What Do Our Responses to the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal Say About Us?
If, as a Christian, you have found yourself explaining away or rationalizing these actions I seriously urge you to investigate your own heart - somewhere you have gone badly wrong in your understanding of Christian ethics. Let me explain my use of the term “rationalizing”: in this context it means any one of a number of sentence combinations that subtly introduce “but” between your condemnation of the actions and your justification for why it is not as bad as some are making it out to be. Too many evils in this world can be justified when moral causality is assigned to immoral actions. We would do well to refuse to partake in any discussions that do anything but seek to make this wrong right.
What Do Our Responses to the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal Say About Us?
Think of Abu-Ghraib as the meta-physical equivalent of a Rorschach ink-blot exam. Relax, be open and for the sake of the world, be honest about your first and most visceral reaction to these stories. Do you see “gray area” behavior that, while wrong, is explainable and understandable? Do you see the necessary tools of war being used to gather intelligence? Or are you disgusted that America’s argument for moral superiority has been abdicated by military men and women who should have known better?
Are you honestly horrified about bananas being used for anal sex implements, prisoners being sodomized with batons, human sex pyramids, and masturbation in front of a crowd? Do you find yourself rationalizing this behavior in any way? Perhaps even willing to point out that as bad as this is, it certainly was not as bad as the torture under Hussein’s rule? We have certainly set a low standard for ourselves if we are willing to accept Saddam Hussein’s version of prisoner human rights as that from which we are to be judged.
Why is it so hard for us to hang our heads in shame and admit that absolutely nothing about this situation is acceptable; no ifs, ands or buts about it? I am concerned less with what happened (and let me be clear on this point - I am horrified that such atrocities were allowed to happen), and more of our country’s response to these events. I am troubled by the resistance of some to be horrified at both what was done, as well as the consequences globally to American soldiers having done this. My one solace is that I am certain most Americans’ unwillingness to grasp the solemnity and seriousness of these atrocities is completely consistent with most Americans basic lack of interest in the rest of the world in general. It then goes without saying that I worry in our justification and rationalization of such events we betray our hidden prejudices common to societies not aware of the pathologies of power.
Our System Catches Wrongful Doers & Punishes Them
To deny the truth that our system caught those who perpetrated these crimes is wrong and it wrongly overlooks the fact that our system has the requirement of justice designed into it. But such reasoning is too simple minded and has little bearing in a situation like Iraq where the peace of the Middle East, and to some ominous extent the entire world, rests on wise decisions, good planning, strong execution, clear leadership and unambiguous moral authority. The fact that we caught them is misleading - for most of the world, the point that resonates is not that we caught the soldiers in these wrongdoings, but that we got caught doing these things and as such, are being forced to respond to getting caught. Debate over this point is in and of itself not helpful; it once again degenerates into a commentary on positions people have already drawn up for themselves.
It is wise to allow this story to develop without adding fuel to the fire unnecessarily. In time, it will become obvious whether or not these abuses were sporadic or wide spread. If they were wide spread it will become necessary for appropriate questions to be asked that will go up the command and control structure of the US military. As this process unfolds, it will only be then that appropriate questions can be asked about the cause of these events. If it proves that at some point in the military’s leadership structure this type of treatment was approved and condoned, it will be necessary for both these people to be held accountable for such decisions, but also to seriously question what within the military afforded such latitudes - latitudes that exist outside of international law and agreements such as the Geneva Convention. With whatever revelations come will also be a choice: either regress into vapid rationalizations or confess that our leaders have gone too far in the tools they are willing to use to secure America’s global power and security.
I have less fear about those whose response to these atrocities rests in this line of reasoning than I do with those who can not discuss these events without constructing every meaningful sentence with the use of that beautiful conjunction “but” in an attempt to link the heinous with the rationale for such action. In these cases, something as simple as sentence structure belies a deeper pathology - an unwillingness to see our actions as simply as we view those of the worlds.
What This Bodes For the Future
Few reasonable people deny that this situation bodes ominously for our future in the world. No doubt the atrocious beheading of Nicolas Berg is only the beginning of revulsions the world will be seeing and explaining to horrified children. Being a world traveler, I do fear terrorism; however, I fear much more what the systematic pursuit of America global hegemony will result in from states and institutions that fear the use and abuse of our power.
While we are all glad that our system is going to punish those that condoned and carried out these atrocities, it is troubling to me to see within our media serious dialogue about why it is OK to side step the Geneva Conventions in certain situations. This is diabolical and evil; it does nothing to negate the belief many in the world have that the US sees no reason to hold itself to the same standards the rest of the world is held to.
What few Americans understand, but what most of the world is sensitive to, is that the very fact we would seriously entertain any discussion accommodating not treating prisoners according to the basic standards of human dignity held within the Geneva Conventions shows how far gone we are in the view of our own morality. The Ann Coulter’s of the world - who after 9/11 argued for use of nuclear weapons against the anonymous “them” that had attacked us - prey on the belief that our morality is superior to the worlds and as such we can afford to play the game according to our own rules. And this is not without precedent; in fact, the current Bush administration has made this very simplistic worldview our foreign policy. “You are either with us, or you are against us,” they have reminded the world. And since we have full spectrum military and intelligence dominance, our way goes - including how we choose to read international law, global treaties and international conventions about the treatment of prisoners. I will leave it to the reader to seriously investigate in their own mind what our response would be if these pictures had been of Iraqis abusing American soldiers. No doubt Rome’s response to Carthage would have seemed quaint and pedantic after hearing the jingoistic commentary from the Sean Hannitys of the world after such an atrocity was revealed.
It takes little insight and even less intelligence to know that a sorrowful day awaits America as a result of our insolence. Where some would fundamentally disagree that our invasion of Iraq was an actualized hypothesis about America’s pursuit of global hegemony, few thinking people can deny that our willingness to accommodate and explain our military’s behavior is indicative of anything less than willful arrogance.
Today’s Conservatives Can’t Say I’m Sorry & Mean It
For those “ditto-heads” - a label I can not even begin to understand (what mindlessness does it signify to actually identify yourself as being beyond the point of proselytizing to having sacrificed your identity and ability to think for yourself at the alter of such a bombastic wind-bag of a media figure as Rush Limbaugh?) who view these images and attempt to construct an apology for the actions, I would suggest you need to seriously investigate your heart.
Limbaugh felt it appropriate to equate the torture of Iraqi men - a clear violation of international law - as being similar to that of a college fraternity initiation. What type of twisted fraternity did Limbaugh join? It makes one wonder if all his bluster about commie-pinkos and homosexuals is cover for some deviant behavior of his own. Why the need to explain it away? For Limbaugh, such an explanation is necessary because any accommodation to the immorality of US action creates a set of questions he does not wish to answer. No sense opening up that can of worms! And here again I feel compelled to ask my fellow Christians - is this who you wish to ascribe your political loyalties to? Are you confident you have seriously thought through who you stand arm-in-arm with politically? If you are willing to overlook basic issues of morality and human decency because you agree with someone’s tax policies or view of welfare reform you have lost your way in how your Christianity is to be actualized in this world.
Limbaugh’s words betray the underlying psychosis of American power: where some commentators are engaged in the delicate balance between shock and rationalization, Limbaugh sees no need to walk such a fine line. As such, his comments betray the naked visceral elements within American conservative thought. He is perfectly comfortable excusing the behavior as consistent with that of collegiate Americana. Again, in his most honest moments, he sees no need to justify or apologize - for him, this is American power being used as Americans see fit. This is, as the world agrees, American morality in action. We should not be surprised when others’ morality violates us if we are willing to excuse this type of immoral behavior.
Using the ideological calculus of the day, our response to the potential danger resulting from the over-zealous and inappropriate action of our troops engaged in should be severe. If we are willing to see over ten thousand innocent Iraqi’s killed in the name of making the world safer, nothing is too severe in our treatment of the GI’s who initiated this type of behavior. In point of fact, the world is not only less safe with our supposed “liberation” of Iraq, it is increasingly dangerous as more and more abuses of American power come forward. We must again be reminded that for many people in the world, the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib is symptomatic of broader abuses of American power. This is why a response to these soldiers similar in magnitude to our invasion of Iraq will be the only thing that has a chance of making sense to the global community.
Americans have no place being wishy-washy on this issue. Where we wanted Dr. Jocelyn Elders run out of town as surgeon general for suggesting that masturbation be taught to teenagers as a viable alternative to sexual activity, we are willing to accept that soldiers have a right to humiliate Iraqi men by forcing them to masturbate in front of a crowd. Did I miss one to many CNN “Wolf Blitzer Reports” or did General Franks promote Paul Rueubens (aka Pee-Wee Herman) from town pervert to US Army prisoner relations? How many American moralists expressed outrage at how former President Clinton’s sexual antics in the Oval Office forced them to have to explain to their families what a b-job was, but are not as enraged at the sexual violation of the Iraqi men in Abu Ghraib? I know for a fact that too many Christian conservatives were ready to run former President Clinton out on a rail but are willing to forgive American soldiers who anally raped Iraqi prisoners.
Too many armchair weekend warrior wanna-be’s have imbibed one too many Steven Seagal and Arnold Schwarnagger movies. Complex rationalizations about torture being necessary if one man holds the key to a school bus load of innocent kindergartners being blow to pieces or similar blather about the greater good are being employed to justify these heinous events. Forget the fact that most experts state that physical torture is useful only for twisted and demented people who appear to have been potty trained at gun point. Or forget the fact that these same experts confess that torture rarely produces meaningful intelligence - typically only whatever the person being tortured thinks his captor wants to hear. And trust me, I know this for sure: my Aunt Beth could tickle me so bad it was either say “Uncle” (even though she was my Aunt), or wet myself. Choosing between “Uncle” and earning the nick-name “Soppy” was not that hard of a choice to make.
If, as a Christian, you have found yourself explaining away or rationalizing these actions I seriously urge you to investigate your own heart - somewhere you have gone badly wrong in your understanding of Christian ethics. Let me explain my use of the term “rationalizing”: in this context it means any one of a number of sentence combinations that subtly introduce “but” between your condemnation of the actions and your justification for why it is not as bad as some are making it out to be. Too many evils in this world can be justified when moral causality is assigned to immoral actions. We would do well to refuse to partake in any discussions that do anything but seek to make this wrong right.
I would suggest that it is within issues such as the Abu-Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal that the heart of America’s Christians comes out: too many of us are first about America’s political hegemony, our global economic and military dominance, the absoluteness of our morality and the willingness to go very far into gray areas to protect our right to exist at the standard of living to which we have become accustomed. The day will come, both in this life and in the next, when Christians will be held accountable to God for the revulsion we should have felt and the anger we should have displayed for our willingness to accommodate such tragedy in the name of $35 chinos at Banana Republic and $1.65 gasoline.
previous post: An Atheist’s Life of Faith
next post: Is Fundamentalism the Enemy of God?
2 Responses to “What Do Our Responses to the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal Say About Us?”
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data
May 26th, 2004 at 3:02 pm
You have a simplistic approach to your subject. You seem to imply that all Christians are proud or dismissive of what happened at Abu Ghraib. Or that all Christians are ditto heads.
May 26th, 2004 at 8:02 pm
Gus:
Thank you for your comment. I do not think it is a simplistic approach, which perhaps does not need to be said as it took time to prepare the
article. However, I would suggest that only in the realm of science can we resort to the use of words like “always” and “never”; I do not believe in my article that is the point that is being made (i.e. not the broad generalization or simplistic approach you suggest). Rather, the article attempts to challenge people who, as I suggest, find themselves rationalizing these atrocities. This is why at numerous points in my
article I structure a point by the basic line of thinking “for those who feel / think” and then suggest what such a response might mean. As a
Christian, my interactions with other Christians on this issue have been alarming to me - too few share the horror of losing moral authority; hence
my article.