Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I agree with you to an extent. War creates an environment where certain actions by soldiers, such as looting, rape, and abuse of prisoners, are almost guaranteed to happen absent strong, organized, and effective leadership determined to prevent it from happening. As gatti noted, these actions are no longer shocking isolated incidents; they're widespread.
That they're so widespread leads me to 3 conclusions: (1) the military leadership actively supported the abuse of Iraqi prisoners; (2) the brass did not actively encourage torture, but turned a blind eye to the situation and let the sheiks fall where they may, because war sucks; or (3) the military leadership is completely incompetent.
I don't know which of the 3 it is, but all 3 readily explain the military's unjustifiable stonewalling on this issue. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, our treatment of prisoners is completely inexcusable and will reflect poorly on our nation as a whole. Something stinks here. I would hope that this is enough of a nonpartisan issue that Rs and Ds could work together to get to the bottom of this, but my lack of cynicism has left me disappointed before.
|
My understanding is that at least part of the problem is that the troops guarding the prisoners were often times reserves that were not properly trained for that task.
I'm torn on this issue. Part of me thinks it's wrong, but the other part of me thinks that nearly anything goes in war when it comes to soldiers (not innocents), because the stakes are typically so high in war that the means justifies the ends.
