« Who you gonna believe? This ... | Main | Hillary shows Darrell the money »
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Lindsey walks right into it
Not to stir up another round of "you're a coward;" "no, you are," but this was an interesting tidbit in The Washington Post yesterday:
Some Loaded Comments at 'Abu Ghraib' Screening
When the lights go up after most documentary screenings, you usually can expect a politely snoozy lovefest at the "panel discussion to follow." So the folks who turned out for the preview of HBO's "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" at the Ronald Reagan Building last night were unusually lucky.
Among the VIPs on hand to discuss the Rory Kennedy project (set to air Feb. 22) were Uncle Ted Kennedy and Sen. Lindsey Graham. The latter livened things up in a big way when he denounced Army Col. Janis Karpinski, who was demoted from brigadier general after the prison torture scandal.
"Karpinski should have been court-martialed," said the South Carolina Republican, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "She was not a good commander."
Awkward! For who was in the audience but Karpinski herself. "I consider you as cowardly as [Lt. Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez or [Donald] Rumsfeld or [former Guantanamo Bay commander Geoffrey] Miller," she shot back. "You're saying I should be court-martialed -- they didn't want me in a courtroom because I would tell" the truth. Graham sputtered clumsily until moderator Jeffrey Toobin jumped in.
Afterward, Karpinski told our colleague Michael Cavna: "Ninety-nine percent of the story is still covered up. . . . Miller and Sanchez and Rumsfeld should be in those cells" with the Army guards who were found guilty.
Maybe Lindsey Graham has gotten a little too accustomed to speaking frankly on "Meet the Press," and neglected to consider the possibility that at a live speaking event, the person you're talking about just might be there.
I don't know who's right here (although I've always blamed Rumsfeld), but I know I don't want to make Col. Karpinski mad at me. I'm just going by her pictures (although she is smiling in this one, bless her heart). She looks like somebody you'd rather have on your side, or just avoid. Perhaps that's her misfortune; her rather severe habitual expression makes her a convenient scapegoat (the "evil lady torturer" from Central Casting). Or perhaps she's just as culpable as Miller and Sanchez and Rumsfeld and the Army guards who were convicted. There were probably no angels anywhere near the situation.
I just don't know. But it would have been interesting, and perhaps enlightening, to have her testify.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 11:40 AM in Civility, Crime and Punishment, Feedback, Iraq, Military, Rule of Law, The Nation, The World, War and Peace
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00d834e3b68c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lindsey walks right into it:
Comments
Every married man has seen that look at one time or another in their life... :-)
The question is, when will she retire so she can write the book?
Posted by: Doug | Feb 14, 2007 12:28:11 PM
Heh, heh.
I hope that there's You Tube video of Li'l Lindsay holding his head.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Feb 14, 2007 1:04:31 PM
Suprised Kaprinski did not inquire about Lindsey's views on "Don't ask, don't tell"
Posted by: Oliver Stone | Feb 14, 2007 1:59:24 PM
These people are heavily invested in their "side" of the story. They all have money, power and ego riding on these affairs, and I don't put it past ANY of them to shade the truth in their favor.
They are all politicians....even the Wicked Witch...and the truth is not friendly to them.
None of them are above stepping on the “grunts on the ground” in order to promote themselves.
Chris
RE: Oliver....OUCh, and I mean, OuCH!
Posted by: ChrisWhite | Feb 14, 2007 2:09:59 PM
I'm glad Brad brought up the Abu Ghraib incident. It underscores how atrocious warfare is and always will be. And that's why whenever we go to war we know, in advance, that the cost will be very high. So we have to weigh the known high cost against whatever benefits are likely to result. The specifics of who is to blame is a somewhat minor point. By going to war in the first place atrocious incidents were inevitable.
In the case of Iraq the expected benefits were to rid the nation of an evil dictator and perhaps improve the well being of the Iraqi people. That is what I expected to occur and even with that expectation I opposed the war. (I never believed for one second it would actually make the American people safer. That was all a bunch of scare talk.) The expected cost of the war, simply put, exceeded the expected benefits.
But as we now know the expected benefits (even the modest benefits I thought would accrue) never materialized. But the costs certainly did. Abu Ghraib incidents occur in all wars so this is really of no particular surprise. It's simply what happens in war. As they say, stuff happens.
But I'm afraid that many conservatives simply cannot grasp the essential point that wars have costs. Even wars that eventually succeed. Brad brings up Abu Ghraib for an entirely different purpose. Yet it serves to remind us yet again that wars have cost, sometimes those costs are not worth bearing even if we win.
Posted by: bud | Feb 14, 2007 2:34:42 PM
The logical conclusion to my previous post is that everyone who supported the war is responsible for Abh Ghraib.
Posted by: bud | Feb 14, 2007 2:37:52 PM
Bud.
That is ridiculous.
Chris
PS... I make it a point not to discuss the war, as so much of what I hear is utter claptrap. But you refined your post, and were clear in your conclusion. So I commented.
PS
Posted by: ChrisWhite | Feb 14, 2007 2:56:52 PM
No, bud's right. Actions have consequences. Abu Ghraib is a consequence -- although far from being an arbitrary one -- of invading Iraq. No question about it. All you can do is your very best to prevent it, and punish those responsible -- from the PFC to the SecDef -- when in happens in spite of your best efforts.
There were GIs who made a practice of shooting Germans who tried to surrender in 1944-45. Not that many, but some. Their buddies tended to know who they were, and tried to keep them away from the prisoners. A well-known case of this -- thanks to the book and TV series, "Band of Brothers" -- is that of Joseph Liebgott, a paratrooper in the 101st who was known to have such proclivities. Liebgott, who was Jewish and probably figured many of the Germans would happily do the same to him, required special handling. Once in Holland, when his captain sent him to the rear in charge of some prisoners because he was wounded, he was stripped -- in front of the prisoners -- of all but one cartridge for his M1 carbine. It was understood by all that if he shot one prisoner, the rest would be free to jump him. It worked, that day. But in at least one subsequent case, he shot a German he had been sent to capture.
A license to kill -- particularly to kill someone who just killed, or tried to kill, your buddies, or you, or your entire demographic group -- can corrupt. And war provides a license to kill. One of the things that is particularly despicable about Abu Ghraib, however, is that it did not occur in the heat of battle, or just after. Those prisoners were not a present danger. There aren't even decent excuses for it, much less acceptable reasons.
Now, having agreed with bud about that, I must DISagree "that many conservatives simply cannot grasp the essential point that wars have costs." Conservatives DO understand that. That's why true conservatives opposed the Iraq war. Waging war is a most unconservative thing to do, no matter how many pro-war people may call themselves "conservative."
As Solozzo said in The Godfather, blood is a big expense. It's very upsetting to the social order. Worst of all, in conservative terms, it's risky.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Feb 14, 2007 4:52:26 PM
Buds point is so broad as to render it pointless.
Example: A woman chooses not to have an abortion. The kid gets killed in car wreck at age 30….it’s the moms fault. Err…well, no. These are two unrelated events.
I did not support the war, and I do not support the war. But having said that a war for liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam does not lend responsibility to what unforeseen crimes may occur.
The logical extension of Bud’s argument is that everyone should do nothing. Then all will be perfect in the world.
Abu Ghraib was not a logical extension of the decision of war. It has been exploited to meet the ends of anyone opposing the war. But that does not mean it was a necessary outcome.
Posted by: chris | Feb 14, 2007 5:02:42 PM
I have a pastor friend in Germany who was about 12 years old (but big for his age, and could have easily been taken for an adult man) towards the end of the war in the spring of '45. American soldiers came into his village, and when he saw them, in his panic he started running. The soldiers yelled at him to stop, but he was too scared--and he is very glad today that they didn't shoot him on the spot. Thankfully at least some--maybe most?--of our people think first before they shoot!
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Feb 14, 2007 5:37:44 PM
Herb,
Thanks for the consider comment. Most Americans are good and honorable people. Bad things can happen, but they are the exception and not the rule.
I never supported this war. But those American men and women serving in our armed forces are, without a doubt, the best there has ever been. And I, for one, wish they were home right now. Given the pen of authority I would have them home or out of harms way in 30 days...every one of them.
Chris
Posted by: ChrisWhite | Feb 14, 2007 7:31:13 PM
"But I'm afraid that many conservatives simply cannot grasp the essential point that wars have costs. Even wars that eventually succeed."
I'm afraid that many liberals cannot grasp the essential point that not going to war can have even greater costs. Even wars that "failed".
Nobody but truly sick people *WANT* to go to war but there are times when we have no choice. By not standing up to our enemies' provocations and acts of war we only encourage them to do much worse down the road.
Posted by: LexWolf | Feb 15, 2007 1:10:17 AM
There are times when we HAVE a choice.
Posted by: Randy Ewart | Feb 15, 2007 2:26:46 AM
We ALWAYS have a choice.
We can choose to turn the proverbial cheek, or we can choose to stand and fight back.
We can choose to intervene and defend the helpless from slaughter, or we can choose to stand and watch.
The debate is one of the costs versus the benefit, not one of having no "choice" but to act or not.
As bud said, "In the case of Iraq the expected benefits were to rid the nation of an evil dictator and perhaps improve the well being of the Iraqi people." His conclusion, "The expected cost of the war, ...exceeded the expected benefits" was the end to one of the most straight forward, rational statements of opposition to the start of the war that has been posted here (or anywhere else, for that matter).
(Unfortunately his statement was diminished by his follow up post.)
However, the action has been taken, Sadam was overthrown, and Iraq is now in turmoil, the battleground for a surrogate war between Sunni and Shia extremists in the region. The intervention of a future nuclear Iran and Putin's visit to Saudi Arabia with offers of nuclear technology are but one small example of the broader context that the war should be viewed in. Debate over the correctness of the initial decision to go to war in Iraq is now academic (in most contexts).
The question and debate should now be what should we choose to do and what will be the costs of that action. What will the consequences be if we choose to withdraw from Iraq and what might be the benefits of continued intervention? Is, the price too high for the hoped for benefits?
Finally, to get back to the topic of the initial post:
Speaking as a professional soldier for my entire adult life, I can say that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a failure of the chain of command and not some sinister plot. It was the act of ill disciplined, poorly led troops who allowed their personal fetishes to overrule their professionalism and training.
If Col. Karpinski was half the leader she claims to be, she (and all the commissioned officers below her) would have resigned her commission knowing full well that she was derelict in her duty and recognizing the grave damage that dereliction caused to our country and the men and women who serve it honorably. She should be hiding in shame instead of allowing herself to be used in public as a political pawn and personally profiting from her shameful career.
Posted by: SGM (ret.) | Feb 15, 2007 6:39:44 AM
Proponents of the invasion of Iraq refuse to acknowledge the evidence:
(1) Saddam had no role in 9/11.
(2) Saddam presented no threat to the U.S.
(3) Saddam was the least of many, many bit supporting players in international terrorism.
(4) Saddam was just one of many ruthless, evil dictators in the world.
(5) Saddam's WMD programs were shells.
(6) Our professionally produced intel did NOT support invading Iraq. (Only Feith's cherry picked intel buttressed with single-source unreliable intel supported invading.)
(7) Saddam's conventional forces were no threat even to his neighbors.
The U.S. had a choice.
We could have pursued AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan until we destroyed the leadership. We could have concentrated on rooting out the tentacles via para-military strikes or espionage. We could have waged public relations campaigns to win the moderate Muslims to our side. We could have begun economic and educational programs to make the ground less fertile for radical Islam.
Instead the neo-cons used fraud to whip up fear and invade Iraq-- just as they'd wanted to do since the early 1990s and the Project for the New American Century. We've wasted our military might in Iraq and tied ourselves down to a no-win civil war. We've alienated most of the world-- especially the Muslim world.
The benefit of NOT invading Iraq would have been retaining an armed forces that could have been used more judiciously. Over 3,000 Americans would be alive and tens of thousands wouldn't have been wounded. We could have "finished the job" in Afghanistan. We might have international support to take on Somalia-- another failed state terrorist breeding ground.
The sole benefit of invading Iraq? Deposing a vicious dictator who was a danger mostly to his own people.
This war isn't just a "failure." It was a mistake from the beginning.
What should we do now? Create a tripartite confederation. Patrol the borders for a year. Encourage the U.N. to insert a peacekeeping force. Withdraw entirely within a year (unless the Kurds offer us a base in Kurdistan). Let the Shia and Sunnis settle their differences.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Feb 15, 2007 9:36:30 AM
And Saddam actually held radical Muslims in check, since he had nothing but contempt for religion in general. But the deed is done, the question is, what do we do now, and is RTH right? Maybe. I certainly wish we could focus on Afghanistan.
And Chris, I've got more stories like that. Like the American soldiers who brought a friend's father's watch back. The Soviet soldiers had looted everything they could find, but when they retreated, the Americans brought back a lot of stuff, and asked German families, "did this belong to you?" I'm sure that didn't happen very often (how would you find the families, anyway?), but it did in this case. My friend, who watched his father's amazement and joy at getting a family heirloom back, never forgot what he saw. Despite some bad people, our military has also at times spread a lot of good will.
Then there's an elderly lady acquaintance who thinks Hershey's chocolate is the best in the world, because that's the first chocolate she ever had. She was just a little kid, escaping the Russian front from East Prussia in a horse-drawn wagon, when they crossed into Bavaria and ran into some American soldiers.
Maybe chocolate can be a message of good will, too.
I lived in Europe for nearly thirty years, and in spite of it, my favorite is still Hershey's chocolate almond bars--if it only weren't for the calories!
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Feb 15, 2007 10:29:55 AM
Recap:
The Iraq war was a disaster waiting to happen. There were predictable and very high expected costs. The expected benefits were few. The premises for going in were false. The same people have prepared a new plan for new tactics. These tactics are little different from the old tactics. Yet those who oppose these tactics are branded as cowards who are undermining the troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy (whoever the enemy is).
UNBELEIVABLE
Posted by: bud | Feb 15, 2007 10:34:18 AM
We may "have a choice" at all times but not necessarily a better choice. Often the only choice we have is between bad, worse and horrendous. IMO that is what we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush made the least bad choice.
Posted by: LexWolf | Feb 15, 2007 12:49:57 PM
So, Herb poses the question, “What do we do now, and is RTH right?”
RTH proposes that we: “Create a tripartite confederation. Patrol the borders for a year. Encourage the U.N. to insert a peacekeeping force. Withdraw entirely within a year (unless the Kurds offer us a base in Kurdistan). Let the Shia and Sunnis settle their differences.” All are serious suggestions.
For the first, I’m not sure the “tripartite confederation” is clear enough. Who exactly are we talking about here? I’m not sure.
What is clear, I think, is that there is not nearly enough participation in creating a solution by those countries that have either direct regional interests or that have sufficient political and economic pull to sway matters in the area.
Of those in the first category, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States (and we should probably include Jordan and Egypt, as well) certainly have direct, national interests in a stable Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf, as they would say). They also have the political, propaganda (Al Jazzera), military and economic power to either impose a solution or sway events towards peace. However, they should be understood in the context of their dependence on Sunni fundamentalists.
All of the Gulf monarchies are legitimized in their rule by Sunni clerics, who, in turn, are supported, licensed and paid by the monarchies. A stable, pseudo-democratic Iraq is a direct threat to their long term legitimacy and power.
The other regional power player is Iran which has a similar (in form, if not exact nature) parasitic relationship with its own Shia clerics. A stable, pseudo-democratic Iraq is also a direct threat to the Iranian government’s continued power.
Additionally, it is now in Iran’s benefit that the situation in Iran is chaotic and unstable. Iran’s long term goal is economic and religious domination of the Persian Gulf, backed up with nuclear weapons. The longer the US is tied up in Iraq, the longer they have to achieve their nuclear goals and establish an unassailable position. (It’s worth noting that the Iranians see this as establishing a "balance of power" against the Sunni Gulf States rather than domination.)
The best bet for a long term, peaceful solution in Iraq is certainly the involvement of the Gulf region powers, but it seems unlikely without a major diplomatic push by the US and with support from other international players.
Patrolling the Iraqi borders for a year is certainly a good idea if the intent is to prevent outside influence in Iraq (especially Shia support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah). (Although, in fact, this is now being done at a pretty intense level and increasing the border presence would require more US troops.)
However, the Sunni support provided by moneyed interests from the Arab Gulf states is mostly in the form of funding and “blind eye” safe havens. Again, extreme political pressure on our regional allies is required.
I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in a hot place of getting UN peacekeeping forces involved given the total lack of support for the US’s troubles, vis-à-vis Iraq, by our other international allies. Simply put, for those countries that have to deal with domestic politics (France, Germany, etc), there is absolutely no public support for such a commitment. For Russia and China, where domestic support is not such an issue, the economics probably preclude any help here.
Of the other major international power players, all except Britain, either have no reason to lend their weight to helping us (the US) solve a problem of our own making, or they have specific economic disincentives to involvement. For example, the Russians, the Chinese and the French all have serious economic ties to Iran and none are willing to jeopardize those interests in order to pressure the Iranians to use Iranian influence in Iraq towards peace. Russia sees the Gulf states as a lucrative market for nuclear technologies which the Arabs want to offset the Iranians.
A timely (one year) US withdrawal will almost certainly lead to the last suggestion, which is, let the Sunnis and Shia fight it out. This would pretty much be the situation as it is now, only at a much higher level of violence. I believe that the current civil war (and that is what it is) is a really surrogate battle between the Gulf Arab states (Saudi Arabia, in particular) and Iran. This is the reason that no matter what we try, it seems as if no progress can be made.
If left to its natural conclusion, within six months to a year of the US withdrawing, the Shia will be the victors, and al Sadr will be the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. The Shia will take vengeance for the decades of Sunni oppression, and the slaughter will be comparable to Saddam’s worst. The Kurds will attempt autonomy in the north, but will largely be unsuccessful. The Saudis will continue to fund and support a Sunni guerilla war inside the country, and so there will continue to be low to moderate levels of violence until the last Sunnis are dead or driven out.
The end result of this will be an Iranian dominated Persian Gulf with Iraq as a theocratic Shia satellite, and Russia selling nuclear technology to the Saudis who will pursue their own “Arab” bomb.
I believe that the only realistic chance for stability and peace in Iraq lies in militarily maintaining the status quo while diplomatically forcing intensive intervention in Iraq by the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia in particular, with a secondary diplomatic effort aimed at reducing Iranian involvement. This secondary effort has to be led by the other major international players, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China.
A key to creating this pressure is to get the Russians to back off their offers of nuclear technology to the Gulf states and making it clear to them that the result of a failure to bring the Iraqis to peace is Iranian dominantion of the region.
Unfortunately, given the divergent national interests of all involved, this has about the same chance of happening as forcing the Israelis and Palestinians to come to peace. Not to mention the impossibility of achieving any consensus in the US (because of divergent political party interests) for both maintaining our occupation while ramping up diplomatic efforts to historic levels.
Posted by: SGM (ret.) | Feb 15, 2007 1:31:00 PM
SGM,
Great post. A well-argued perspective and helpful to those like me who have much to learn about the historic conflict in which we find ourselves mired.
Posted by: Paul DeMarco | Feb 16, 2007 7:22:52 AM
Paul, you still have just as much to learn after reading that as you did before. For example, Iran does not have an advantage in a chaotic Iraq. And what is this "historic conflict in which we find ourselves mired"? Last I heard, it was us who invaded.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Feb 16, 2007 9:20:42 AM
Oh yeah, and this:
"For example, the Russians, the Chinese and the French all have serious economic ties to Iran and none are willing to jeopardize those interests in order to pressure the Iranians to use Iranian influence in Iraq towards peace."
turns a blind eye to what is actually going on. The Iranians and Syrians don't actually NEED to be "pressured" to use their influence to help stabilize Iraq. Iran was all ready to help us out in 2001, and then that idiotic "axis of evil" speech really kicked the supports out from under the people who wanted to smooth relations with the U.S. In 2003, they made specific overtures to help out in Iraq, and these overtures were REJECTED by the United Sates. The Iraq Study Group recommended doing everythig we could to get Iran and Syria to help out. But Bush rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendations in favor of the insane "surge" strategy.
The issue isn't that other countries won't help out. It isn't that they're hostile to us, or that they're taking the view that we made our bed, we can sleep in it. That's true, but their own self-interest suggests that they should do whatever they can. The issue is that Bush WILL NOT do anything constructive. Iran CAN'T make any overtures toward stabilizing the situation in Iraq so long as Bush is constantly threatening war against them. Other countries can't help either, because Bush essentially governs by tantrum, by doing the opposite of whatever is recommended to him.
Some of SGM's points were valid, some were not, but none of them come anywhere close to addressing the situation in Iraq, which is that Bush sees himself as some sort of epochal figure, rather than what he really is, and spurns the help that he would receive if he asked for it, or even showed signs that he would accept it.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Feb 16, 2007 10:56:23 AM
Mary's right. The president is the problem and can't be a part of the solution to the Iraq fiasco or any other foreign policy issue. Sadly the best we can hope for is to keep this dangerous man in check for the next 2 years to prevent our foreign policy from deteriorating further. True progress is going to have to wait until 2009.
Posted by: bud | Feb 16, 2007 11:14:16 AM
Did anybody see Bush's bizarre press conference where he tried to pre-sell attacking Iran?
Can you believe that we're paying people (and, incidentally, entrusting them with the security of the country) who can't come up with any better rationale for blowing up the Middle East than "Which would be worse: the Iranian government knowing that they were supplying arms to attack Americans or NOT knowing it?"
And, then there was Bush's patented denigrating "humor." The message is always the same: "I'm the President and you're not so quit gettin' above yourself." Lame-o.
Most Americans have a high resistance to believing that the President and his administration are so totally incompetent. Most Americans don't pay close enough attention. To feel safe they have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. They have to believe that the Bushies wouldn't wage a totally unnecessary war of aggression and sacrifice American lives and billions of tax dollars in a hopeless mess.
Fortunately, Bush is so unbelievably careless, clueless, and arrogant that he seems to be capable of overcoming the need for a strong leader generated by fear mongering after 9/11.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Feb 16, 2007 12:50:46 PM
America see the rest of the world as allies...and that a "rising tide floats all boats". When the world becomes safer and richer we become safer and richer.
The Russians, Indians, Chinese, French, etc...see the fall of America as a fundamental step in increasing their power and prestige. It is in their interest to see America stuck in Iraq for as long as possible, then to fail. This is leading to the fundamental rearrangement of the world, and it will not be pleasant.
Posted by: chris | Feb 16, 2007 1:04:04 PM
