Dan Minette wrote: > I would have expected the US to have anticipated potential > problems and to have institutionalized checks to minimize the > chance of this happening.
The way the coalition anticipated other events and took stringent preventive actions? ;) > I've heard disgust expressed by senior commanders; and I > fully believe that this disgust is real and heartfelt. Not > only does it go against their ethics and professionalism, but > it makes the mission in Iraq all that much more difficult, as > public opinion appears to be turning as it is. See, this is neither unprecendented nor surprising. And whereas there is little that the US can do to address the outrage caused in the Middle East, it is possible to minimise the impact on the Iraqi public opinion. First of all, these reports are a shock only to those who expected super-human standards from the US forces and didn't pay much attention or place much credence on the rumblings that have been heard for months about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I doubt any of this came as a shock to the Iraqis. The impact of visual evidence as opposed to verbal claims can be minimised by an appropriate reaction on the part of the US authorities. Just make sure that the condemnation is loud, clear and without any qualifiers and that the action taken is swift and fair [the former is already happening and the second process has already been initiated]. This wouldn't do much for the ME as a whole but the reasonable Iraqis *would* note the US reaction. Having said that, I popped over to Juan Cole's site and he mentions something I hadn't considered: "The genteel mainstream news reports of this scandal (which have given it less attention than it deserves or than it will get in the Arab press) have not commented on the explicitly sexual message sent by the abusers, which is that Iraq is f**ked." Now if this is how the Iraqis have interpreted the photos, then I don't think they would be willing to be pacified anytime soon. > So, I've got a few questions on this, that I hope someone has > some answer for. > > 1) How strong was the emphasis on getting information vs. > keeping professional and humane standards? Do you even need to ask this question after Guantanamo and Jose Padilla case? Lines are being crossed/blurred and human rights don't really seem to be much of a concern. They are useful political tools, sure, but it doesn't look like they are the primary concern. > 5) How easy was it to report abuses? It probably wasn't that hard, logistically speaking. Iraqis have been talking of less than perfect treatment for quite a while now, Amnesty etc. have expressed concern and internet access is available to the troops. A more pertinent question would have been how many of the troops saw the treatment as abuse. These men and women went in expecting to be greeted as liberators. The official line remains that any opposition/violence is being done by terrorists/ba'athist remnants. Those who are incarcerated are obviously 'the enemy'. So in this great war against terror, just how much importance is given to treating the enemy better than they treat the rest of us? How many policies, not slogans, reflect the attitude 'hearts and minds'? Ritu
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
