The news from Iraq doesn't get very good. In spite of the Army's paying $40,000 bonuses to get new active-duty recruits and up to $90,000 to get active-duty soldiers to re-enlist and the plan to decrease the number of troops deployed in Iraq, the Army may still not meet its recruitment targets. It could be that some of those would-be troops are having second thoughts because the money just doesn't make up for all the other missing incgredients. What's missing? Safe equipment for those who are sent to Iraq and must do with second-rate body armor and armorless vehicles because the military (which manages to whisk top brass around in very safe vehicles) just couldn't get the right equipment to the foot soldiers. Or it could be the news that Halliburton provided contaminated water to troops and civilians at Camp Junction City in Iraq. See here. Charging for twice the number of meals that are actually delivered, another Halliburton stunt in Iraq, is bad enough (the company claims that wartime makes it too hard to track accurately the work it does but sys it should be paid in full nevertheless). But charging for contaminated water that can make people sick, and not telling people about it immediately does real (not just fiscal) harm to individuals. Why is it that Halliburton is still treated as a trusted bidder on military contracts, rather than having its feet held to the fire until it corrects the numbers errors it has already made in contracts?
Meanwhile, Megan Ambuhl, an American soldier who ended up participating in the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib, has come clean with a story about the pervasive practices of abuse in the prison. See this Washington Post description. She admits being shocked when she first arrived and saw the treatment prisoners received, but went along when everyone there seemed to accept it and she understood it was part of her job. While it is hard to know who in this mess to believe, it seems inescapable that the Administration has gone out of its way not to make a strong statement prohibiting torture in all its manifestations, and the evidence from Iraq suggests that shackling, waterboarding and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment were widespread. Privates and other low-status personnel would not have freely photographed themselves engaged in dubious practices if they were at all concerned whtat the top brass in the military installation might think. Why is it that none of the top brass has been called on the carpet for this disgraceful blight on America's handling of war prisoners? Can we rest assured that torture has stopped? Congress should be pursuing these questions through an independent inquiry. If it does not do so, then it behooves us as engaged Americans to demand that our country better address this problem.
Finally, the Army interrogator who killed a detainee by tying him up inside a sleeping bag and then setting on his chest was found guilty of negligent homicide. See the New York Times story, here. Again, one suspects that these interrogators carried out these rough practices because they believed that they had been authorized to do so. Can we expect that others will be held responsible for the problems in the military's handling of the occupation of Iraq? Or will this interrogator have served primarily as the scapegoat?
Comments