August 3, 2004
What Are We Creating?
While most people in the US would not like to admit it, the US use of torture is not something new. The School of the Americas has been training Latin Americans (and others) for over 50 years in torture. Torture crops up randomly and regularly in US jails and prisons. However, torture on the level of policy is something new and it is troubling. The "do whatever" mentality that has infiltrated the "war on terrorism" impacts, the world's perception of the US, stimulates retaliation by "terrorists" and serves as a recruiting device, and horrifies most in the US. But there is another concern that is not really being discussed. What is it doing to our troops?
The US has roughly 140,000 troops in Iraq, another 20,000 plus in Afghanistan, an unknown number at Guantanamo, and an unknown number posted at other detention facilities. They are operating in an environment where torture seems to be approved, or at least everyone looks the other way. Torture and brutality require disengaging the normal empathetic response and the ability to see others as human. Yes, I know, that is a basic part of military training so that soldiers can kill - which is their "job." [There is a good discussion of this by former Marine Chris White Double Think: The Bedrock of Marine Corps Indoctrination] However, it is one thing to fire at someone who is firing at you, and another to torture someone who is defenseless before you.
There was a startling article by Nagem Salam in the UK Sunday Herald discussing the imprisonment and torture of children by US forces. According to the article, children as young as 10 are ending up in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They are being interrogated and tortured. The report is based on a Unicef report released in June 2004. (Yes it looks like torture has not stopped while the military and Congress "investigate" the use of torture.)
It does not help the psychological state of US troops that they may be using drugs issued by the military to keep them alert. The Guardian/UK reports that British troops are being given stimulants to keep them awake for days at a time (7/29/04). Add sleep deprivation to the stressors soldiers are facing. Certainly, they are also aware that their benefits are eroding while they operate under and indefinite posting in Iraq (Injured Troops All Too Often Denied Disability Pay).
We know, some of us very personally, that being a soldier in a war can have lifelong negative effects. Some never recover from the psychological damage of the experience. However, to the best of my knowledge, have large numbers of US troops served in the conditions fostered by Bush's "war on terrorism." What happens when these troops come home? How do they reintegrate into civil society? How do they deal with the treatment of both combatants and non-combatants? What happens when they look at their child (or someone else's), and the images of Iraqi children being tortured by themselves or others flashes through their brains? Post Traumatic Stress? You can be assured it is going to be rampant.
One of the problems that has never been resolved is the PTSD of returning troops. Better efforts were made well after Vietnam by providing counseling and reintegration services, but those have been dramatically cut by the current administration.
I know that some of you are Veterans and have a much more personal connection to this discussion. But I think we are creating damage that cannot be healed for those serving under the flag of the United States. I believe that the effects of the rules of engagement (or lack thereof) are going to create a nightmare for many service people, and massive problems for US society. I don't see anything that is happening at a policy level that is going to mitigate those problems, nor help those soldiers. It will be what it has been from other wars - a hidden consequence.
It is difficult to paint the picture of people serving proudly and bravely, and at the same time admit that those people are being significantly damaged by the conduct of the war. The policies that permit and encourage torture are going to haunt us all for a very long time - particularly as we whipsaw between the "necessity" of the policy and the blaming it on "rogue" troops. There is no honesty and accountability in what is happening, and that is going to hurt returning forces even more. If the decision makers refuse to take responsibility for their actions, what is the likelihood that troops are going to be able to come to terms with what they have witnessed and done? How can they address what has happened when to even admit it is to paint oneself as a "rogue"?
There will need to be a massive reconciliation on the part of the administration for healing to be feasible, and even at that there will be major problems. One does not slip the bounds of humanity and come through unscathed or unscarred. Nor will the victims of the torture and their families come through unscathed or unscarred.
Note
If you are interested in the School of the Americas and the policies behind it, I highly recommend Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's book School of Assassins: Guns, Greed, and Globalization.
My two-bits and bottom line:
I don't go around informing everyone that I was with the Marines in Viet Nam, 1969-1970 - I'm proud to have survived and not ashamed of myself or my outfit or my nation for being there. It is mostly a personal experience that I don't feel like sharing much. I had serious PTSD and I carry a few PTSD scars and always will but not because of any torture I saw or participated in. I have seen it at the hands of the South Vietnamese and the Korean marines that were there. The author is way off base here, suggesting our troops are being traumatized and demoralized because of what happened at abhu gahraib. Gimme' a damn break for cryin' out loud! Some grunt who is getting ambushed on patrol and seen friends killed and who has had to waste someone, and whose combat base is a hundred miles from the prison and never even been there is going to be traumatized because there was some torture and mistreatment occurring? Talk about reaching for legitimacy by an author - sheeesh! I would go as far to suggest that to the author, raising one's voice at a captured enemy is torture, and subjecting them to an American diet is grounds for a Human Rights inquiry. I would further suggest that in the parlance of most troops, they really don't give a rats ass. If asked about it, I would say most would retort that it wasn't happening in their outfit.It boils down to coming home alive and in one piece if possible, for both sides - the flag and notions of freedom and democracy and honor and spiritual views and right and wrong all become dissolved in the blurred tunnel vision of the first firefight. Just ask any Cop that has had to use his gun. It's too bad that we live in a world that gets violent and that there are indeed people who seek the death of others, i.e. flying planes into the world trade towers.
I further contend that the author is ignoring history when he alludes that torture and other such hideous things are on the increase because of the war on terrorism. He ought to check out US Cavalry tactics employed against Native Americans, or check out Sherman's march to Atlanta during the civil war and the swath of burning, hanging, pillaging and rape that was enacted to suppress Southern resistance. Anyone up for a rousing rendition of " The Battle Hymn of The Republic" ???
This is not out of control, not by any means. I recently read where a Sgt. is being charged with the heinous crime of allowing his men to drink some booze in Iraq. He is also being charged with taking a civilian vehicle during combat. Commonplace events and observations at times serve as the antithesis of grand theory. The saving grace of our collective attempt to live in a democracy is the voice of dissent and protest, which enables checks and balances and generates watchfulness and watchdogs. Venues such as this are critical to our continuing evolution as a species and nation. Alternative views and challenges must be presented to thinking people.
I appreciate goesh offering his perspective and critique. As I started the article with the argument that torture has been a part of US operations and policies, I would certainly agree with the historical examples given. I would argue however, that in WWI and WWII the enemy perception of US troops if captured was not fear of torture - but of decent treatment. Most of the people being detained in Iraq are not soldiers, or even insurgents - this is according to both the Red Cross and the Military itself. They are for the most part folks, some are criminals, but most are not (also according to military and RC reports).
I believe, and reports tend to confirm, that the abuse and torture extends far beyond Abu Ghraib. It seems to be a pervasive aspect of "detainment." It does not effect just one unit.
"Ugly" things happen during war - I personally believe that the ugliness is not sporadic in the recent offenses, but systematic.
Troops not directly involved in the abuses and the torture may not care (as goesh claims), but those actions do inflame the populace and make all of the troops targets in a much more direct way. Troops are more likely to be labeled as barbarian occupiers and interacted with hostilely.
I respectfully disagree that what is going on is "no big deal" or "nothing out of the ordinary."
Posted by: rowan at August 3, 2004 4:58 PMI am also a Viet Nam Vet, and both of you are right or make valid points. When you are in a combat envirorment you don't think about protestors, the flag, or much of anything except getting yourself and your buddies out alive. You can learn to look the other way very easily. I am not proud of what I have seen, and certainly no one, except Rumsfield and McNamara would condone torture. Bottom line is stay out of war at all possible cost, nobody ever really wins !
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at August 3, 2004 7:40 PMThe real insidious issue is the School of the Americas - that is a very, very nasty one that must be dealt with, somehow. Some of the 'behind the scene' endorsement of what occured at abu gharaib is trivial compared to the running record in S America - my god, our nation has bloody hands down there - oil, beef, minerals and cocaine interests have been at play there for a long, long time - it goes way back to Eisenhower and has continued on down the line of administrations. Catholic Nuns who have worked in places in S America are still protesting - the torture in Iraq is mild and almost non existant compared to what has and is happening down there.
Posted by: goesh at August 4, 2004 5:15 AMAll the way back to Eisenhower ? Howard Zinn would argue it goes back a long long long ways: How much did they buy New York for ? How many slaves did former Presidents "own" ?
It's that unfortunately we keep getting better and better that make things worse and worse School of Americas is postively evil !
Right on goesh !
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at August 4, 2004 6:48 PM