Get a grip

The domestic media and political feeding frenzy that has ensued in the wake of revelations of prisoner abuse by U.S. military personnel overseas risks greatly compounding the damage done overseas to America’s image and cause. The lead editorial in today’s Wall Street JournalUSA Today argue for a more sober and responsible — and certainly far less hysterical — treatment of the issue than has been evident in certain quarters of late. and an op.ed. by Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. in

Both editorials express justified disgust with the behavior of an apparently small number of individuals involved in the degrading of Iraqi prisoners. Both call for fulsome investigations and accountability for all those involved. Yet both also emphasize that neither justice nor the Nation’s larger interests will be served by indulging in indiscriminate condemnation that wrongly impugns the integrity, conduct or leadership of the military and/or the Department of Defense.

In particular, the idea that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should feel, let alone be, compelled to resign over these episodes is preposterous. While such a step would doubtless please President Bush’s critics in this country, it would also hearten our enemies. Worse yet, it would deny the Nation one of its steadiest national security hands at a time of global war, when the very things his foes dislike most — Mr. Rumsfeld’s brilliance, vision, broad experience, commitment to principled security policies and energetic leadership — are arguably more needed than ever before.

Investigations Take Time

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

USA Today, 06 May 2004

Photographs showing GIs abusing Iraqi prisoners are as sickening to Americans as they are to the people we have spent hundreds of lives and many billions of dollars to liberate. The problem is that, in our justified shame and regret for the actions of what appear at this writing to be the misdeeds of a few of our countrymen, we could play into the hands of those who most vigorously opposed the liberation of Iraq — and who still hope it will fail.

Already, ordinary Iraqis have grounds for concern over whether the United States will — as President Bush has promised — help them secure their freedom. They found us unreliable in the past in the face of the relentless brutality of Saddam Hussein. And today, we seem to be signaling that we are about to turn them, and their fate, over to one of Saddam’s biggest apologists and enablers: the United Nations.

Were we to indulge in paroxysms of scapegoating and second-guessing about prison abuse, the likely perception in Iraq, and the Arab world more generally, would not be of a great and free nation acknowledging wrongdoing and taking corrective action. Rather, we would appear to validate our enemies’ efforts to portray this country and its forces as oppressors no different from the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam.

We must, instead, do two things simultaneously: First, conduct proper investigations fairly to determine the guilt or innocence of any of those accused of abusing prisoners. Second, unabashedly proclaim the policies and values that guide free societies with respect to human rights — in contrast to those that unfortunately make real torture an everyday occurrence in prisons, and often in the streets, throughout the Arab world.

It may frustrate American legislators, other civilians, foreign critics and, most especially, the media. But the very effort to ensure the fairness of prosecutions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice depends on a principle that contributes to the protracted and confidential nature of such prosecutions: preventing command interference with the proceedings.

Just as no one should be allowed to assign to our nation undeserved collective guilt for the misdeeds of a few, necessary patience with the workings of the law must not be confused with tolerance for its violation.

Abuse and the Army

The Wall Street Journal, 06 May 2004

As President Bush and everyone else in America has said, any abuse of Iraqi prisoners is "abhorrent" and should be punished. Yet it seems to us that an overlooked story here, and ultimately the most telling, is the degree to which the U.S. military is investigating itself and holding people accountable.

This isn’t a popular thought just now, with the media and politicians in one of their bonfire phases. Every accusation against U.S. troops is now getting front-page treatment. Like reporters at a free buffet, Members of Congress are swarming to the TV cameras to declare their outrage and demand someone’s head, usually Donald Rumsfeld’s. "System of abuse" and "cover-up" are being tossed about without any evidence of either. The goal seems to be less to punish the offenders than to grab one more reason to discredit the Iraq war.

For a sense of proportion, let’s rehearse the timeline here. While some accusations of abuse go back to 2002 in Afghanistan, the incidents at Abu Ghraib that triggered this week’s news occurred last autumn. They came to light through the chain of command in Iraq on January 13. An Army criminal probe began a day later. Two days after that, the U.S. Central Command disclosed in a press release that "an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility." By March 20, Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt was able to announce in Baghdad that criminal charges had been brought against six soldiers in the probe.

By the end of January, meanwhile, Major-General Antonio Taguba was appointed to conduct his separate "administrative" probe of procedures at Abu Ghraib. It is his report, complete with its incriminating photos, that is the basis for the past week’s news reports. The press didn’t break this story based on months of sleuthing but was served up the results of the Army’s own investigation.

By February, the Secretary of the Army had ordered the service’s inspector general to assess the doctrine and training for detention operations within all of CentCom. A month after that, another probe began into Army Reserve training, especially military police and intelligence. Those reports will presumably also be leaked and reported on, or at least they will be if they reach negative conclusions.

This is a cover-up? Unlike the Catholic bishops, some corporate boards and the editors of the New York Times or USA Today, the military brass did not dismiss early allegations of bad behavior. Instead, it established reviews and procedures that have uncovered the very details that are now used by critics to indict the Pentagon "system." It has done so, moreover, amid a war against a deadly insurgency in which interrogation to gain good intelligence is critical to victory — and to saving American lives.

None of this is to dismiss or rationalize the abuse reports. Accountability has to run beyond the soldiers immediately responsible and up the Army and intelligence chains of command. The Abu Ghraib procedures were clearly inadequate to a situation in which interrogators were given so much control over the fates of individual prisoners. Especially in a war on terror that will be long and require effective interrogation, this is unacceptable.

Reprimands have already been issued and careers ended, but courts martial can’t be ruled out. President Bush’s explanation to Arab media yesterday may help our public image, especially given that their own governments rarely admit mistakes. But the best way to impress Iraqis about U.S. purposes is to show that Americans guilty of abuse are being punished, and with more than letters of reprimand.

To start impugning the entire Army and Pentagon, however, is both wrong and dangerous. The majority of American soldiers are professional, disciplined and are risking their lives to win a war. (Note to those who want to revive the draft: If this could happen in today’s highly trained volunteer force, imagine the risks in Senator Chuck Hagel’s Army of conscripts.)

Another bizarre notion is that Abu Ghraib happened because the Pentagon decided to hold "enemy combatants" under other than "prisoner of war" status. Those detainees are still given Geneva Convention treatment, as well as visits by the Red Cross. The Pentagon has avoided formal Geneva Convention status because it doesn’t want al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners to be able to hide behind "name, rank and serial number." As terrorists who attacked civilians and didn’t wear a uniform, they also don’t deserve the privileges of real soldiers. In any case, the soldiers who posed in those Abu Ghraib photos were clearly too thick to know any of this.

The military has its faults and bad actors, but over the decades it has shown itself to be one of America’s most accountable institutions. The Abu Ghraib episode is another test of its fortitude. But the political class would do well to heed Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who said yesterday that "This immoral behavior in no way eliminates the justice of our cause in Iraq."