No Abu Ghraib

[Melvin Loh]

How much better would the US be re the war in Iraq had there not been an Abu Ghraib prison scandal ? Hope this doesn't spark any big political debates, OK ?

[Leo Caesius]

I think that the ultimate impact of Abu Ghraib is still yet to be determined. We handed our enemies (and that includes those enemies of Western-style freedom and democracy that George W. Bush likes to talk about so often) a huge propaganda victory in the form of Abu Ghraib. We also undermined the legitimacy of the coalition's mission in Iraq and, by extension, the pro-US faction that we put into power after the CPA withdrew.

I would not be surprised if a lot of the local insurgency we're seeing today is fueled to some extent by fears of future Abu Ghraibs - in the minds of the Iraqis, Abu Ghraib prison is inextricably associated with the Saddam regime, as are the palaces from which the CPA governed. Consequently many of the insurgents see the struggle against the former CPA and the current administration as an extension of the struggle against the tyranny of the Saddam regime, which they were never able to topple.

[Raymann]

Other then reporters, I doubt it has had much of an effect on the war. A person would see it either as torturing terrorists or innocents and it really wouldn't change their minds about the war. The only bad part of the whole thing is the political court martials of the innocent soldiers who did nothing wrong but to enjoy inflicting misery on a bunch of terrorists. Call it sadistic but I call it justice.

[Leo Caesius]

You have a rather perverse view of what constitutes justice, then.

It's obvious that we're going to rehash old arguments here with revisionists who blithely ignore the inconvenient facts of the matter to grind their ideological axes. By the Pentagon's own reckoning, 90% of the people held at Abu Ghraib were innocent bystanders, picked up in random sweeps. The documented examples of torture were inflicted upon people from all walks of life, including teenaged boys. Buggering teenaged boys is not my idea of justice. In fact, I'm mortified by the numerous morally bankrupt individuals who have stepped forward to act as apologists for torture. I can't think of a more shameful and disgusting avocation (other than, perhaps, Holocaust Revisionism, to which it is ideologically akin).

At any rate, for all we know, Abu Ghraib may have future ramifications akin to those attending the CIA-sponsored coup in Iran, which set the stage for the conflicted US-Mideast relationship, long before our support for Israel was ever a factor.

Finally, the Defense Department itself said that winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people was one of the most important fronts in this war. If you don't think we've failed spectacularly on that front, you haven't been paying attention. The majority of Iraqis went from seeing Americans as liberators to occupiers in less than a year, thanks largely to abuses like Abu Ghraib.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Melvin Loh

How much better would the US be re the war in Iraq had there not been an Abu Ghraib prison scandal ? Hope this doesn't spark any big political debates, OK ?

Then chances are similar scandal will break out in some other prison? What, do you think stuff like this happens/ed only at AG?

As somebody said about Rodney King being beaten. "Only difference between King being beaten and numerous other people being beaten is that King's beating was taped."

If US had given any thoughts to post-war situation they should open AG for Iraqis to see then after a month or so gather big crowd and demolish the place.

[Hansmeister]

Originally Posted by aktarian

Then chances are similar scandal will break out in some other prison? What, do you think stuff like this happens/ed only at AG?

As somebody said about Rodney King being beaten. "Only difference between King being beaten and numerous other people being beaten is that King's beating was taped."

If US had given any thoughts to post-war situation they should open AG for Iraqis to see then after a month or so gather big crowd and demolish the place.

The US advocated destroying AG, the Iraqi gov't wants to keep it.

As to the question AG is hardly relevant. Since the entire ME media invent US atrocities on a daily and the people just gobble it up, it hardly matters. The only place where AG didn't cause an outrage was Iraq, where most Iraqis wanted us to be much tougher on the prisoners.

[Grimm Reaper]

I am confident that if not for Abu Ghraib prison, all would be going beautifully in Iraq and in other Middle East peace talks, everything would beautiful in its own way, democracy would be spreading throughout the world, and the lion would be lying down with the lamb.

Just remember to get the lion a new lamb every morning.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Hansmeister

The only place where AG didn't cause an outrage was Iraq, where most Iraqis wanted us to be much tougher on the prisoners.

I smell bullshit. Many of my colleagues are Iraqis, and I do fieldwork with Iraqi refugees, so I can assure you that this is not the case.

I'd also like to see one example of a US atrocity "invented" by the ME media - that is to say, al-Jazeera, or widely distributed papers such as ash-Sharq al-Awsat, or al-Quds al-Arabi.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraqis knew for a while that these sorts of things were going on in the prisons we were running, and rumor was spreading like wildfire. These rumors were mentioned in the Berg video, which was released only days after Abu Ghraib hit the media. Rumors tend to fly fast and free in the ME, where the lack of a free press has engendered a healthy disrespect and distrust in the media.

The fact that we did (eventually) address the situation in Abu Ghraib probably saved us some face - but the damage was already done. Anyone who says, "if only the media didn't report it, it wouldn't have been an issue at all," doesn't understand how the world (and particularly the Arab world) works.

[MerryPrankster]

Leo,

I don't know about US atrocities, but the Arab press constantly claims that there was a horrible massacre in the Janin "refugee camp" (refugee camp? those places may have been ones @ one time, but they're cities now), but in reality there was not.

[MerryPrankster]

And the Arab press constantly says that Israel orchestrated 9/11. Granted, the Arab press is largely gov't-controlled, but still.

Why are conspiracy theories so popular over there?

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

I don't know about US atrocities, but the Arab press constantly claims that there was a horrible massacre in the Janin "refugee camp" (refugee camp? those places may have been ones @ one time, but they're cities now), but in reality there was not.

Ah, yes, Jenin. Well, whatever happened at Jenin was certainly awful, but nothing like Sabra and Shaqtila. I don't think I'd call it a "massacre," but to say it never happened (like our media seem to be doing) strikes me to be as misleading as claiming it was one.

It was war - Operation Defensive Shield, in fact. Casualties are inevitable. To call them a deliberate massacre is hyperbole, I'll grant you, but not pure invention. Torture, on the other hand, of the sort that indisputably occured at Abu Ghraib, some more the torture of innocents, is indefensible.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

Ah, yes, Jenin. Well, whatever happened at Jenin was certainly awful, but nothing like Sabra and Shaqtila. I don't think I'd call it a "massacre," but to say it never happened (like our media seem to be doing) strikes me to be as misleading as claiming it was one.

It was war - Operation Defensive Shield, in fact. Casualties are inevitable. To call them a deliberate massacre is hyperbole, I'll grant you, but not pure invention. Torture, on the other hand, of the sort that indisputably occured at Abu Ghraib, some more the torture of innocents, is indefensible.

Disputing the accuracy of the Arab press does not an endorsement of Abu Ghraib make.

And about torture, other than what's been reported on already (the freaky sexual-humiliation public-nudity stuff), what else is supposed to be going on? The "buggering of a 14-year-old boy" is an accusation that only the far-left press and the conspiracy-prone Arab papers seem to be touching. Not that the accusation is wrong, but remember, someone claimed to have photos of Iraqi women being raped by US troops (they were posted on www.aztlan.net, a Hispanic militant site) and it turned out they were Hungarian porn.

And my uncle is deployed in Iraq and he said that the revelation of Abu Ghraib led to a bunch of colonels and majors and suchlike being sacked. I think that's probably important for our discussion.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

And the Arab press constantly says that Israel orchestrated 9/11. Granted, the Arab press is largely gov't-controlled, but still.

Why are conspiracy theories so popular over there?

When you talk about "the Arab Press" you have to be careful. Some of the most widely distributed and most influential newspapers in the Middle East are published in London. The fact of the matter is that the Israel-9/11 rumor, while common enough, rarely surfaces in the press. I'd be willing to be that when it has, it only appeared in wingnut columns ala Ann Coulter.

In any society where the official avenues of information are considered to be compromised, conspiracy theories take root. The fact of the matter is that, in information just like finance, the bad drives out the good. When people don't have confidence in the "legitimate" sources of information, they inevitably turn to the "underground" media, which are often factually inaccurate. Look at the internet. 90% of the stuff you find on the internet is bunk (compared to, say, only 50-60% in the American news media).

The same is true for Italy. Italians love conspiracy theories. And why not? Berlusconi owns 90% of the media. That figure hardly inspires one to put confidence in the Italian media. I think it may happen here, as well. Americans have always had a penchant for conspiracy theories, and they're fast losing confidence in their own media. We have gotten to the point where FOX is the #1 news channel and yet nobody takes it seriously. Who knows? Perhaps one day we'll start hearing theories about how the Michigan Militia orchestrated 9/11.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

And about torture, other than what's been reported on already (the freaky sexual-humiliation public-nudity stuff), what else is supposed to be going on? The "buggering of a 14-year-old boy" is an accusation that only the far-left press and the conspiracy-prone Arab papers seem to be touching.

I have yet to see non-partisan evidence, but then, the only parties involved in the investigation are the US military and the press, and neither are without possible ulterior motive. Still, sexual hmilitation and anal rape are common enough in reports from detainees from numerous facilities to make me consider the claim at least credible until proven otherwise. It doesn't strike me as the kind of thing you'd come up with if you're making up stories.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

And about torture, other than what's been reported on already (the freaky sexual-humiliation public-nudity stuff), what else is supposed to be going on? The "buggering of a 14-year-old boy" is an accusation that only the far-left press and the conspiracy-prone Arab papers seem to be touching. [...]And my uncle is deployed in Iraq and he said that the revelation of Abu Ghraib led to a bunch of colonels and majors and suchlike being sacked. I think that's probably important for our discussion.

I wasn't suggesting that you were endorsing Abu Ghraib. But I just wanted to point out that not all of the Arab media is state run, and that a lot of it comes from Britain.

The sodomy account was in the Taguba report. It was considered accurate by the Pentagon but a lot of Americans can't swallow it for obvious reasons. There was also a video, which members of Congress saw, but which was considered too hot for prime time. In fact, members of Congress and the Defense Department were often the only ones privy to the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib, and they aren't talking, although they have said on occasion that it is much worse than you think.

As for the sacking of officers, it is relevant as it demonstrates some damage control and an admission of guilt, which is very important. The Iraqis would have known about Abu Ghraib whether "we" did or not. The fact that we did do some damage control after the fact undoubtedly helped to defuse some of the worst rumors and heal some of the damage to the occupation's image. However, the damage had been done - it should never have happened in the first place, and those people who say that we just should not have reported it (as if we were living in the Soviet Union) don't understand how things work here or in the Middle East.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by Raymann

The only bad part of the whole thing is the political court martials of the innocent soldiers who did nothing wrong but to enjoy inflicting misery on a bunch of terrorists. Call it sadistic but I call it justice.

Excuse me? A bunch of terrorists? Do you know that the people that were tortured at Abu Ghraib were not even accused of terrorist activities? They had been locked up for such crimes as burglary and theft. Do you remember the guy standing on a box with the hood and the electrodes? Turns out he was there for carjacking.
But then, we're talking about dark-skinned people who don't even have the basic decency of being Christians (except some of them like Saddam's former Prime Minister, Tarek Aziz, though you wouldn't know it from watching Fox News), so who cares what they're accused of, they sure all look like terrorists.
"Innocent soldiers who did nothing wrong". Yeah, sure. The French soldiers who tortured Arab prisoners in Algeria said the same thing 50 years ago. Oh, and we lost, too.

[Paul Spring]

I've heard that good old-fashioned anti-Semitic (or to be more specific, anti-Jewish) propaganda like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that used to pollute much of the western world's thinking has now found enthusiastic support in many Islamic countries. That probably ties into the belief that Israel was actually responsible for 9/11, and invented or exaggerated reports of Israeli atrocities.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

I've heard that good old-fashioned anti-Semitic (or to be more specific, anti-Jewish) propaganda like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that used to pollute much of the western world's thinking has now found enthusiastic support in many Islamic countries.

You know who introduced the Arabs to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Wait for it...

Henry Ford.

His book, The International Jew, was a world-wide bestseller and was translated into many languages, including Arabic. This is something of an accomplishment, considering that so few books get translated into Arabic (fewer, in fact, than those that get translated into Spanish or even Icelandic).

Ford popularized the Protocols in America and was the patron of the Arab community here (he offered them jobs in his factory, in Detroit, and spent much money on providing them with an English-language education). The Protocols themselves received their own Arabic translation, after Ford published his book.

So, it's not exactly true that this western anti-Semitic propaganda has only now become popular... the sad fact is that it has been popular among Arabs, since Henry Ford introduced it to them.

[Faeelin]

Leo, I think saying that there was never antisemitism in the Arab world is exagerrating a bit.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Leo, I think saying that there was never antisemitism in the Arab world is exagerrating a bit.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not published in the Arab world until the late 20s, largely because of Henry Ford's efforts to popularize it here and and abroad. I don't see how that's in any way an exageration. In fact, I was correcting Paul, who seemed to be under the impression that it was a recent phenomenon.

At any rate, Arab anti-semitism and Western anti-semitism were two very different phenomena ... until the 30s or so. Then the two became wedded, thanks to the efforts of the Third Reich and its agents in America, such as the man to whom Adolf Hitler affectionately refered as "Heinrich Ford, the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America."