R.W. Burniske

Who is responsible for the abuse of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison?

Was it the fault of philistines who took perverse pleasure in terrorizing defenseless human beings? Was it the fault of negligent officers, who failed to provide the guidance and supervision necessary to prevent such terrorism? Or, was it the fault of an entire military system, stretching from that band of prison guards to the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Commander in Chief?

The White House quickly labeled Abu Ghraib an “isolated incident,” but does anyone really believe that? After admitting their pretext for invading Iraq was flawed, the administration now wants the international community to trust their assessment of the prison conditions they have fostered overseas? They expect Americans to swallow misinformation that will later be dismissed as “faulty intelligence?”

Let’s rewind the tape, shall we?

The Bush administration has frequently demonstrated disdain for international laws and agencies. Shortly after September 11, 2001 the president brazenly offered a reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden: "Dead or alive -- either way. It doesn't matter to me." Our nation's collective grief and anger subsequently emboldened the president to circumvent laws of war and U.S. military regulations. Many Americans shrugged, claiming Bin Laden and his followers deserved a cruel fate, but to the rest of the world the president’s call for bounty hunters sounded much like a fatwa issued by radical Muslims.

In January 2002, the U.S. military began transporting prisoners to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where they were placed in wire cages without shelter from the elements. When human rights' organizations protested that the United States violated the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the administration claimed these detainees were not soldiers entitled to POW status, but "unlawful combatants” for whom the Geneva Convention did not apply.

This semantic ploy, coupled with a national thirst for revenge, undoubtedly influenced Rumsfeld’s subordinates, who routinely chained prisoners to their cages, forcing them to remain in “stress positions” beneath the mid-day sun. Rumsfeld dismissed allegations of abuse in January 2002, saying: “Guantanamo Bay's climate is different than Afghanistan. To be in an eight-by-eight cell in beautiful sunny Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not inhumane treatment.” When pressed further, his equivocal remarks gave a clear signal to his subordinates: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate."

Rumsfeld routinely spoke like this in 2002, more than a year before his commander-in-chief gave the order to invade Iraq. As the beat of war drums quickened, so did the undiplomatic rhetoric. The administration questioned the "relevance" of the United Nations and its chief weapons inspector. The Secretary of Defense scoffed at “old Europe” for opposing the war. The Pentagon employed euphemisms (“shock and awe”) to sanitize state-sponsored terrorism. The president informed world leaders "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists," while his supporters questioned the patriotism of American anti-war activists.

Once the invasion began, many Iraqi soldiers and civilians were taken prisoner. According to the Red Cross, 70-90% of the people incarcerated were arrested by mistake. Once detained, stripped of their clothes and pushed into dark cells, how could prison guards distinguish the guilty from the innocent? How might they interpret their superiors’ instructions to “soften up” the prisoners? How would they, without proper training or supervision, have known where to draw the line during interrogations? Perhaps the Abu Ghraib prison guards thought their actions were “reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions?”

The situation at Abu Ghraib was neither an isolated incident nor an aberration. It is the consequence of crass political rhetoric, misguided foreign policies, and an abusive detention system. Apologies from the people most responsible for the crisis in Iraq, followed by hasty court-martials of their subordinates, will not restore America’s reputation or credibility. A change of leadership will be necessary before that process can begin.

In the meantime, imagine the following chant issuing from mosques around the world: "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

George W. Bush made those remarks in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. Unfortunately, those words still ring true for the Iraqi people. Because they do, we, the people of America, must do what our leaders will not: liberate the citizens of Iraq and America from the regime that rules us both.

- May 12, 2004