|
Random Thoughts on Abu Ghraib
By Mark Kittel
I cant get the disturbing images of Abu Ghraib out of my head. They
play in
a constant loop in my mind, one after the other, as if I am Alex de
Large
being forced to watch to watch the crimes of my country against my
will. The
Albany Times-Union ran a column by Philip Kennicott of the Washington
Post,
indicting all of America for lying to itself and believing that these
abuses
are isolated acts of a few individuals; the backdrop for this column
was an
artists rendering of the anonymous prisoner with arms outstretched,
standing on a box, and wires attached to his extremities, but instead
of a
black robe the artist has given the man a black hood and a tattered and
scorched American flag draped about him. That picture, to me, captures
the
reality of this horrific scandal better than any column or article,
better
than any apologetic speech by our leaders.
--------
I think that there will be many more articles and columns printed on
Abu
Ghraib in the days and weeks to come, and there will be even more
horrific
abuses documented for all to see. There will be books published to
explain
the incidents, explain them away, excuse the abuses, or to examine the
abuses as part of the entire chain of American history, from the abuse
of
slaves to the treatment of the Native Americans through to the
internment of
the Japanese during World War II. There is as much to learn from this
as
there is from September 11th, and in a sense this is the antithesis of
September 11th, a moment that defines our nation to the rest of the
world,
but instead of uniting the world behind us it has united the world
against
us.
--------
One reaction by many rabid Bush supporters was that these photographs
were
fakes, the allegations made up, all to make our military and president
look
bad. I think the greatest proof that everything is 100% truth is how
quickly
the administration acknowledged the abuses and, not as quickly, began
making
apologies to Arabs and to Congress. This administration has stonewalled
September 11th investigations, blocked inquiries into the Energy Task
Force
meetings, attempted to explain away the gaps in Bushs military
service, and
in countless other ways tried to deny or dismiss anything that might
damage
the president and his election chances. For the administration to so
quickly
fess up once the abuses were made public, rather than attempt to deny
the
allegations or discredit the sources, indicates to me that these abuses
are
real.
--------
Another reaction was outrage not about the abuses, but outrage that
there
wasnt a similar outrage in reaction to the incident in Fallujah. Why
werent we so outraged about the burning and mutilation of those four
contractors? Or, even worse, these animals deserved the abuses, its
payback for Fallujah. But look at the timetable and you will see that
the
abuses documented so far are not recent they extend back through at
least
January of this year, if not all the way back to March of last year. In
addition, one report last week stated that there were 44 cases of
civilian
abuses documented, similar to the reports from Abu Ghraib. Civilian
abuses,
not prisoner abuses as in soldiers raiding citizens homes and
committing
similarly terrible atrocities. Is there a possibility that the Fallujah
incident was retaliation for months of abuse at the hands of the
military,
at the hands of private contractors? After all, Blackwater did provide
security at Abu Ghraib, and those contractors were clearly Blackwater
employees. I dont think the residents of Fallujah would have cared
whether
those four men were actually at Abu Ghraib (they werent), they would
simply
have held them guilty by association and vented their anger in the most
deplorable ways. I dont excuse what happened in Fallujah, but I think
I now
understand clearly why it happened.
--------
Lets go back to that these animals deserved the abuses. There have
been
many times in world history when one group of people views itself as
the
pinnacle of humanity, and all other human beings are lesser humans or,
in
many cases, animals. Slave traders saw the slaves they captured and
sold as
animals; even after black slaves were freed, black Americans were still
treated as lesser humans that could not be granted the same rights as
better
(white) humans. Native Americans were viewed as savages by European
settlers. Many people in the British Empire were treated as lesser
human
beings than the British, and therefore the laws that dictated how the
British treated each other did not apply to dealings with the Indians,
Africans, or native Australians. At one time in history, many Germans
believed they were the greatest race of people on the planet and that
other,
sub-standard people had to be exterminated in order to promote the
superiority of Germany. Abu Ghraib sets us back on the path to genuine
racism, to believing that some humans are intrinsically better than
other
humans simply due to their skin color, nationality, or religion. But
this is
a far worse type of racism, because it is not confined within the
boundaries
of one country. Here the racism is being exported to foreign nations,
and
that carries with it global implications, not simply domestic
implications.
--------
Another disturbing reaction was along the lines of, Nothing these
soldiers
did was as bad as what Saddam Hussein did to his people, or what the
Taliban
did in Afghanistan, so its still okay. This attitude smacks of moral
relativism, the kind of thinking that people on the far-right and in
fundamentalist Christian circles decry and berate regularly. Moral
absolutism, the concept that a set of fundamental, universal moral
principles exist beyond mankind and given to us by God, is the
philosophy
preached by many on the right and especially by many Christian
churches,
both Protestant and Catholic. But when we start judging our behavior by
the
behavior of others, we walk right into moral relativism and abandon any
absolutes. In fact, judging your own behavior as right and justified
compared to the behavior of others is exactly the kind of thinking that
Jesus Christ preached against.
--------
And speaking of Jesus Christ, where is the outrage and condemnation
from our
Christian leaders? Bush and company have been comparatively quick to
react
to this travesty and denounce the atrocities as horrific and
un-American,
but with a few exceptions many leaders in both Protestant and Catholic
circles have been relatively mute about Abu Ghraib. I have searched for
hours on the Internet for any statement made by any prominent American
religious leaders regarding this scandal, and came up nearly empty. I
found
one article on the American Family Association web site, which briefly
condemned the atrocities, then proceeded to spend the rest of the
article
blasting the "liberal media" for being willing to display these photos
but
being reluctant to show photos of the mangled bodies from Fallujah
(back to
that reasoning again). It is quite disturbing that a fundamentalist
Christian author is more concerned with the treatment of photgraphs
than
with the treatment of fellow human beings.
If nothing else, I should think that comparisons of that infamous photo
(which I described above) would prompt a response from the church.
Philip
Kennicott not only compared the image to a crucifixion (a comparison
made by
many) but also compared it to something out of the Spanish Inquisition,
the
ugliest chapter in Catholic Church history. After reading that, I had
to
agree that in many ways the image was reminiscent of an accused witch
or
heretic being burned at the stake. With such powerful images from
Christian
history being referenced in this atrocity, I am even further stunned
that
Christian leaders have chosen to be so quiet about Abu Ghraib.
On the other hand, many fundamentalist Christian leaders in this
country,
excited by the Bush's promotion of America as a Christian nation out to
promote God's will, hailed this war and supported it with heart, mind
and
soul, even referring to Biblical passages from the Old Testament to
support
the call to war. I can only guess that Abu Ghraib has so forcefully
punctured the idea of a messianic America, a country that is only
capable of
good and that can do no evil, that they cannot muster the strength to
formulate a response.
Once again, I sense that a quick switch to
believing in
moral relativism is working its way into the fundamentalist circles.
--------
Regardless of what horrific acts have occurred, and regardless of the
terrible consequences our military and nation face, I can think of one
positive result that will come of Abu Ghraib an end, however
temporary, to
American Imperialism.
Up until the end of April, our military could rely on an enemy
surrendering
to superior forces, reducing casualties and bringing quicker ends to
battles. The idea behind surrendering to the opposition, of course, is
that
spending a few months or a year as a prisoner of war is better than
being
dead. No longer. The images of Abu Ghraib will now convince every
fighter
that fires on our soldiers that they must fight to the bitter end, for
surrender will be worse than death. This alone will make it necessary
to
maintain and even increase troop levels in Iraq, further sapping our
ability
to wage war elsewhere and further demoralizing existing troops.
That, of course, is only one aspect. Karl Rove, I believe, stated that
the
abuses of Abu Ghraib will make it impossible for the Arab world to
trust
America for at least a generation. I agree, although I believe it will
be
more than one generation, but details aside he is correct. And that
astute
observation encapsulates the end of imperialistic designs. There are no
Arab
countries, no Arab populations, that will now hail us as liberators
should
we decide to invade their country and overthrow their government. No
government in the Arab world that supports America will be trusted; any
government that is hostile to America will gain strength and support.
Attempts to win the hearts and minds of Arab and Muslim people,
fragile as
they already were, are now very likely to fail. If we do somehow manage
to
invade Iran or Syria or any other nation we consider hostile, those
countries will now have Abu Ghraib to remind them that death is
preferable
to surrender. There can be no more shock and awe to quell the enemy.
And if, somehow, we blunder into yet another war, no matter how it is
justified, there will be extreme resistance from all corners of the
world to
join that war. We will not be able to count on any of the existing
coalition of the willing to aid us, and our justifications will fall
on
deaf ears. We will bear all the costs and casualties of those wars, and
we
will suffer all other consequences alone.
September 11th might have been a cause for seeking international peace,
but
instead became a rallying cry for endless war against terror. Abu
Ghraib
will temporarily be a call to arms for the Muslim world, but it may
wind up
forcing America to seek peaceful and diplomatic solutions to threats
once
again.
Mark Kittel is a frequent contributor to the Moderate Republican. He lives in New York State.
Just Say No.
By Dennis L. Sanders
It has never been easy to be a gay Republican and these days, its even harder.
Since President Bush came out (pun not intended) in favor of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, many gay Republicans
have been seeing red.
For some, this was just too much. Many have left the party altogether. Some have chosen to stay and fight. Log Cabin Republicans,
the gay and lesbian group has come out against the marriage amendment with a vengence and has raised millions in promoting
ads against the amendment.
That Log Cabin is coming on strong against this admendment is wonderful. They are showing that they will not be cowed
in fear by the Religious Right and they also are deciding to stand and fight. What is still amazing though is that the group
has not decided on endorsing Bush.
In many ways, this should be a no-brainer. The President is putting support behind an amendment that is clearly discriminatory.
He didnt even have the decency to mention the people he was banning from entering in to marriage. Bush may or may not be
a homophobe. However, the fact that he basically supported such a bigoted amendment to appease the Religious Right shows
that Bush is more concerned about getting re-elected than he is about fairness and equality. Because of this, Log Cabin is
silly to not not endorse.
One can understand the position that Log Cabin is in. Many hard-core conservatives dont see gay Republicans as people
let alone Republicans, so there is fear that not supporting the President would give more ammo to the fundamentalists.
However, there are ways that one can be a loyal Republican without selling ones soul. Log Cabin could say they support
conservative values such as the separation of church and state and federalism, both of which are being trampled by this statute.
Because of their stance on these positions, and because the President has not lived up to them, they cant endorse the President.
Instead of being anti-Bush, they could be pro-conservative.
No one is asking Log Cabin to endorse John Kerry, Im certainly not. But something more than loyalty to a president is
at stake; its the integrity of this part of the gay movement. Gay Republicans have always been held in suspicion by the rest
of the gay community. Many gays believe we are self-hating people who support our leaders right or wrong. If Log Cabin endorses
Bush, then that belief will have been proven correct. The organization will have no credibility in the gay community, because
they chose to support a man who caves to bigots.
What is going on within Log Cabin reflects the larger issue affecting moderate Republicans in general. The far right
has always been suspicious of moderates, calling us Republicans In Name Only or RINOS because we dont measure up to their
anti-tax, anti-government, anti-gay views. Afraid to be tagged with that label, moderates usually follow the go along to
get along method to show how loyal they are.
In the end, it doesnt get us very far. Moderates still get sidelined or targeted by far right groups.
Log Cabin should be more faithful to Republican principles than they are to certain Republican presidents. In my view
Log Cabin would be wise to follow the lead of Republicans for Environmental Protection. In the last Presidential campaign
they did not endorse then-governor Bush. They didnt endorse the Democratic candidate either. Instead, they presented his
environmental record and let people come to their own conclusions. In the middle of President Bushs term, they offered a
report card of how he was doing so far. They gave some plusses and a whole bunch of minuses. REP has not stopped short of
criticizing the President because they know that the Republican principle of conservation which started with Teddy Roosevelt
is far more important than any allegiance with a President.
Log Cabin should follow this path. For Log Cabin the Republican principles it cherishes are equality, small government,
which in this case means, keep government out of the bedroom. The President fails under these two principles.
In the end, Log Cabin has to decide if their principles are more important than being liked. Endorsing or even qualified
support of the President, might appear to give Log Cabin respect from conservatives in the GOP, but in the long run they will
have sacrificed their principles for nothing.
The Bible tells us of the story of Jacob and Esau two brothers. Esau, the big and brawny one was the oldest and had the
birthright to their fathers wealth. Jacob was the crafty one who knew how to fool his brother. One day Esau comes in hungry
and Jacob had made some stew. Esau wants some, and Jacob is happy to oblige-if Esau gives him his birthright. Esau states,
What good is my birthright if Im starving to death? So he give his birthright for some stew. He chose comfort over principle.
Lets hope Log Cabin doesnt do the same thing.
Dennis Sanders is publisher and editor of the Moderate Republican.
|
