Friday, May 06, 2005
Incompetency, Irresponsibility, Casual Cruelty, and the American Way of War
Except for a few trivial examples, war is always hell. War is sometimes essentially unavoidable. It is sometimes desirable. It does accomplish positive goals for the generations involved and even for later generations. Readers will disagree on which wars these generalizations apply to, but most people will find occasions in history when a war has done more good than evil.
One of the ways to balance the good against the evil is to look at the way wars are fought. The most evil wars have been fought with the purpose of destruction. This was surely true of the some of the Mongol conquests. We can also see how the use of certain weapons, such as nuclear weapons, might make any possible gains from a war most doubtful. But we also need to look at the particulars, at how wars damage the relationships and understandings that people have of themselves and of how human beings should act in the world. The latter is the reason for the "rules of land warfare" that American forces have long carried with them, or for the Geneva agreements on the treatment of prisoners. A "good war" in this regard is one in which captured persons are not executed after capture or tortured and humiliated, particularly when such actions are carried out carelessly and without evident need.
In this latter regard, the United States bears a particularly heavy burden. As a superpower, it will often be the country called upon to make the decision for and against war, and to be the lead party in any resulting war. Recent events suggest that as a people, we are woefully ill-prepared to carry this burden. In particular, news reports repeatedly indicate that American soldiers, members of American services such as the CIA, and the chain of command up to and including the President have been unable to face up to the responsibility to avoid the torture and humiliation of those who are brought under American control on the battlefield or through police actions. One of the latest examples, is the apparently repeated use of Uzbekistan for the rendition of persons who it is felt must be tortured to reveal necessary information. Clearly our government knows what is going on. Our own State Department continues to list Uzbekistan as a country regularly employing torture. On the other side of the world, the trial of Lynndie England for her offenses at Abu Ghraib reveals a person of low intelligence and minimal culture was thrown into a situation for which she was not prepared. As a result she relapsed into subhuman behavior. A recent book by a person who resigned from the military because of actions in Iraq reports that the soldiers he served with regularly treated the Iraqis around them with brutality and contempt, actions that seem to have occasioned little censure from those above. Another nugget of information is the revelation that military recruiters in the United States over the last year or more have had to repeatedly ignore the standards for new recruits in order to fill their quotas. Their superiors reward them for filling the quotas and prefer to ignore how they are filled. The result is an increasing number of new recruits with known psychological problems, with below standard intelligence and/or education, and sometimes even with criminal records.
We are trying, in other words, to police the world on the cheap, and with unworthy tools. We must also recognize that too many Americans, even Americans that do meet military standards, are brutal, ignorant, and uncaring. They are raised in a cultural milieu that is too often brutal, ignorant, and uncaring, the culture of "Smackdown". America has one of the largest prison populations in the world, and many states have some of its worst prisons. What goes on in these prisons is a foretaste of what goes on in Iraq: England's superior and boyfriend was trained in such institutions.
Making the country one that will be worthy of leadership, that has a "right" to lead the world, is no small task. It must begin with leaders recognizing the cultural and educational and moral problems that have developed in this country over many years. They must take strong stands against torture and cruelty, and must be sure that people at every military and service level believe that those above them recognize the need for change and will take the necessary steps to bring about such change. At present, our top leaders appear deaf and dumb, they appear to dismiss the reports as either lies or unimportant "given the fact we are at war". Any leader who believes this should be dismissed from command, and any underling who acts against the ostensible rules should, at a minimum, leave the service. But long before this point, in the secondary schools and academies, teachers should be prepared to lead frank discussions that take clear positions on torture and cruelty, not allowing the "boys will be boys" attitudes of the past to persist. Only then can we build a country that is worthy of international respect, of leadership. It will not happen overnight.
One of the ways to balance the good against the evil is to look at the way wars are fought. The most evil wars have been fought with the purpose of destruction. This was surely true of the some of the Mongol conquests. We can also see how the use of certain weapons, such as nuclear weapons, might make any possible gains from a war most doubtful. But we also need to look at the particulars, at how wars damage the relationships and understandings that people have of themselves and of how human beings should act in the world. The latter is the reason for the "rules of land warfare" that American forces have long carried with them, or for the Geneva agreements on the treatment of prisoners. A "good war" in this regard is one in which captured persons are not executed after capture or tortured and humiliated, particularly when such actions are carried out carelessly and without evident need.
In this latter regard, the United States bears a particularly heavy burden. As a superpower, it will often be the country called upon to make the decision for and against war, and to be the lead party in any resulting war. Recent events suggest that as a people, we are woefully ill-prepared to carry this burden. In particular, news reports repeatedly indicate that American soldiers, members of American services such as the CIA, and the chain of command up to and including the President have been unable to face up to the responsibility to avoid the torture and humiliation of those who are brought under American control on the battlefield or through police actions. One of the latest examples, is the apparently repeated use of Uzbekistan for the rendition of persons who it is felt must be tortured to reveal necessary information. Clearly our government knows what is going on. Our own State Department continues to list Uzbekistan as a country regularly employing torture. On the other side of the world, the trial of Lynndie England for her offenses at Abu Ghraib reveals a person of low intelligence and minimal culture was thrown into a situation for which she was not prepared. As a result she relapsed into subhuman behavior. A recent book by a person who resigned from the military because of actions in Iraq reports that the soldiers he served with regularly treated the Iraqis around them with brutality and contempt, actions that seem to have occasioned little censure from those above. Another nugget of information is the revelation that military recruiters in the United States over the last year or more have had to repeatedly ignore the standards for new recruits in order to fill their quotas. Their superiors reward them for filling the quotas and prefer to ignore how they are filled. The result is an increasing number of new recruits with known psychological problems, with below standard intelligence and/or education, and sometimes even with criminal records.
We are trying, in other words, to police the world on the cheap, and with unworthy tools. We must also recognize that too many Americans, even Americans that do meet military standards, are brutal, ignorant, and uncaring. They are raised in a cultural milieu that is too often brutal, ignorant, and uncaring, the culture of "Smackdown". America has one of the largest prison populations in the world, and many states have some of its worst prisons. What goes on in these prisons is a foretaste of what goes on in Iraq: England's superior and boyfriend was trained in such institutions.
Making the country one that will be worthy of leadership, that has a "right" to lead the world, is no small task. It must begin with leaders recognizing the cultural and educational and moral problems that have developed in this country over many years. They must take strong stands against torture and cruelty, and must be sure that people at every military and service level believe that those above them recognize the need for change and will take the necessary steps to bring about such change. At present, our top leaders appear deaf and dumb, they appear to dismiss the reports as either lies or unimportant "given the fact we are at war". Any leader who believes this should be dismissed from command, and any underling who acts against the ostensible rules should, at a minimum, leave the service. But long before this point, in the secondary schools and academies, teachers should be prepared to lead frank discussions that take clear positions on torture and cruelty, not allowing the "boys will be boys" attitudes of the past to persist. Only then can we build a country that is worthy of international respect, of leadership. It will not happen overnight.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Iraq: Progress Remains Elusive
The exceptionally effective suicide bombings continue day after day, week after week. The targets are varied, but the emphasis seems to be on killings Shiites or Kurds, probably because the Americans are harder to get at. The insurgents have little concern that civilians are killed as well as their ostensible targets. Juan Cole feels that, in spite of all the claims by the Jihadists that they are responsible for the mayhem, the main source of the insurgency remains the Baathists and the Sunnis who lived well under Saddam. This seems right. They seem to have inexhaustible money and munitions. In fact, the operations are getting more sophisticated and deadly.
One can get a feel for what is happening by looking at a piece in the New York Times Magazine this last week. It is ostensibly a discussion of the development of small commando units to fight the insurgents. These are primarily made up of former Baathists and led by former officers in Saddam's forces. They are not ideological: they fight for the money and because warfare is all they know. They are being advised and to some degree organized by Americans, particularly by Americans who organized similar units to fight against the communists in Central America in the 1980s. The Americans are not too squeamish about how these forces fight, then or now.
My conclusion is that a distinct subculture of institutionalized violence developed in Iraq before we arrived on the scene. The people carrying this culture today are relatively few but extremely skilled and dedicated to their way of life. Most of them decided after the Americans dismissed them from the army and revoked their pensions to fight the Americans. They are still at it, although the preferred enemy is now the system the Americans established. A few representatives of this culture have decided that life is better on the other side, so are now organizing into units to fight the insurgency. My guess is that it will be a long time before another and competing culture of violence can successfully compete with this Baathist culture. The Shiites simply do not have the staying power; it is doubtful that the Kurds, even their Pesh-Murga, have it either. An outside power cannot create the starch and ruthlessness required for success overnight.
Democracy and "what the people want" are important, but they may not be the key considerations for Iraqis who have to live alongside and among the organized killers that dominate the insurgency. We hear of the people on "our side" that they kill. I have no doubt that they also kill many on "their side", for treason, informing, or just to terrorize them. If we can entice enough of these hard-boiled men to switch to our side, then our side will eventually win. But meanwhile we may well have created an organized and committed force that will end up, after we leave, setting aside the democratic institutions that we have so laboriously established. It is a dilemma for which I do not have a solution.
One can get a feel for what is happening by looking at a piece in the New York Times Magazine this last week. It is ostensibly a discussion of the development of small commando units to fight the insurgents. These are primarily made up of former Baathists and led by former officers in Saddam's forces. They are not ideological: they fight for the money and because warfare is all they know. They are being advised and to some degree organized by Americans, particularly by Americans who organized similar units to fight against the communists in Central America in the 1980s. The Americans are not too squeamish about how these forces fight, then or now.
My conclusion is that a distinct subculture of institutionalized violence developed in Iraq before we arrived on the scene. The people carrying this culture today are relatively few but extremely skilled and dedicated to their way of life. Most of them decided after the Americans dismissed them from the army and revoked their pensions to fight the Americans. They are still at it, although the preferred enemy is now the system the Americans established. A few representatives of this culture have decided that life is better on the other side, so are now organizing into units to fight the insurgency. My guess is that it will be a long time before another and competing culture of violence can successfully compete with this Baathist culture. The Shiites simply do not have the staying power; it is doubtful that the Kurds, even their Pesh-Murga, have it either. An outside power cannot create the starch and ruthlessness required for success overnight.
Democracy and "what the people want" are important, but they may not be the key considerations for Iraqis who have to live alongside and among the organized killers that dominate the insurgency. We hear of the people on "our side" that they kill. I have no doubt that they also kill many on "their side", for treason, informing, or just to terrorize them. If we can entice enough of these hard-boiled men to switch to our side, then our side will eventually win. But meanwhile we may well have created an organized and committed force that will end up, after we leave, setting aside the democratic institutions that we have so laboriously established. It is a dilemma for which I do not have a solution.
