Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Valandil]

Not sure which part... but a part of me thinks that all those involved should be court-martialed and tried for treason (on grounds that they've made life REALLY rough on any Americans who happen to be captured - AND that they've definitely helped incite many other Iraqis to take up the fight against our troops). That those found guilty should be marched out and given a very public execution. That the units which had been serving guard duty in these prisons should be disbanded - and those soldiers/guards sent to where the insurgency is the strongest. That those who oversaw and gave good reports should be removed from their jobs.

That's what they deserve anyway. It would show the Iraqis and all others in the Middle East that we're quite serious about NOT going about things this way. Further, I don't think it would ever be a problem again - if we made that kind of statement.

But then there's the merciful part of me. I just don't know...

The Iraqis who were treated like this should be given amnesty - released with a cash compensation, told in no uncertain terms that we sincerely apologize for what was done to them and that we condone it in no way whatsoever - and that they had best not join any insurgency themselves.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

The U.S launched ‘Operation Staunch’ to slow down arms shipments to Iran and encouraged arms sales to Iraq. As Iraq began to gain the upper hand in the war America began to push forward the plea for peace, feeling their aims with the war settled. Both sides had “lost” enough and the potential expansion of Islamic fundamentalists had been checked, and Iraq had emerged as a the new defender of American status quo in the gulf and it’s ties with Soviet Russia had been severed. But America failed to see the hidden (or not so) anti-American attitude of Baathist and Hussein. America would have much preferred to re-establish close ties with Iran, as Robert McFaralene, security adviser under Reagan told the L.A Times.

“our aim was to prevent either side from winning and…. To bring both to a negotiated settlement in which we could re-establish over time a peaceful relationship with Iran-the strategic prize of the area”

For this reason America decided to covertly supply arms to Iran, thus hoping to win the support of the Iranians and also to obtain the release of American hostages held in Iran. But there was a problem. The hostage-weapon exchange was leaked to the media and the public and the Irangate scandal ensued.

As Avi Shlaim comments;

“The Iran-Contra scandal revealed the Reagan administration at it’s worst, not simply unscrupulous in it’s conduct of foreign policy but also undemocratic and incompetent. By agreeing to swap arms for hostages, the administration defeated it’s own policy of combating international terrorism…”

The revelation that America had secretly been supplying their ‘enemy’ the immoral and extremist Iran with weapons to bomb their allies, Iraq had several detrimental effects on the reputation of America. Ignoring the moral plausibility that such deals involve, the original aim of re-establishing quasi-amiable relations with Iran failed, miserably, as the Iranians began to realise that the support and carrying out of terrorist acts was not without profit, but abundant with profit in this intense political climate in which America was intrinsically weakened and susceptible to yield to demands. This ideology spread throughout the Middle-East .If America had been firmer in it’s stance with Iran then maybe terrorism would not be as big as it is, since this perpetuated the terrorists problem, but maybe if America had been firmer it would have been allowed for anti-American, liberal critics to complain about something else, but if America had not been so selfish in it’s pursuit for hegemony and wealth in the Middle-East then none of these problems would have arose. The revelations of Americans double dealings also rocked the Arabian views on American and the Iraqi view on America, who became more fiercely anti-American.

America began to shift it’s position more and more to Iraq and it became the guarantor of Iraqi safety in the Gulf. Iran’s capture of the oil rich Fao peninsula gave Iran the leverage to invade Basra and thus bring them closer to victor. Naturally, America would not take this. America re-asserted it’s position as the dominant superpower in the region buy offering a naval guard to Kuwaiti oil tankers, whilst the Soviets refused to do any such thing, and get embroiled in the turbulent affairs of the Gulf.

Surprisingly, amidst all this turmoil there was a rather humour event, (though one can label the American foreign policy as so ironic and incompetent that is not bereft of humour) after a Iraqi missile accidentally struck a U.S Frigate “Stark” Reagan managed to pin the blame upon some kind of Iranian-Soviet coalition intentionally bombing their frigate. He was ridiculed in the press.

America’s full-scale involvement in the behalf of Iraq in the war did not deter the Iranian, but drove them on and the war lasted another six months. America imposed a trade embargo on Iran and Iraq was given the opportunity to laugh a full scale attack on Iran. In the attack/s poisonous chemical gases were used on citizens and Iran was forced to admit defeat.

“Reagean’s junta” did little to aid the American cause for a cordial relationship with the Arabs, but increased anti-American, anti-western and Islamic fundamentalist attitudes across the gulf. Once again America had perpetuated not solved the problem.

Both sides felt that because of America they had “lost”, Iraq claimed that if they had been allowed to, they may have defeated Iran. They ignore the American influence that meant victory for them was inevitable and the American aid they received when they were in dire straits. Iran were angered by the American involvement in the war and this simply furthered their hatred of America and gave the fundamentalists more reasons to subjugate the masses with their falsities and anti-American rhetoric.

The monster created by America in Sadaam Hussein was to rear his ugly spectre with the invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. In invading Kuwait Sadaam threw off the false cloak of Iraq being the moderate maintainer of American interests and the status quo, Sadaam was viewed a reformed character.

George Bush Snr. Despite the please of some American politicians decided to supply him with sensitive technology and credits, despite Sadaam’s poor human rights record and his use of chemical and biological weapons against his own people, the Kurds and the Iranians. The Americans, blinded by their own interests and desire for hegemony did little to hinder Saddam’s military purchases from Western companies. Some of the components purchased could be used to build W.M.D’s.

Sadaam launched blistering verbal attacks on America, Israel and later Kuwait. He accused Kuwait of taking more then it’s fair share in oil from the border-line Rumaila oil field and demanded a return of the share of the profits, write off the Iraqi war debt and lease to Iraq the islands of Warba and Bubiyan. There may have been other over-inflamed claims, I cannot remember. To the surprise of all, Kuwait failed to submit to Iraq’s demands. The rulers of Kuwait at the time, the al-Sabaha’s were politically naïve and weak and they usually brought their way out of trouble. Some claim that Kuwait had the secret support of America, but whether such a claim is valid is debatable.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

The tension began to escalate. The Bush administration remained assuaging and obsequious to Iraq. On April 12, 1990 Robert Dole, was sent to Baghdad by Bush to re-assure Hussein that Bush wanted to improve relations. Later on in the month, John Kelly Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian affairs recommended embargoes being placed on Iraq. When the American ambassador and Sadaam met on July 27th, the ambassador re-assured him that Arab-Arab affairs were of no interest to America after he ranted and raved about the debts owed to him by Kuwait. Sadaam may have taken this as a promise that America would not intervene in any military conflict.

Many thought Sadaam’s invasion threat was just a move to extract money and any conflict would be minimal or non-existent. Most Arab states claimed that America should not get involved in the affair, that Arab affairs should remain exactly that, and a meeting was scheduled by various Arab statesmen too discuss a reasonable peace between the two nations, but hours later he invaded Kuwait.

By this time Sadaam had the fourth largest army in the world, no thanks to American supplementing Saddam’s ever-growing military capabilities but Iraq’s finances were in a torrid condition. Capturing Kuwait would enable Sadaam to please his populace by what many Iraqi’s regarded as “their” territory and it would also further Sadaam’s aims in increasing Iraqi expansion and influence in the Gulf. Having a fiercely anti-American government as the dominant force in the Gulf was by no means a good thing for the Americans. Oil could be lost in a repetition of the Iran affair when the shah was over-thrown and the price of oil exploded (figuratively of course.)

As Avi Shlaim comments;

“…the invasion exposed an intelligence failure…”

Sadaam’s claim that Kuwait was a creation of British imperialism, not without some truth, and Iraq’s annexation threatened American hegemony and the status quo in the region, access to oil and the quasi-stability that the Gulf was experiencing at present. Using force to solve border dispute was not a ideology that would have positive connotations and results if it spread.

After a meeting with Margaret Thatcher, in which she tried to dissuade Bush from going to the U.N, he decided that appeasement, negotiation and compromise could not be used to deal with Sadaam. Despite conflicts within his party Bush decided to go to war. Bush used the excuse that Sadaam’s next target may have been the oil-rich oil fields of Saudi Arabia to send 50,000 troops to Saudi Arabia for it’s defence. (The Saudi’s were at first reluctant to allow America into their nation, but one can assume that concessions were made on the part of the Americans) The U.N, in effect, had set itself in the U.N’s place in getting involved in the Gulf War and they used it to restore their old territorial order and American hegemony rather then hand over the helm to the U.N.

The U.N supported U.S actions in Iraq, mainly because a lot of the members of the security council had investments in Iraq, from one point or another. It is ironic that whilst not condemning the Iraqi invasion of Iran they moved to fast to criticize the invasion of Kuwait. Similarities can be drawn between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, in which after the withdrawal of the Portuguese colonialists (Portugal was later then most other countries in granting colonies independence because it was a dictatorship, supported by the U.S) in which neighbouring Indonesia, backed and using American arms (Which is illegal under American laws, since their weapons could not be used for aggression) to take over East Timor. America backed Indonesia all the way. Note that some 200,000 people were killed in the takeover and the subsequent years since, and America maintained it’s solidarity in it’s support for Indonesia.

Despite efforts by King Hussein to solve the crisis using peaceful methods (and he came close) the Americans’ decided to take the violent rather then the diplomatic route.

Sadaam cynically proposed Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait if Israel withdrew from Arabian lands. This statement allowed him to gain popularity amongst the Palestinians and elected him as the champion of the Arab’s.

[Valandil]

Inderjit,

I'm almost sorry to post such a simple thought right after your very good posts. I haven't read all of yours yet - but what I have read so far is quite insightful and informative.

Don't believe we have posted together. I've only been around about 7 months - and see you've been away a bit longer than that. I have heard of you though, I believe - and it was good (had to do with your knowledge of certain First Age lore items - I think it was Artanis who mentioned you in my 'How Tall is Tall' thread of ME forum).

Anyway - nice to 'meet' you and post with you.

(EDIT: AAAAAAaaaaaa! I'm posting right in the MIDDLE of your posts!! Sorry 'bout that!)

[Inderjit Sanghera]

America’s defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War was in the end easy. The problems that arose as a result of the war were unfortunately not simple. Both sides suffered. Bush, who at first hoped for the over-throw of Sadaam encouraged the Shiite and Kurdish minorities to rise up in revolt against Sadaam. But Bush was dissuaded from his support of these uprisings with the news that Iraq would be dismembered in the creation of a autonomous Kurdish state and this would be disastrous to America’s vital interests in the region. Thus Sadaam clinged to power and the Shiites and Kurds were repelled using poison gas with Bush not deciding to intervene which was encouragement enough for Sadaam. As Avi Shlaim comments;

Quote:
“the war demonstrated that Americans are better at short, sharp intervention designed to restore status quo then at sustained political engagement to resolve the underlying origins of instability of in the Middle East….few wars…achieved their military aims so fully and quickly and yet left behind so much unfinished business….”


Bush did not go to war to fight the undemocratic regime under Sadaam or in the name of freedom, he went in order establish American hegemony and control over the access to the mass abundance of oil in the Gulf. If he really disliked Sadaam then why not kick him out when the opportunity arose, instead of feinting an attack and thus getting allowing for Sadaam to commit atrocities against his own people, and doing nothing about it?

William Blum in his book ’Rogue State’ tells us that the Gulf Wars catastrophic aftermath I which 177 million pounds of bombs fell on the people of Iraq, depleted uranium bombs incinerated people and serious illnesses became endemic, deliberate destructions of the infrastructure which had detrimental effects o health services etc. and unfair sanctions that meant (according to a UNICEF report) child deaths had more then doubled since the Gulf War as a result of various sanctions.

These people have reasons for being angry. America, both directly and indirectly perpetuated problems with their desire for oil and hegemony in the Middle-East, born out of anti-Communist paranoia and selfishness. The British are by no means innocent. They sowed the seeds for future border disputes with their creation of borders and nations to suit their own purposes, their self-contradictory policies in regard of Israel, Iran and Iraq perpetuated and made worse the intrinsic problems that arose with the spread of Arab nationalism, which came about not just because of the inherent militaristic and extremist attitudes of the Arab’s, dissonances that arose because of the British creation of the borders but to put it simply, America created a large scale case of severe blow-back with their selfish desire for power, oil and hegemony.

I apologise for the length of this essay, I prob. Have missed a lot of things, and intentionally have not dealt with other things in depth such as Afghanistan and Israel and most probably have been wrong on a lot of occasions, but it is my view.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Thanks for the welcome (welcome back?) Valandil.

Don't worry about it, my posts are long-winded anyway...it will be a nice break for anybody who is crazy enough to trundle through all of it.

[Beruthiel's cat]

I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to read through this thread -- firstly, I don't have the time and secondly, the subject is so appalling that it's hard for me to read.

My two cents says that those responsible must be held accountable for these actions. They are inexcusable. There are no excuses for what was allowed to occur.

This war has been one attempt after another to show the US to be a big bully and these attrocities have only pushed that world perception to another level. I don't understand the callousness of an administration or a buracracy that would allow these things to happen.

It will take quite awhile to sort out the particulars of this situation. It is doubtful that the full story will ever be completly known -- at least not immediately (look at all the information about WWII that came out decades after the fact...).

I'm afraid it is unlikely the reputation of the US will recover from this.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
These people have reasons for being angry. America, both directly and indirectly perpetuated problems with their desire for oil and hegemony in the Middle-East, born out of anti-Communist paranoia and selfishness. The British are by no means innocent. They sowed the seeds for future border disputes with their creation of borders and nations to suit their own purposes, their self-contradictory policies in regard of Israel, Iran and Iraq perpetuated and made worse the intrinsic problems that arose with the spread of Arab nationalism, which came about not just because of the inherent militaristic and extremist attitudes of the Arab’s, dissonances that arose because of the British creation of the borders but to put it simply, America created a large scale case of severe blow-back with their selfish desire for power, oil and hegemony.

For you arguing that we want the oil - it would have been a lot cheaper to just work with iraq like the Un was doing - you know - the under the table deals. Also - we only get 30% of our oil from the Middle East - whereas Europe gets over 50% and Japan over 70%.

As for Britain's role in the Middle East - you forgot all the OTHER countries that they were involved with. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Lebanon - Britain created all of them along with France. Divided up the Middle East into nice little countries that they gavce to their supporters during WWI. They were going to "civilize" them.

[edit]Read your post on the other page and you mention some of the other countries in the Middle East and how Britain and France created the modern Middle East.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
I don't understand the callousness of an administration or a buracracy that would allow these things to happen.

Can you please explain how the "allowed" this to happen. Or where you get your information that they did? Right when the reports came out - there was press release concerning it and the investigation. I even knew about it back then - the only thing that was NOT released was the pictures or the severity. I think it was in our national interest to keep it quiet actually - and to proceed with the investigation. With the pictures being released - Al Qaeda now has the perfect recruitment tool.

So I want to know - what you would have done and if you were in Rumsfield's position - how you would have known anything was going on. It took a soldier to come forward and report on his fellow officers. And at that moment - investigations started.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - my cousin just joined the Marines.

[Ultimatejoe]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So I want to know - what you would have done and if you were in Rumsfield's position - how you would have known anything was going on. It took a soldier to come forward and report on his fellow officers. And at that moment - investigations started.

See, that's just not true. This story has been circulating except the mainstream U.S. media:

Red Cross accuses U.S. of gross abuses

Here are some nifty little excerpts:

The international Red Cross said today it had warned U.S. officials of abuse of prisoners in Iraq more than a year ago.

"Our findings were discussed at different moments between March and November 2003, either in direct face-to-face conversations or in written interventions," said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross."

...

The newspaper said that the 24-page report described prisoners kept naked in total darkness in empty cells at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and male prisoners forced to parade around in women's underwear. Coalition forces also fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some of them.

...
The report was sent to the United States in February but represented a summary of the information given to U.S. authorities the previous year, Kraehenbuehl told a news conference.

...
Kraehenbuehl said U.S. authorities had taken action on some of the issues but not on others.

"There were situations that remained unacceptable and difficult and there were others that were worked on," he said.

Now the International Red Cross isn't just some kook with a lot of money; it's a credible organization with a long history of good works. If they went to the U.S. over a year ago with this information, then someone in the upper-levels of the military or government is either grossly negligent or someone is lying. Take your pick.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So I want to know - what you would have done and if you were in Rumsfield's position - how you would have known anything was going on. It took a soldier to come forward and report on his fellow officers. And at that moment - investigations started.

actually its seems both the red cross and amnesty international were well aware of the abuses and tried to bring them to the attention of the military over a YEAR ago but they fell on deaf ears. So whether the photos were leaked by a soldier or not (just a few months ago) doesnt account for the apparent cover up thats gone on here.

And since this thread has come back up, id just like to say that its become now more clear that this kind of thing was NOT in fact simply a blip and a unrepresentative anomaly (as admitidly I and many others here have said) but in fact may be more symptomatic of something more wide scale. Apparently somewhere along the line someone told the prison staffs (in iraq AND afghanistan) that whatever they were doing was working so keep it up. and the staff had done at least enough research to know that utter humiliation of middle eastern men was the best way to break them. So this thinking festered among many in the jailing community. lets hope theres no more shoes to drop on this. this has already become the most harmful single episode to effect the coalition's effert since the beginning of the war.


EDIT: looks like Ultimatejoe beat me to this comment.

[Lizra]

Geez...My MSN headline says that Rumsfield says worse photo's to come!? This situation is pathetic! It IS taking far too much away from all the serious "work" that is going on. My hubby thinks it's odd that anyone needs to apologize for anything when there's a war going on...which takes me back to my statement of "Alls fair in love in war".....but it appears in this modern world, with instant press and instant, world wide opinions, wars are conducted differently, than in the old days.

America gave the impression it was following certain "rules" of good behavior, now that there's all this proof of broken rules, I believe if I was Rumsfield...I'd step down.
(imo) It's the only way (or maybe an easy way?!) Bush can save face, ....save anything! This photo disaster is not going away, and we really need to get on with accomplishing our goals, getting out of there, and focusing on the fight against terror. Rumsfield's a rich old man. If I were him, I'd say go ahead....make me the scapegaot (whether deserved or not) and step down. It would be a sacrifice on his part, but many are making huge sacrifices as it is. I'm in a rush....I'm just throwing out some quick thoughts in a jumble....

[Janny]

I read an interesting article in The Spectator which made an interesting point. The bad feeling may not be so much due to indignity at being suject to these actions, especialy by a liberating force, but the fact that one of the participants, who is now I believe being charged, was a woman. I cannot imagine how such a graceless action can be perceived in a culture which maintains 'old' values in terms of women.

Incidentally, when I was pressing the point that the photographs were yet to confirmed I was refering to the photos of British Armed Forces. I did not realise the American Photographs had been confirmed genuine.

[The Gaffer]

Nice essay, Inderjit. I will have a think about it and perhaps comment later.

My initial reaction to these stories was that it is the last wheel coming off the war bandwagon. The WMD and War on Terror arguments were already sunk; the only justification left that held any water was the "toppling a vile dictator" one.

But we already knew that the Bush administration regards things like the US Constitution and Geneva Convention as legalese roadblocks to be circumvented however possible.

[Stephen]

It's strange how some parts of war are percieved as more ugly than others. I think the whole thing is ugly. From the first recon to the last drop of oil.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Janny
Incidentally, when I was pressing the point that the photographs were yet to confirmed I was refering to the photos of British Armed Forces. I did not realise the American Photographs had been confirmed genuine.

However, a word of warning- there are sites out there circulating faked pictures- some, unfortunately, in the Middle-East.

The ones I've seen have started out with the genuine pictures, then follow them with pictures supposedly of American soldiers raping Iraqi women. Those pictures are fakes from violent S&M porn sites, and they were on the Net long before these incidents (and, no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that!)

(Actually, I was doing research on feminism, pornography, violence and free speech..yeah, yeah, me and Pete Townsend)

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
My initial reaction to these stories was that it is the last wheel coming off the war bandwagon.

I thought the bandwagon was on the other foot. I mean... erm... I thought there was a far greater bandwagon anti war than pro war. A point emphasised by comments by Stephen as to the bandwagon's oil supply....

[The Gaffer]

Well, that's the whole thing about war, isn't it? Suddenly it legitimises (to some people) acts which would otherwise be repugnant. Which is exactly why stuff like the Geneva convention matters, since it helps define what is allowed in war. Semantics matter, especially when terms like "softening-up" are being bandied around.

Mixed metaphors, as you rightly point out Janny, are inexcusable, even if the bandwagon is holed below the water line.

But perhaps you're right; since it seems that more people are coming over to the view that the Iraq war was ill-conceived, badly planned, illegal and/or immoral (take your pick, but I'd give it 4 our of 4), perhaps it is a bandwagon.

[Spock]

If I've said this before I'm saying it again or if not, for the first time......To believe that the President or the Secretary of D. is personalbly resposible for the minutia of daily events in the military is ludicrous. That's what the chain of command is for.