after May 11, 2004 meeting of Senate Foreign Intelligence comm. meeeting on Abu Graib pictures

Dear Editor of the Rome News,
I finally believe I should take the time to write to you to express my opinion on the Abu Graib prison abuse. The Army and others claim the system works, that abuse was noticed, investigated, and recommendations are already in process. I really question whether the managers of the investigation can investigate, what amounts to an investigation of themselves impartially.
If the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib is the result of only “a few�, what kind of condition could a few low level guards, and officers cook up to warrant a 6000 page report by Major General Taguba? If it is truly the result of only a few why is it still taking so long (I wrote this in 22 May 2004) to uncover and examine? According to Undersecretary for Intelligence Cambone, a report of the International Society of the Red Cross complained at least from the middle of 2003. Senator McCain asked Major General Taguba about an item in his report of “the moving of prisoners around to avoid International red Cross Inspections�. Think about it, “How could a few soldiers carry out this kind of organized deception?�
Next, look at how the Army defined the problem for Major General Taguba to investigate and implement his results. In Major General Taguba’s words, “ ..the scope of my investigation dealt principally with detention operations and not intelligence-gathering or interrogations operations.� Doesn’t common sense say that these interrogations are part of the problem. What is the end result of separating them? And so, in one of his final recommendations, “ a separate investigation be initiated under the provisions of ….concerning imporper interrogation practices in this case.� The Army would commission another investigation beginning whenever and continue for how long? Meanwhile we can pretty much see that the cats are already out of the bag and the average soldier on the front lines is going to pay for it. The bottom line is that in wartime no red blooded American should care for an enemy’s human rights. You and I assumed that if they could eventually be implicated in the September 11 2001 attack, they deserve anything we can dish out to make them talk. But we now appear to be making some unwarranted assumptions. We assumed that their arrest conditions and any intelligence (a prisoner has) is so strong that their guilt is only a matter of time. If this is true then what is the real proof of this efficiency in conviction, and the results of this intelligence? If the results are so obvious then why did both Sec. Powell and Ambassador Bremer make comments in public about both the number of people in custody and their movement through the system (being less than desirable)? As undersecretary Cambone said that the conditions in the prison were in such a disorganized condition that Gen. Miller was brought in August of 2003. And it appears that instead of conditons getting better they only got worse. Of course that depends on one’s point of view.
One of my conclusions from studying the May 11, US Senate Armed Services Committee report is that ruthlessness is being encouraged in Iraq because things aren’t going as expected. There doesn’t appear to be any human right that can stand in the way of getting those directly or indirectly responsible for the attack of September 11. This has become a basic motivation to cut through basic protections of basic human rights that brought about the Geneva Conventions. In times like this we should appreciate the wisdom of our founding fathers in civilian oversight of the military. But what happens when both are blinded by revenge?

Assumptions are great protection

I"Thursday, September 16, 2004

Someone pointed out to me today that we have 24,000 injured soldiers and 1,000 killed in Iraq,We had 50,000 injured and 3,000 killed in one day here in America. The choice is between war and something worse.It's not a coincidence there have been no attacks here while we've been on the offensive in Iraq; the war is sucking terrorists into a kill-hole. Many go home maimed or having lost their taste for jihad.The only way to end the threat permanently is to democratize the Middle East. You can bitch about the neocons if you want, but the fact is no one else even has a plan to end terrorism. " another blogger

It is interesting how we, have our own assumed definitions of the words we use, which we expect are shared assumptions. And to maintain the logic of our communication, we generously forgive ourselves of our mistakes while holding others to a much stricter standard.(by the way nothing original here, a crude paraphrasing of A.N. Whitehead, "Process and Reality",p6 the paragraph, he is defining the concept of coherence, begins " The requirement of coherence is the great preservative of rationalistic sanity."
Your posting is a case in making my point.The "only way" to "end" the "threat" "permanently" is to "democratize" the "Middle East." As you can count here are 6 concept words which you string together. Any one of these concepts by itself would be the subject of a lengthy discussion. there are a number of cultural, and probably personal assumptions you have made that you probably are not aware of. I am somewhat awed by this kind of conclusion of a thinking process about such a complex situation as the one in Iraq. I have difficulty imagining this kind of English communication outside of your "world". You may think I am being sarcastic or arrogant, etc. but that isn't the case. We, people who live outside the US, are spectators while people with probably similar assumptions, using the same English language, studied since the days of the British Empire, are helpless against the physical and economic force behind the assumptions you have made here. We are powerless because the assumptions are between the lines! They don't appear in the text of your message! (only in your head) AND the neat advantage for "you" (you plural) is that no one can claim to know what is in your head! You can either tell the truth or lie. No one knows for sure. Your communication with people outside your world the world that shares your hidden assumptions, is built on "trust".
And how much "trust", generally speaking, do you think we can find evidence of in, for example, Iraq, a place of conflicting political strategies, and cultural values, and social expressions. remember this place isn't only US vs "terrorists", but it is Sunni vs Shia, and Kurd vs Shia, and the haves within the tribe of Hussein's country area vs other Sunni areas, and Bagdad vs south Iraq, and minorities vs Shia & Sunni, and outside influences vs internal nationalists, and ??? please tell me if I have left anyone out. What sort of currency that isn't from the barrel of a gun is the US able to provide? YOu may say, "there is $12 billion dollars of free money that would make Iraq a paradice for everyone only if......" But you know what the activists say to answer this, they say, "We don't want your filthy money, we prefer to do it ourselves, etc." So what should the US do? What is the natural reaction to such "taunts". It is to bash the MF over the head a few times, isn't it? And what, from your knowledge of history has that accomplished when the agent is the US? Again go back to Vietnam. Cultural insensitivity and trying to reduce complex situations down to US vs "them" because we don't have enough manpower to go into these complex situations and intervene with a message in their language expressed in their value system, etc. You know about this shortage from the news about translators having to stay in the Colonel's house to translate the interaction with the maids rather than helping in the local area commander's meetings with tribal council meetings, and belive me, one translator isn't enough....why,,,,,again that little word "trust". The Arabs have a proverb, to paraphrase because I'm not going to stop and research this, "You may wear my brother's clothes, and smell like my brother, but if I can't close my eyes and touch your face...Who are you?" You can have a translator speaking the language but if the words coming out of the the translator's mouth carry so many hidden assumptions...what is the eventual outcome of it all? It will probably be reduced to who is stronger, tougher meaner..... Just like our days on the school playground. In this, the Arabs and the Americans understand each other...this is the meeting point.. When we both think the other person is lying, the proof is in who has more physical/mental determination.
"PHYSICAL and Mental determination". Are you familiar with Bushido? I realize this isn't American culture, but so many Americans come "here" because they are attracted to Bushido. Have you read much of it? I would guess that you think it has a similar American mirror in some aspects of America's history. And finally you might say that ultimately the culture that relied on it was defeated...well Bushido can't teach a man to flap his arms and fly like a bird...however the Japanese came "awfully awfully" close. I put the words "awfull" in quotes because a society built on bushido as it was practiced in Japan, rather than as it reads from a library book is a really different critter. So what I gather is that "our" president is relying on Bushy-do (I couldn't resist that. In other words success is simply a question of who has the tougher mental/physical determination...again go back to Vietnam and read the similar kinds of assumptions to what Johnson, Kissinger, (BUT NOT McNanamara!) Nixon were saying.... Well, in this case, I'm certainly glad I don't have a son or daughter to send to Iraq. How many people will it take to kill on both sides before the bushido will retreat...everyone has his line in the sand where he or she has absorbed enough harm to finally come to the negotiation table....let7s use Northern Ireland and GB if you don't like the comparions with Vietnam. ...or the Basque and Spanish, or Israel and Palestine....I did like one comment from Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911, where he interviewed members of congress to ask if they would seriously consider sending their son or daughter to Iraq. the minorites and the probably "poor" have a disproportionate representation in the people who have died ON BOTH SIDES. But you never know, the National guards that have to go over and serve probably help bring the grief home to the middle class... that helped end the Vietnam War. I don't think it was until those members of congress heard from their voters, the American Middle Class, that bringing a conclusion of the war had any muscle. Giving the credit to the Hippies of the 60s was always a misinterpretation of the way "democracy" works.And this gets on to your use of the word "democracy". what do you mean by that. You are aware of the Greek interpretation of who could vote and who couldn't vote,aren't you. And please, before we begin this discussion on the meaning of democracy, I don't mean the dictionary or legal meaning, I mean the sociological meaning of what actually happens in US recent elections of the past...10 years lets say, that is who actually votes, why they vote and what they are motivated by to believe when they vote. FROM THIS DEFINITION of what is happening in American politics lets talk about "democratization" of Iraq.