Hiding perhaps too well
A SCENE FROM SOMEWHERE IN IRAQ
"Soldier, where is the super-secret dangerous prisoner with high-grade intelligence in his cranium that Secretary Rumsfeld told us to hide from the Red Cross? It's question time again."
"Erm... We've lost him, sir."
"Lost him?"
"That's right. We're sure he's around here somewhere since he can't run with his hands and feet tied to a broomstick, but we can't find him just now. He'll turn up."
"Are you certain?"
"Uhh.. sure. What the hell. Certain enough, sir."
...and scene. Seems like Rummy has a lot to answer for. See, we (we meaning the USA, its people, military, and film heroes) don't pull hijinks like this for two reasons: because it's shitty and wrong; and because we don't want other people to do it to our guys when the time comes around.
It's the old schoolyard rule about not going nuclear. If you try a nut-shot and miss (or if the other guy doesn't go down) you better know you just escalated the fight, mister. It's all pipes and pointed sticks from there on out, and someone's not getting up off the ground when it's over.
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
J,
J,
I think the argument that we shouldn't do things like this "because we don't want other people to do it to our guys when the time comes around" is specious.
Terrorists will blow up, shoot, mutilate, and otherwise kill us until they are all dead or we are. And they were doing these things long before 9-11 and before someone started putting panties on their heads.
From the comfort of my comfy chair, I think there is enough weight in the position that such actions are wrong because we are better. I do like keeping the Golden Rule in my back pocket, but I don't think it applies here.
On the ground in Iraq, knowing that the cokcsuckers in the human pyramid had been running ambushes and frolicking in the gore and wreckage of destroyed vehicles the day before, I'm not sure I'd have such a positive attitude.
GL, I see your point, but
GL, I see your point, but respectfully disagree. Part of the problem is that we don't KNOW, and reportedly neither to our soldiers in Iraq, whether the 'cokcsuckers in the human pyramid' were in fact running ambushes etc. Not that such perfidy would sit more comfortably with me if they definitely were, for the reasons we've cited, but it somehow makes it more twisted that people we don't know did anything at all got the dogs set on them, or (if current reports are to be believed) had their children presented to them with threat of torture.
J,
J,
I don't like disagreeing about this because I don't like liking my side so much. Erm... got that?
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to side against soldiery in any fundamental way. But in the case of Abu Ghraib, I have to... unless I can convince myself that the guys getting gnawed on by dogs were caught in the act of blowing up our people. And no doubt some were. But not all. And while not everyone in the prison was abused, not all of the ones who were....well, had it coming, frankly.
OK, I said it. I guess I own it now. Well, there you go: if these guys were caught red-handed, I don't care what black hole they're sent to. And the Red Cross and Amnesty International and Kofi Annan (who has alot of nerve) can screw.