A rchive Date
[ 03-05-2004 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/05/03/445083.html
Time for U.S. to go home
By Peter Worthington - For the Toronto Sun
Mon, May 3, 2004
As if the news from Iraq weren't bad enough.
Photos in newspapers showing a British soldier urinating on an Iraqi prisoner bound and with a sack over his head is - if the photo isn't forged - upsetting and unacceptable. Even worse is an authentic U.S. army internal report, complete with graphic photos, of soldiers in Iraq abusing, beating, torturing, sodomizing prisoners.
This has - or should have - little to do with going to war to depose Saddam Hussein, and everything to do with how soldiers from the democracies behave.
Those in positions of authority condemn such acts, from George Bush and Tony Blair, to generals in the field. Yes, these things happen, but those who use the "one bad apple" analogy are wrong; rot is more widespread than that. Six U.S. soldiers are said to be now awaiting courts martial for abuse. Fine, but that won't stop incidents happening.
What should be done to ensure, or at least inhibit, such behaviour that disgusts civilized people, and violates every tenet of military training?
It will be argued that soldiers who behave in such a way are not following orders but abusing them. Regardless, by their acts they are proving they are poorly commanded. In other words, the commanding officer of soldiers who behave in such a way should be held responsible and also court martialed.
Officers accountable
If anything, making senior officers accountable would help ensure that soldiers behaved within the strictures of the Geneva Convention and decency. Punishing the coach when hockey players fight, would end fighting. The same for the military.
The Canadian military had a taste of this in Somalia in 1994 when an infiltrator was beaten, tortured and killed. Had not photographs been taken of the victim and perpetrator, it is possible the incident would have been covered up. (There were efforts to persuade the soldier who took the photos (Kyle Brown) to destroy the film, which he refused to do).
That unit was poorly led; the commanding officer had minimum control. With a strong CO, it's likely the incident would never have happened, and the Airborne Regiment not disbanded.
While there is some doubt that the photos of the British soldier urinating on a prisoner are genuine, there is no doubt about the U.S. army abuses.
Harsh punishment
In both cases, there should be intensive investigation and swift and harsh punishment if they are true. At a more profound level, the brutality brings into focus what a soldier's role is, especially in Iraq. A soldiers main purpose is to fight - and win. They did this in Iraq, quite easily, with minimum casualties.
Soldiers are not designed to introduce democracy to oppressed people, other than by their example as soldiers. Nor is their function to be jailers, or correctional officers.
The reports of abuses raise again the U.S.-British policy in Iraq. Some outsiders who supported the war (as I did) to depose a tyrant who was a virtual weapon of mass destruction on his own people, also felt (like me) that after victory the conquerors should go home. Iraqis are not a primitive people. They are quite able to govern themselves - not the way we do in democracies, but certainly effectively.
Not every dictator is a Saddam Hussein. Those who are, should perhaps be deposed - as the United Nations was established after WWII to guarantee. But rarely has acted. As well as indicating poor control and inadequate training, incidents of abuse reinforce the view that the U.S should leave Iraqis to settle their own fate.
Staying on seems unfair both to Iraqis and soldiers.
Let governments decide on whether to help, or isolate Saddam's successors, depending on their behaviour.
Worthington normally appears Friday and Sunday. Letters to the editor should be sent to: editor@tor.sunpub.com
Home Page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|