« A CIA Connection? | Home | What's New... »

How Rummy Greenlighted Abu Ghraib

user-pic

Yesterday's press conference with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and JCS Chief General Peter "Perfect" Pace gave us some insight into why Abu Ghraib could occur and how Rumsfeld's lack of leadership allowed such reprehensible behavior by U.S. troops.


Look what happened when Rumsfeld and General Pace were asked about the obligation of U.S. commanders to deal with evidence of inhumane treatment:  

QUESTION: Sir, taking on his question a bit -- and I can give you actual examples from coalition forces who talked to me when I was over there about excesses of the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Defense; and that is in dealing with prisoners or in arresting people and how they're treated after they're arrested -- what are the obligations and what are the rights of U.S. military over there in dealing with that?


RUMSFELD: . . . . Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of. However, we do have a responsibility to say so and to make sure that the training is proper and to work with the sovereign officials so that they understand the damage that can be done to them in the event some of these allegations prove to be true."

QUESTION: And, General Pace, what guidance do you have for your military commanders over there as to what to do if -- like when General Horst found this Interior Ministry jail?

PACE: It is absolutely responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it. . . .

RUMSFELD: I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it, it's to report it.

PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

There you have it.  A Secretary of Defense who believes that U.S. soldiers have no obligation to do anything other than file a report if they encounter torture or other inhumane treatment.

General Pace's public slap down was a remarkable moment.  He signaled very clearly that a limit of the U.S. military's cooperation with civilian leadership in the war in Iraq has been reached, at least on the issue of torture.  Up to this point he has been willing to back up Rummy's claim that troop training is going swell, despite evidence to the contrary.  But on the issue of torture and abuse he drew a public line in the sand.  U.S. soldiers and Marines have an obligation, a duty, to stop inhumane treatment regardless of who is doing it.  General Pace understands, whereas Rummy is clueless, that once that line is crossed the military's ability to maintain public support would be in jeopardy.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that Rummy's attitude that there is no obligation to stop inhumane treatment was clearly conveyed to U.S. soldiers in the first days in Iraq.  Unfortunately, those Generals in charge at that time, such as General Sanchez, did not have the guts and the spine to stand up to Rummy and let him know that U.S. troops will not tolerate nor engage in inhumane treatment.  This is a hopeful sign.  Maybe more Generals are coming to understand that the future of the Army is at stake.


13 Comments

| Leave a comment

I expect to see General Pace "retired" by the end of the year.

RUMSFELD: . . . . Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of.

This is blatantly contradictory to other statements made by Rumsfeld. The only reason we are in Iraq is because of things we said they did that we didn't approve of (WMD, collaboration with terrorists, abuse of their citizens, etc.). Sounds like we've had a subtle policy shift?




LMAO...I love it!!!  It takes a marine as chairman of the joint chiefs to bitch slap Rummy.  It will be difficult for the administration to dispute what Gen Pace said.  Is this a sign of a military coup?  It was insubordination...rightly so...but clearly insubordinate.  I don't think Pace will go...to make that stand he had to have almost complete support of the other top generals and admirals.  If anybody goes Rummy will be shown the door...

I can imagine Rumsfeld walking through Central Park:

"Help! I'm being mugged!"

"Don't worry! I'll inform the appropriate authorities immediately!"

Has Rumsfeld divorced himself entirely from ordinary human morality?

It was a beautiful thing, to see someone in uniform tell Rummy

that he was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that he should just shut 

the F*** UP!  Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Rumsfeld's ego

is so bulletproof that he will tell himself that the whole episode

never even happened. What is that guy taking anyway? He is

a hundred years old, hasn't slept or loosened his tie in three 

years, and still steps up every day to explain to anyone who will

listen that he is the smartest guy in the world, all evidence to

the contrary notwithstanding. It just ain't natural! I'm thinking  a

new vitamin-amphetamine-hormone blend that really rocks! 

Ugh6, you beat me to the punch.  We can look for Gen. Pace's "early retirement".


To add fuel to the fire, there's this:  


"This is a group of people who don't merit the word `insurgency,' I think," Rumsfeld said Tuesday at a Pentagon news conference. He said the thought had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend.


"It was an epiphany."


....


Even Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stood beside Rumsfeld at the news conference, found it impossible to describe the fighting in Iraq without twice using the term `insurgent.'


After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, "I have to use the word `insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now."


No good deed goes unpunished with the Bush administration.


 

I would just point out that although it was satifying to see Rummy get slapped down by a Marine general on the issue of what Americans should do when they see abuse by Iraqis, we should not absolve the military from responsibility for the abuses that were perpetrated by Americans.




There's a tendency to assume that the military was an innocent bystander when these abuses occurred and that full responsibility rests with the civilian leadership. That's nuts. While the policy and the legal justifications may have originated with the civilian leadership, the military failed to push back and demand a more humane detainee policy. In a number of other areas, Rumsfeld responded to resistance from the military by changing his plans. In addition, the fact is that many officers were only too eager to carry out the policy of abuse. The number of instances of officers or soldiers refusing to carry out such policies is painfully small. No one forced anyone to "waterboard" prisoners or use electric probes, or any of the other horrors that have so besmirched the honor of the US. We condemn the Nazis, communists or others throughout history who have tried to evade responsibility for heinous actions by saying, "I was just following orders." It shouldn't be any different in this case. People have a duty to refuse to carry out immoral orders.

Good for General Pace.

Not quite as stylish though as the stand of Brevet-Major James Wolfe against the Duke of Cumberland after Culloden in 1746. When ordered to shoot a wounded rebel Highlander, Wolfe's reported answer was that his commission was at the disposal of the Duke but not his honour. Wolfe is in a way an American hero too: for his decisive victory at Quebec over the French army in 1759 was an important step on the path to American independence, as it removed the threat that tied the thirteen colonies to Britain's protection.

Now do I have this straight - at least one of the reasons Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld attacked Iraq was that Saddam "tortured and killed his own people" and therefore it was place of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to capture or kill Saddam for that.

But...if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld want to kill or torture Iraqis, that's OK.?

Ah but, remember how Rummy was already supposedly "smacked down" for Abu Ghraib back when the story first broke, supposedly by the president himself, when we were all waiting for him to get fired or resign for the umpteenth time, but nooooo, Rummy supposedly apologized on his knees, whatever, the story was told as if he would be a good boy from now on and the president let him stay....yadda yadda went something like that


It never ends with Rummy: if "outrage" happens, he simply morphs for a short while, then it's back to the same old, same old.


The only thing I can think of that has truly changed about Rummy is that he never got back the "sex symbol for the older generation" image that he had at the beginning of the administration! Thanks for small favors! :-)

German soldiers in World War II bore ID books that included a statement that they had an obligation to disobey illegal orders.

This was one example of how the German leadership convicted itself at Nuremberg. 

 

Pace to the world media...and the people in the Hague, dusting off their robes.."Someone has to take the fall...let's give them the Gunsel..."

 

 

I'm not sure if Rummy's ego is bullet-proof or his mind is idea proof.

Leave a comment

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


January 5-9

Book Cover

January 12-16

Book Cover

January 19-23

Book Cover

January 26-30

Book Cover

February 2-6

Book Cover

February 9-13

The Great Depression

February 16-20

Tear Down This Myth

February 23-27

Demagogue

March 16-20

Engaging The Muslim World




Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address