| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| NYT: Abu Ghraib MPs Chronic Discipline Problems |
| 2004-05-27 |
| Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters takes a look at a NYT report on the Abu Ghraib abusers and notices something: I have repeatedly asserted that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses resulted from a lack of discipline in the unit and the command, not from some sort of insidious conspiracy to humiliate Iraqis. Now the New York Times reports this morning that three of the seven soldiers involved in the abuse scandal had long histories of poor discipline, including Spec. Charles Graner, considered to be the ringleader: In the six months leading up to the investigation of prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, three of the seven soldiers now charged with abuse repeatedly committed infractions and disobeyed orders but received only the mildest of punishments. *snip* People laugh at military discipline, or worse, consider it some sort of fascistic spectacle which undermines democracy. Abu Ghraib, hopefully, will put that fantasy to rest. The military (regardless of nationality) controls great force and when applied in battle condition can hold the power of life and death, not only against the enemy but with anyone in its vicinity and with each other. In order to effectively control that power so that it is used properly and as intended by political and military command, military units must remained highly disciplined and trained to respond without hesitation. When a "Casual Fridays" mentality is allowed to seep into fighting units, you inevitably see breakdowns such as this, with usually disastrous results. (See France, 1939-40, for one example of what happens when discipline breaks down.) Military command must, as Job 1, maintain proper discipline in order to keep people from perverting their authority into disgusting spectacles like we have seen at Abu Ghraib. Without a doubt, this embarrassment started with a lackadaisacal approach to order which seems to have started at the command level of Abu Ghraib, where offences were lightly punished, if at all, and the crispness of military decorum was discarded in favor of putting one’s feet up and taking it easy. Another nail in coffin of all the theories about policy leading to the abuse, IMHO. |
| Posted by:Robert Crawford |
| #6 Normally, a poor discipline record will disqualify you from some types of duty. It would be good to add a guard qualification process that includes psychological testing. There certainly exists a group of twisted juveniles in America that consider feces and sodomy to be acceptable forms of hazing - we've seen plenty of incidents with regard to high school sports in the last several years. It would be an excellent idea to exclude them from military service altogether, but they should especially be excluded from supervision of detainees, who have little defense against guards. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-27 11:00:16 PM |
| #5 Captain's Quarters' analysis is dead on. The picture developing is of a few miscreants whose immediate superiors were too lazy or weak to discipline them. Graner et al. found themselves in a situation where they had absolute power, and inadequate supervision. The result isn't that surprising. Graner especially sounds like a loose cannon. His ex had to get a restraining order (or something?). |
| Posted by: Sludj 2004-05-27 6:42:28 PM |
| #4 Guys, please, don't complain about this. After about a month of hand-wringing about the situation, they actually saw fit to publish actual details about the recent record of the unit under investigation. (And if y'all will remember, I was pointing out stuff like this here last week. Or was it the week before? I forget... but you get the point.) |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-05-27 6:09:00 PM |
| #3 Well, once again the idiots at the NYT a beating a dead story to a pulp. Way to go NYT! Best. Birdcage Liner. Ever. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-05-27 6:05:39 PM |
| #2 Most interesting Dept: That a known "requires constant supervision" crowd wasn't being supervised. I still remember my first reaction when this story broke. "Where was the adult supervision?" |
| Posted by: Anonymous4904 2004-05-27 5:40:00 PM |
| #1 Another nail in coffin of all the theories about policy leading to the abuse, IMHO. Any particular reason why the NYT felt it had to print up another Abu Ghraib piece? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-27 5:01:56 PM |