I hadn't thought of this prison scandal this way. You are right that the sex abuse cases at the academies and in the services, the culture of misbehavior at bases abroad, attitudes toward gays in the military, and so on all add up as an incredibly nasty picture of the world view of senior military brass and their civilian directors. Good job pointing this out, and I hope that the media and Senate Armed Services Committee begin posing the questions you suggest.

Mr. Clemons,

I am reading your blog with great interest each morning and really missed the several days you could not get on line in London. However, waiting was worthwhile. I don't think that there is a political blog commentary today that has the breadth and depth of yours.

I don't agree with you on all scores, but I had to acknowledge that you compel me to reconsider some of the views I have held about American foreign and economic policy. Your blog entries are an invitation to think, and my friends and I are now quite addicted to your entries. We have something akin to a book study group going on your blog.

Many thanks again. If you ever get a donation link posted on your site, we will be happy to contribute.

Many thanks from some appreciative fans.

If the president does not see fit to ask that Rumsfeld resign, it doesn't surprise me that Schlesinger and Warner aren't saying he should. These men are not wave-makers, either. As for the military culture, I think there may be some validity in what you write but the phenomenon you describe is not the cause of Abu Ghraib but rather the means by which men like Rumsfeld and Feith could effect their goals. Having listened in fascination to Rumsfeld's press briefings, I think he is an extremely amoral man who never hesitated to be aggressively contemptous of any concerns or questions that suggested a need to reconsider or justify his plans. I only 'know' Rumsfeld through listening to these briefings, but they left me convinced that he would be a most vindictive man to work for and that he can countenance no strong opposition from his underlings -- and that he considers everyone working with him an underling, rather than a co-worker. Furthermore, when things did begin to slip from his control, he displayed a sort of moral cowardice in that he would defer certain questions to his underlings. This was particularly upsetting to listen to and watch.

The contempt with which prisoners and detainees have been and for all we know are still being treated is clear to see in the contempt with which Mr.Rumsfeld treated the press, the loyal opposition, anyone who showed any sign of disagreeing with him. The cowardice is also clear in the memos so fervidly attempting to justify torture and ways to wiggle out of being held responsible for authorizing or ignoring torture.

It is remarkable to me that the press is not now pushing hard on trying to find out what was and is happening in interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq and Guantanamo. Perhaps even in Chicago. Look at how little coverage is given to the Idema story. Look at the silence about the continuing contracts with CACI and Titan. When the Army shot several prisoners to death in Abu Ghraib recently in response to riots, it was a brief blip on the news horizon.

And today, in the Washington Post's coverage of the reports' release, there is a picture of several naked prisoners lying on the floor, with a number of American soldiers standing over them. The caption reads: "Unidentified US soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison appear to be standing over naked detainees, handcuffed to one another, in these undated photos." Why is the word "appear" there? What is the phrase "undated photos" suggesting?

Are these photos real? Is the wording a deliberate attempt to suggest they are not? Perhaps the press also suffers from the "make no waves" culture.

This is an artifact of the civil-military "gap" or "divide" we have now and have had for a long time.

First, we are fooling only ourselves with the myth of "civilian control of the military".

Second, we look benignly on both (1) a "warrior culture" of moral superiority to the "decadence" of liberal "lifestyles" and (2) a pervasive system of property-based credentialing that is simply not a reliable military or civilian meritocracy, more like a priestly class of lawyer-priests, MBA-acolytes, and Mengele-type doctors.

Third, we turn a blind eye to actual problems of boring "garrison" and "boys town" or "strip" life behind hypocritical postures and dangerous conceits.

The postures and problems, alike, are artifacts of imposing an "all volunteer" (British-style long-term hire) military on what was originally intended to be a Swiss-style federal republic.

And, of the three problems above, the first, the most corrosive, the actual source of the other two, is the simple impossibility of maintaining republican democracy on military foundations of the British monarchy.

We need a universal military obligation that is coterminous with a universal franchise. And, we have the legal basis for that in the "Military Amendments" to the U.S. Constitution.

This entails using the"well regulated" militia as Swiss-style "regimental" infrastructure (a) for military induction, formation, loyalty and welfare generally; as well as (b) for economic maintenance of both more specialized support and more "lightweight" combat than we now have.

Perhaps the most important benefits of restoring constitutional, republican, and also democratic armed forces, though, are (a) that no political faction could pretend to be military "nobility" or, for that matter, a "priestly class" of civilian rulers and (b) that matters of sexual discipline and coming of age could dealt with outside of our plainly inadequate institutions(i) of nuclear families and (ii) of public or parochial day-schools.

Both of these institutions are organized around an agricultural-industrial economy we no longer have or can recover, given changes in technology and commerce generally. But, our families and schools would be more resilious, if we were to integrate family and school around more durable political institutions, like the well regulated militia of a federal republic.

The well regulated militia is more robust than Gilbert and Sullivan clap-trap gloss official Washington embraced in military provisions of the Jim "settelement" it came up after 1876. Sadly, Jefferson and Hamilton alike were both dumped for Victorian and Wilhelmine anglophilia Washington still wallows in.

The militia was abolished in 1905. The last man elected sergeant in a state militia to serve as President of the United States and C-in-C of all American armed forces was Harry S. Truman. He did not survive it politically, but he managed to integrate U.S. armed forces and to fire a military-aristocratic General who was also both incompetent and insubordinate.

That was not a decisive break with Jim Crow and official Washington never forgave Truman.

But, his action is still a sign of hope for this country, and it may have nipped in the bud what would have been a general nuclear war with both the Soviet Union and Red China.

::JRBehrman

There's a piece in the Washington Post today concerning the attacks on Sen. Kerry by SBVTs that argues these vets and their supporters see Kerry's anti-war activities as a betrayal and that they are protecting their honor by attacking him. These notions of protecting one's honor at all costs and closing ranks to protect the honor of others in the group seems to play a role in the military response to Abu Ghraib and other incidents of which you write. To accept ultimate responsibility would be to admit having dishonored the group as well as one's self, the ultimate taboos. And so the cycle of irony continues; the demand to protect the honor of the group leads to increasingly dishonorable individual and group behavior. The result is a cult of honor that distorts and corrupts the system as a whole.

On the other hand, military culture also embraces a sense of duty -- which is service to that outside the individual or group. I've no doubt that many of those who witnessed the torture and abuse delineated in these reports, but did not report them, were frozen into inaction by the contraction between these competing values.

It is my opinion that Joseph Darby heeded the call to duty -- the higher calling, the voice of the better angels of our nature.

If the military is ever to really reform it's culture it must make this hierarchy of institutional virtue explicit.

Steve,

The idea that an officer(s) is not responsible for the actions of his men is an disgrace to a nation who RIGHTFULLY stood in judgment at Nuremberg. At the Nuremberg trials an attempt was made to find those responsible for the Nazi atrocities. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall Judge Jackson holding any Sgt., Cpl-Spc., or Privates accountable. The defendants were, Field Marshal's, Deputy Fuhrers, Generals and civilian enablers of equal rank. Now, these men did make an attempt to blame "superior orders" which was rebuffed summarily, but as sad their defenses were, I don't recall any of them trying to blame the enlisted men beneath them. They may have claimed ignorance, but for all of their crimes, they at least went to the gallows without trying fudge it off on some poor Sgt. Shultz. To quote Hans Frank, Nazi Governor of Poland, "My conscience does not allow me simply to throw the responsibility simply on minor people. " These were Nazis for God's sake... can't the US Army Officer's match their veracity?

I was still a reservist when Clinton put forth the idea that gays should by allowed to serve openly. Those of us who vocally supported the CIC would receive unpleasant attention from both his CO and the command structure at large. A large percentage of officers, openly challenged the authority of the President, in what could be charitably called insubordination, their loyalty was to their personal prejustices, not to their oath. That same year, a General, whose name I forgot, went before Congress and made an extraordinary statement that went unchallenged by those seated at the committee. He stated that he could not control his men's actions should they decide to take hostile action against a soldier that was perceived to be homosexual. Extraordinary. This officer, was in fact saying that his subordinates were the one's making the final decision. Nobody on the panel thought to ask this man, "what the hell are you doing with all that rank if you can't control your men"

These are symptoms of something terribly wrong. While I would maintain the US Army's Officers are as good as any in warfighting, war for war's sake is not the goal of this nation, our Armed forces are to serve a larger purpose and the military leadership must be made to see the larger goal or they must be relieved of their command. There is a real imbalance, between the wants of the Pentagon and the needs of the society that supports it. It is hard for me to understand how this can be maintained over the long haul.

This lack of personal discipline that is linked to the inability to take responsibility needs to be addressed. As an enlisted Soldier, you have to obey orders from Officers who would compare unfavorably to a horse's ass...so long as they are legal. Is it too much to ask that these same officers take responsibility for their command?

S Brennan

CS and S Brennan have some terrific insights. Thank you!

One wonders if this culture of self protection and preservation would be changed for the better if national military service were obligatory. As it stands now, folks in the military hold unique status in society because they chose to serve. So it's like a club to which only a few belong (relative to the population), and it's an environment that encourages self protection and preservation. If that unique status is removed from the equation, then at least one environmental factor encouraging self protection/preservation is removed.

I acknowledge that mandatory service won't necessarily provide for a more effective and efficient fighting force, but it seems as if their are some benefits to mandatory service that are both timely and worth exploring further.

18 and 19 year olds are generally out of control to some degree across the board. certainly, some are worse than others and i am not justifying anyone's crimes, but i think the military should be realistic about what they are dealing with. more supervision and stiffer punishments coupled with higher pay could create a better environment where soldiers feel more responsible and accountable.

This is a slightly different direction, but I've yet to read anything that addresses the interesting confluence of events surrounding the reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib with the outrage the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth feel towards John Kerry for telling the truth about atrocities in Vietnam.

Kerry was probably the General Taguba of his day, and yet this ethical position, 35+ years later, could cost him the election, as we see the truth of his testimony before our eyes and ears - the report of the atrocities that are still being performed by the military in Iraq!

I remember being in the Pentagon once and all I saw were military personnel. Man, I hope I awaken from my dream soon so you that have actually been in the building won't step too severely on any argument that results from that and other ludicrous statements posted here(hopefully not mine).
Steve, I believe I can safely skip to the paragraph where you say Joseph Darby is in protective custody to ask: "Why?"
Last time I looked the military exists at the behest of the civilian populace and ITS hierarchy. Some(most) of you talk as if it has rights and responsibilities like civilians. When it receives marching orders the last thing we need is to give them a why in the plan(s). They exist solely to carry out orders and protect our society-top down. If they seem somewhat remiss in exposing their organization to your whim, too bad. You elected those who are superior to them and therefore the guilty party, if there be one, is you. Democracy, remember?
And it IS clearly happening today-just not your agenda(or mine). Difference being, I accept responsiblity for what I do and what is done in my name.

yahaddasayit

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on your post, but here is the oath of service, perhaps you can find the part where the soldier says "They exist solely to carry out orders and protect our society-top down."

I, (full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Please note what we are defending and from whom.

Well, that's Mr. Rumsfeld's moral clarity for you.

What you may not know is that Schlesinger was involved in investigating the Tiger Force massacres in Viet Nam. The results have been buried since 1975. No one was ever held accountable.

The Toledo Blade did a Pulitzer Prize winning article on the atricities and the buried investigation:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190168

(I love this blog. Especially you who thoughtfully comment.)

S Brenan, Yes, I remember those words(or a similar version) I probably uttered close to 37 years ago. Your post interests me for one line only. Is "what we are defending and from whom" supposed to be understood as some inarguable given? Well, I based my post on that statement, and since you seem to have a difference of opinion, what would it be? And if you insist on being straightlaced, join up and try to disobey ANY order.

Adrienne -

Thanks for the link to the Tiger Force article.

Yahaddasayit -

Are all orders created equally? Is an order against reporting violations of military and international law up the chain of command to be obeyed as strictly as an order to cease fire in a combat situation? Is there no room for morale imperatives in the military setting?

Steve -- Purely from a rhetorical point of view, by setting up a parallelism between accountability issues in the US military and Nazification, you are most definitely establishing a logical relation of implication. And you are quite right to do so. Nazification may not be the right word, but surely a trend toward a fascistic or merely authoritarian disregard for any authority's subservience to norms and laws has been discernible on countless occasions in the present administration, and not merely where the generals are concerned. Robert O. Paxton's new book The Anatomy of Fascism is very enlightening with regard to the process through which authority passes on its way toward becoming totally unhinged from liberal democratic institutions and accountable to no one. Tanya's parallelism (above) between the Abu Ghraib revelations and Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971 is right on the mark. Where the military is concerned, the public will always be torn between a mindless sense of sanctity and easy outrage. But quite apart from Rumsfeld unconscionable imperturbability, how is it possible that the US find itself engaged in the Great War on Terror and two military interventions without a Senate-approved Secretary of the Army to replace White, the Enron fraudster? You conclude by placing the onus on the Senate to approve appointments only of those who will accept responsbility. Perhaps during Bush's second term the Secretary of Defense web site will read as does the Secretary of the Army site right now: position not filled.

I don't think American culture can be separated from military discipline and policing the actions of its soldiers. American culture is full of hypocrisy. Officially sex before marriage is frowned upon by the straight laced moralists. Typically, young people can not become economically self-sufficient until they reach their twenties. Biologically, humans are conditioned to have sex after reaching puberty. This clash between biology and moralism is no contest. American teens (like teens in Europe and elsewhere) freely engage in sex outside of marriage. Large collections of randy young teenagers (mostly men) will search for sex. That is part of American culture no matter how much some would like to deny it.

Much of our volunteer soldier pool comes from areas with fewer economic opportunities controlled by these moralists. Who would not want to get out from under the thumb and try to find a better life? So we have a military made up of hell raisers, cut loose from the thumb of moralistic society. They come from a society that is in denial about sexual activity and does not respond with institutions to encourage responsibility. If all sex is wrong, then is there a difference between responsible and irresponsible sex? Thus American culture officially condemns sexual activity among our youth, but has to wink and nod or be laughed out of town. As a result, sexual activity occurs outside cultural norms and there is little opportunity for culture to exert control. Other cultures such as many European countries that are not in denial about youth and sex have lower rates of abortions and other problems associated with teen sex in America.

American denial sets in motion a culture clash between freewheeling American sexual culture and cultures in other countries where teenagers marry at a young age and much of the sex occurs within formal cultural practices. Permanent bases overseas that have a majority component of married soldiers with their families are better suited to reduce negative interactions with other cultures resulting from randy young men looking to raise hell. There are ways that the military could respond with changes in force structure and pay scale that would minimize relational problems. However, the military position is to state the moralist line, yet expect hell raising from its troops within responsible limits.

So much for the sexuality soapbox.

Abu Graib was not about sex. The abuse of the prisoners was not about sex. The abuse was all about humiliation and the desire to humiliate other human beings under prison conditions. Running a prison is all about controlling the behavior of other beings who do not want to be there and do not enjoy being controlled. Prison guards are in the position of having to control other humans for whom there is mutual dislike.

How fun is it being stuck all day with an obnoxious co-worker? Prisons magnify that by a hundred. The trend in relationships between the guards and the most obnoxious prisoner is one of escalating violence and humiliation. The only brake on a cycle of rising violence is to have clear rules and expectations for both the guards and the prisoners. It is humiliating to be a prisoner. It is humiliating to have that iron door shut behind you and have no control over your daily life. It is humiliating being a prison guard. It is humiliating being stuck with a duty that is unpleasant and charges that are unpleasant.

The command failed to establish in Abu Graib proper list of rules for treatment of prisoners. Guards were encouraged by other workers to abuse prisoners. Oversight was insufficient. The command structure within the most aggregious unit had overlapping, conflicting commands and responsibility was vague. In a prison, this is invitation for disaster. The proper command structure for a prison is a commander who is responsible to see all rules obeyed, orders followed and standards for humane treatment of prisonser upheld. That commander should be saddled with an independent oversight officer of equal or higher rank whose duty it is to report any deviation from orders or abuse up the chain of command. Both commander and oversight officer are placed at risk if unreported abuse occurs.

The civilians in the Pentagon and even the POTUS were more interested in quick and dirty extraction of information from prisoners than in establishing an orderly and humane process for Iraqi prisoners. By allowing tactics bordering on torture (a good argument can be made that they condoned tactics that many consider torture) the top command presided over a system primed for the type of abuse that occurred. This is in spite of all the research on interrogation that shows that torture will often produce incorrect information. People who are tortured often admit to all kinds of things that are not true just to make the torture stop. The quality of the information obtained under these circumstances is generally poor.

The Pentagon failed to provide enough troops to adequately staff the prison, let alone put in place proper oversight. When stretched too thin, corners will be cut. When corners are cut in prisons, abuse of prisoners can be predicted. Yes the abusive soldiers are to blame for their activities. Their superiors including the civilian command that botched the logistics are to blame as well.

It may interest folks to know that, according to the Tiger Force article referenced by Adrienne, Schlesinger apparently let reports about the Tiger Force abuse die on his Sec of Def desk. He never pursued them.

Interesting, Jon, that you would type morale when you no doubt meant moral. I would think in a combat zone that too many morals would affect morale. After all, you went there to kill people if they didn't agree with you. The Geneva Convention has to be considered farcical(as the Bush admin suggests) in the face of all the men-and women now-playing God. Kill them all! And read the Tiger Force story if you think anything moral must or even can exist in a war zone. I say old chap, must you be so brutal!

If one thinks that "war" and "morality" are like oil and water, why does one not purchase a large, high powered weapon, take a trip to the ME, and open fire on anyone in sight. In fact, why doesn't our government encourage this behavior? We are, after all, at war with terrorists hiding in these populations. They have no regard for our civilian population, why should we regard theirs?

Oh yeah, I forgot - the idea was that we're supposed to be the ones fighting for modern civilization.

Jon (The First)

When I was serving I defied orders, was brought up on article 13's, refused to sign and challenged my accusers to bring me to court marshal...I never had anybody take me up on it...all backed down. It didn't help my military career, but I knew my mind. I have an honorable discharge, with no disciplinary actions and some nice commendations.

The Army was the fairest social system I have ever had the privilege to serve under, I have seen far worse in civilian life. Since I decided to live an honorable life (not that I don't fail from time to time) I've never felt the weakness yayadadasayshit expresses in his posts.

This is a very egotistical thing to say, but one of my great pleasures in life is to watch sycophants torture themselves thinking about what to say or to do in order to please, when an honest response would have recieved higher praise.

S Brennan, if you would be so kind: During my military tour years ago I received a couple article 15's I believe but, if yours were 13's perhaps you could instruct me to what you were referring.
"Nice commendations" offered to me I just couldn't accept in good conscience but I wasn't daft enough to overtly ridicule "my superiors" and made sure the trash container I dumped them in later availed itself to their discovery. Maybe it was a weakness of mine that I saw military life which included 16 months in Viet Nam as a terrible failure of humanity. Maybe I show a terrible weakness when I claim my country(USA) has had a undeniable history in my lifetime of initiating murder and destruction on the less fortunate throughout the world while mouthing some platitudes about democracy blah, blah, blah...
And I may truly expose another weakness, this time of my intellect(maybe that's its source), when I ask you to explain your use of "sycophant" as you follow it using a truncated definition.

yayadadasayshit

Sad as you are, you are right about article 15's and little else. For example, I did not offer any, much less, a shortened definition of sycophant. I could go on, but why bother. I may be a poor writer, but at least I can read. The last word I'll leave to you, you need it more than I.

Apparently another weakness of mine is one-upsmanship. I don't think I've ever hidden behind smug self-satisfaction when I could plough ahead and perhaps discover that of which I am not aware. You write alright but if you understood what you read you'd know sycophant means attempting to please in order to gain some advantage. They are not seeking reinforcement but are looking to manipulate.
That's it. Are you sure I need (whatever) more than you?

Jon E,
We're too far apart for any discussion. You seem to me to believe 9-11 and Iraq had some connection that enables us to involve ourselves in a "just" war. I don't believe that to be true.
And why lose young American lives "fighting for modern civilization" when we can much more easily become oil independent and tell Israel: You're on your own. You chose that area, you want to stay, good luck. We are out of here!

Yahaddsayit -

I was being sarcastic. It was in response to this comment: "if you think anything moral must or even can exist in a war zone."

Yahaddasayit -

It appears I mistyped, and I'm sure that slip reveals some truth I've hidden from myself.

My comments were addressed to the subject of the culture of the military, particularly that part of it that reinforces self preservation at the expense of any moral imperatives. But even in a combat setting, as comments from some in the Tiger Force article make clear, there WAS room for morality. Many of the soldiers knew that some of what was done was wrong, and they knew it at the time and not just in hindsight. Unfortunately, the military culture, reinforced by its commander, kept lips sealed and left perhaps thousands of innocent people dead.

Maybe the facts of what happened prove you right, that morality can't exist in this setting. And maybe I'll still stubbornly cling to the idea that it can. And so we'll just disagree.

America once was a haven for the tortured not the haven of the torturers, but thanks to Bush and his "moral clarity" America reveals itself to be nothing better (or worse) than other nations. And he is going to remain in office?