrators and their officers are the ones who should be tried for treason, not the whistleblowers.

Welcome back Rachel. By the way, my daughter Maria (8) identified your moth as a female Polyphemus Moth -- female because of the smaller antennae and a couple of red stripes on the fore-wings. They eat just about anything that's broadleafed and in the US.

Hope to see more good rants.

PS: I'm posting this here since you don't want e-mail yet.

I'm calling that BS, Hansel. Treason is being bandied about all to easily these days.

Wrong is wrong, and the guy that blew the whistle should be commended.

The press certainly has blown this completely out of proportion all on their own, and I think bear some blame for contributing to stoking the passions of the terrorists.

The fact that they will show the prison footage, but will not show the 9/11 footage, or that of Perle's or Berg's beheadings is very suspect to me.

I don't know if any of you have ever seen a bound man's throat cut. It's a disgusting, absolutely sickening sight. No way I would wish that anyone be forced to see it. But I would recommend, if anyone is feeling the least bit of sympathy for these 7th century beasts we are fighting, or the least bit like maybe there is some weight to the moral equivalency crowd's argument, I would recommend that you take some time to find those dark places of the internet where the real atrocities are archived.

There, in full color and sound, and in stark and crystal clear relief, you will understand that we are not fighting against a reasonable people who have any concept of charity or mercy. We are not at war with a people that views it's own depredations with anything less than righteous fervor. We are at war, simply, with a death cult that has zero tolerance for ANYONE who does not subscribe to their ideology.

I will warn you if you do decide to look into the abyss: Those images will most likely never be forgotten. Human beings should never be subject to such barbarity.

It has been said many times, and it bears repeating many times more: It is a TESTAMENT to the values and morals of the U.S. that we properly revile our own failures. It is the only way we can rightfully claim the moral high ground.

This will always be a work in progress. There will always be room for improvement, and there will always by bad men and women taking advantage of others. But this is no excuse to not fight the larger battle for humanity.

When the world first learned about the abuse of prisoners, President Bush said that it "does not reflect the nature of the American people." He's right, of course: a great majority of Americans are decent and good. But so are a great majority of people everywhere. If America's record is better than that of most countries — and it is — it's because of our system: our tradition of openness, and checks and balances.

Yet Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been "just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable.

Just trust us, John Ashcroft said, as he demanded that Congress pass the Patriot Act, no questions asked. After two and a half years, during which he arrested and secretly detained more than a thousand people, Mr. Ashcroft has yet to convict any actual terrorists.

Just trust us, George Bush said, as he insisted that Iraq, which hadn't attacked us and posed no obvious threat, was the place to go in the war on terror. When we got there, we found no weapons of mass destruction and no new evidence of links to Al Qaeda.

Just trust us, Paul Bremer said, as he took over in Iraq. What is the legal basis for Mr. Bremer's authority? You may imagine that the Coalition Provisional Authority is an arm of the government, subject to U.S. law. But it turns out that no law or presidential directive has ever established the authority's status. Mr. Bremer, as far as we can tell, answers to nobody except Mr. Bush, which makes Iraq a sort of personal fief. In that fief, there has been nothing that Americans would recognize as the rule of law. For example, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's erstwhile favorite, was allowed to gain control of Saddam's files — the better to blackmail his potential rivals.

And finally: Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he declared that "enemy combatants" — a term that turned out to mean anyone, including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate — don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. Now people around the world talk of an "American gulag." Can you say Mai Lai?

Did top officials order the use of torture? It depends on the meaning of the words "order" and "torture." Last August Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence official sent Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantánamo prison, to Iraq. General Miller recommended that the guards help interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way that "sets the conditions" for "successful interrogation and exploitation." What did he and his superiors think would happen?

To their credit, some supporters of the administration are speaking out. "This is about system failure," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. But do Mr. Graham, John McCain and other appalled lawmakers understand their own role in that failure? By deferring to the administration at every step, by blocking every effort to make officials accountable, they set the nation up for this disaster. You can't prevent any serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate W.M.D. that didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then express shock when Mr. Bush's administration fails to follow the rules on other matters.

Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib will remain in use, under its new commander: General Miller of Guantánamo. Donald Rumsfeld has "accepted responsibility" — an action that apparently does not mean paying any price at all. And Dick Cheney says, "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his job." In other words: Just trust us.

Beatrix.

Once again someone applying the principle that if you say a lie enough times, it will become a truth in the minds of the listeners.

You've built a house of cards there, all on a foundation of false premises except for the first: that America does represent a better way through it's checks and balances.

I find it once again disgusting that in light of the latest atrocity by al-queda there remains a sizeable number citizens of this great country who has chosen blind adherence to their ideology over the stark reality of the world. I know, I know, it's us "warmongers" who are the blind ideologists. Whatever. We "warmongers" will do the ugly work that allows the enlightened peace-at-all-cost crowd to preach from their pulpits.

I'm sick and tired today, of the moral relevance argument. You would think the ever so compassionate left could take a day off from their insipid bleating for all us evil warmongers to mourn our dead.

In other words: get bent.

Krakatoa,

I believe that Beatrix's comment is a cut and paste job of a Paul Krugman article from the NYT.

As far as peacekeepers go, I never said that the UN was the only option, or indeed that I put any real faith in the UN as an institution as it currently stands. The fact remains that while Rumsfeld's policies are the norm in Iraq, that country is going to remain a goddamn Keno machine which deals up mortar attacks, roadside bombings, allegations of prisoner abuse/heavy handedness and videotapes of dead contractors on a daily basis.

Lachlan: Thanks for the clarification, both of Beatrix' source and your post.

I can see perfectly how you might conclude that Rumsfeld's policies are wrong. I don't know that it's proper to state it as factual, since many people, including myself, see how the Iraq policies in place are leading, in fits and starts, to a better Iraq. We differ in opinion. I hope that we don't differ in whom the enemy is, and what their and our ultimate goals are.

You will never find me disagreeing that there are better methods, because in most things there almost always is. Unfortunately, I haven't seen submitted a better game plan for post-Saddam Iraq other than generalized theories that assume a human nature far more amenable and forgiving than truly exists.

For lack of a better plan, any action was certainly better than none except for the maintaining of the status-quo in the middle east.

For those who think that America is hated because of wrongs we have done, check out this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the exhausting and discouraging tribulations of trying to teach journalism in Central Asia:
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i33/33b01201.htm

The Argus comments:
http://www.registan.net/the_argus/2004/05/when_in_central.html

Dear Lord.

As author Gene Wolfe said, tbe universe itself is bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity goes beyond infinty.

krakatoa wrote:

But I would recommend, if anyone is feeling the least bit of sympathy for THESE 7th CENTURY BEASTS WE ARE FIGHTING

If "they" are 7th century beasts, the Abu Ghraib guards are 21st century beasts. Why the need to dehumanize the enemy? Because they go to war with different rules than your own?

"we are not fighting against a reasonable people who have any concept of charity or mercy. We are not at war with a people that views it's own depredations with anything less than righteous fervor. We are at war, simply, with a death cult that has zero tolerance for ANYONE who does not subscribe to their ideology."

OK, learned a new word "depredation". Rhetoric like "death cult" aside, intolerance (slandering)for dissenting voices (Richard Clark, Gen. Shinseki, Larry Lindsey and others) and viewing attacks, sometimes resulting in civilian and US Soldier causailties, with "righteous rervor", well that hits a little close to home...

Kurt

So Kurt,

You see absolutely no difference between the humiliation of prisoners with the subsequent self-policing of that situation by our government, and the beheading of a non-comabattant by a group who is at least tacitly supported by the governments who share their faith?

Are you really filled with so much hatred for one man (Bush) that you cannot differentiate between these things?

Or are you simply so obsessed with your goal of anybody but Bush that you are willing to set aside moral objectivity?

Either way, you represent a very frightening phenomena in the world.

I for one completely reject the equivalency that you are preaching. The way we prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is proof positive. It would have been far easier to destroy everything, but instead we have attempted to preserve as much as possible.

Slander?? Even if such a thing has happened, exactly how, pray tell, does slander compare to the killing and desecration of non-combattants?

Show me the slander you speak of. Also show me the videotape of U.S. soldiers cutting off the head of a live victim with maniacal glee and the full support of this government. Certainly atrocities happen on both sides of a war. The differences lie in how the governments deal with those atrocities, and how the citizenry of the offending country react. Our country makes it clear that those atrocities comitted by our troops are not acceptable. Do we see anything like that coming from the Islamic leaders and their peoples?

I tell you what. Lets put it all in a different perspective with two questions:

Do you believe that radical Islam represents a growing problem for the world?

And if so, what is YOUR solution?

And finally, I prefer the traditional Socratic use of the word Rhetoric, so thank you for the compliment, unintended though it was.

Just a couple idle comments:

These pictures only came out after most of the investigation in to these events had been done. There was no "whistle-blowing" done by the person who released these photos to the press. And the person that released them to the press needs to be held up for high treason. The only reason for them to release them was to undermine the efforts, and endanger the lives, of the soldiers over there. The records of the investigation show that this has been known about and investigated since the beginning of the year. You can't blow the whistle on something that is just about ready to go to the prosecution level. You can only try to steal thunder and push a political agenda. Timing is everything.

Next, most of the photos I've seen are completely above board. The one with the woman posing infront of naked terrorists? Required for the break down. The one with the dogs. Perfectly fine as not a prisoner felt the touch of a dog, just heard them. The dog pile of naked Irais? _Way_ out of line. So of those three, only one bad. Now what went on off camera, if reports are correct, are also way out of line. But understand, these people have a very anit-evolutionary way of life. The believe unto death that women are just pieces of meat to be done with as they please. One only has to read the reports of them being used as human shields by these pigs to understand the depth of these beliefs. We have women MP's. I know from personal experience (Gulf War, part 1. 304th MP Co) that these people will try to ignore and will infact strike at a woman giving orders. Once anyway. So acts like that shown in the picture work to make it safer for our soldiers. And when it comes to safty for our soldiers versus the dignity of pigs who rape and kill children... LoL! I can't believe anyone votes for the pig.

Then we get to the reaction of the Iraqi people to the pictures. You see these people shouting outrage in public like they should (things went on that shouldn't under our watch) but I get the strangest feeling that those same people take those same picture home an in the privacy of their own room, masterbate over them yelling "Get Some!" Keep in mind what would have happened to these same prisoners if the _Iraqis_ had overthrown the government.

As for the reaction of any of the rest of the world... I care? You look what goes on in french, German, Middle Easter, or Chineese prisons and you have to ask yourself from what moral ground are they trying to attack us from? "We may break every bone in their body, cause them sever brain damage, and amputate body parts they don't need to be good workers, but we never have our women look at them naked!!!"

Finally, if you really feel that our cause is lost there, fine. I always did think it would look better as a glass parking lot. Keep in mind, there is no way a sane person can let the threat of terrorism remain above their head. A mature person attempts to reason with a threat like that. And when the threat proves beyond all possible debate that they will only tolerate the destruction of one side or the other, the mature person honors the other's decisions and gives them what they ask for. *Boom*

Michael

"Then we get to the reaction of the Iraqi people to the pictures. You see these people shouting outrage in public like they should (things went on that shouldn't under our watch) but I get the strangest feeling that those same people take those same picture home an in the privacy of their own room, masterbate over them yelling "Get Some!"

Let's see some proof Michael? Anyone outraged at abuse is therefore a closet fascist/pervert? I can't help thinking such reasoning is ever-so-slightly unscientific ;-)

"And when it comes to safty for our soldiers versus the dignity of pigs who rape and kill children... LoL! I can't believe anyone votes for the pig."

Can you believe that there are pigs in all countries and people choose to vote for none of them??

Nationalist thinking goes like this:

1. A National does something good = I am proud of the country > This good thing reflects on the Nation, they are (idealistically) assumed in the majority

2. A National does something bad = They have shamed the country > They are (idealistically) assumed in a minority.

And then:

1b. A foreigner does something good = they are an individual showing traits of my nation not their own.

2b. A foreigner does something bad = that is typical of their nation.

And finally:

"I always did think it would look better as a glass parking lot"

So it is better to annihilate a whole country than the criminals? How many American murderers/rapists/thieves are alive today? You are quite literally saying that if a 'National' does something 'bad', it is better that the whole country is a 'glass parking lot'.

And this is in no way sadistic like those people who attack women?

Idiotic.

Krackatoa

True, we havn't decapitated any prisoners in Iraq(at least not in any of the photos I've seen), be they non-combattants, or not proven guilty of any crime, like many of the prisoners being "softened-up" for interrogation in Abu Ghraib. I do see a difference between be-heading and sexual humiliation (I know which one I'd choose if forced!), but I'm not sure Arabs see it the same way that we do....

"Do you believe that radical Islam represents a growing problem for the world?
And if so, what is YOUR solution?"

"radical islam"... if forced to make a list of the world's threats, don't think I'd put it #1. (pulling on flame suit) for me I'd put the developement of renewable/sustainable energy in the top spot. In addition to helping out the trees us liberals love more than American people, this could even have the nice side effect of reducing our dependancy on foreign oil, which just maybe could let some of radical Islamazoids worry about their own mess rather than get pissed off so much at us. If we weren't over there in the first place, I really believe terrorists wouldn't attack us because we live a happy and free and sexually wild life in America. Crazy I know...

Yeah I'm a dreamer... kinda like the Bush boys dreaming that they could democrasize Iraq on the cheap, and send all Americans a big fat tax refund check at the same time!!!

Kurt

The destruction of one side, Michael? You're talking like there's a limited number of terrorists in the world, and if we can only kill all of them the world will be a better place.

Terrorism is probably always going to exist, for the simple fact that there's ten times as many nations as there are sovereign states, and only a limited amount of space to go around. As long as there exists minorities who feel like their viewpoints are escaping mainstream recognition, there is going to be occasions when these minorities lash out.

And by the way, the photograph of the Iraqi being threatened by attack dogs was part of a sequence of photos. The other photos did indeed show the dogs being let loose on the guy and a large hole being torn in his leg. There are also apparently photographs which depict rape and other extreme situations.

Given that 80-90 percent of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were simply everyday Iraqis who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, I fail to see how humiliation of this kind saves any lives. On the contrary, al-Qaeda now has enough propaganda material for as long as the Iraq occupation lasts.

Krakatoa,

I'm sure we don't differ that radically on who the enemies are, but obviously we hold differing opinions on how to deal with the obstacles that currently face Western powers trying to engage the Middle East.

Oh yeah, you want a better plan for the occupation? More soldiers with appropriate equipment, training and rules of engagement. Not 10 brigades doing the work of 15 through the indiscriminate use of firepower, in areas with a high concentration of civilians.

I'm in the middle of preparing a cross-country move, so I apologize for not responding as quickly or in as much detail as is probably deserved.

Kurt:

It sounds to me as though you agree that radical Islam is a serious problem. You seem to suggest that basically ignoring the problem, or hopefully containing it to the Middle East is the best solution.

I think history clearly demonstrates that ignoring socieities bent on world domination is at best, a short term solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that every time a threat like this has been ignored or appeased, it led to a higher death count in the end.

I definitely agree with you on the development of alternate fuel technology. I'm sure you are as happy as I am that Bush approved the huge funding package specifically for that.

At the same time, I see definite benefits to drilling in ANWR, to the tune of probably 10 cents a gallon cheaper fuel costs, at what would be a net benefit to the environment if you use Alaska as the model.

I disagree with your economic jab at the Tax Cuts, but just don't have the time to expound on it.

Lachlan:

Obviously we do agree on who the enemy is. I am very hopeful that there are far more of you than those that frequent places such as the DU.

I think it is fantastic to hear opposing opinions on policy where there is at least an agreement on the fundamental problem. Far too many on the left seem incapable or unwilling to

I agree that the prisoner scandal shows a serious lack of training and oversight of those soldiers. However, I think it important to bear in mind that those soldiers implicated were not supposed to be there in the first place. They weren't MP's, but had been transferred into that duty because of a lack of resources.

So there is definitely something to what you say about a lack of troops, so far as dealing with prisoners go anyway.

One caveat though: If we had put Iraqis in charge of this prison facility, I think you'd agree that what did happen there under U.S. control, as deplorable to us as it was, would pale in comparison to the vengeance the Iraquis are all to willing to dole out.

I would debate your assertion of an "indiscriminate use of firepower". The numbers of civilian casualties are clearly showing that our soldiers are highly competent in acquiring and eliminating the enemy with a very minimal amount of civilian casualties.

Fallujah is a prime example. Indiscriminate use would be leveling the city with no warning to the civilian population. We have limited our actions severely, purely with the motive of not killing even those civilians who support our enemy.

My personal view is that we should notify the city that it will be razed in 3 days. Each person wanting to leave will be allowed 2 pieces of luggage. They leave the city, empty their bags under remote observation, demonstrate they have no weapons on their person and move off into a camp. At the end of the 3 days, we totally raze the city, inpect the possessions for any hidden weapons, give them back to their owners, and get other Iraquis in there to police them and assist in the rebuild.

Great great great piece. I read it quickly, and now I'm going to read it slowly and carefully. You have the right stuff Bill. Thanks...
PS--a quibble--"abject victory"? Do you really mean that? Look up "abject" and decide...

Wait, didn't Jim Bowie try to negotiate with Santa Anna at the Alamo to save his men?

Who is John Gault.

Wonderful site Bill, I appreciate it and will pass it on to my Dad and a number of friends. Your articles are well thought out and articulated, much better than I've been able to do myself, thanks for posting/blogging/whatever.

I am one of those contractors, in Kuwait vice Iraq but why quibble, I took the first job with a solid offer that came along and it beats the unemployment line hands down.

Anyway, to add to what Krakatoa wrote in response to Lachlan upthread a bit... when I arrived there were a number of briefings we had to attend. One of these by a Lt Colonel, was directed to the security types and military and in part he said, "...the Iraqi's and terrorists don't know how to shoot. They just come out full auto and spray everything. And when the locals see you, keeping your cool and drawing down on him and taking him out with one shot it makes a favorable impression..."
Our soldiers don't have a reputation of firing indiscriminately, in part its the discipline and training that they've had, in part its all the new bells and whistles we've added...most M16s seem to be equipped with red dot or similar sights which greatly improve accuracy, I also see laser pointers and other attachments which were unknown just a few years ago.
Regards Tim