By Mathew Maavak
"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. I didn't like it one bit." - President George W. Bush
I am not through with my narrative over the Abu Ghraib incident yet.
To begin with, I can't believe Bush could have uttered the above statement. It was, for once, grammatically correct, and over so emotive an issue. Hard to believe he can feign sympathy for those tortured, preponderantly civilian, prisoners.
On second thoughts, it makes perfect sense coz he never made sense.
This was the man who kept rehashing the triumph of "good over evil", the "war on terrorism", "we the good guys, they the bad guys" so much so, that I can't bear watching the news anymore.
He kept repeating this during the past few months, knowing that this outrage had occurred and might be leaked out any time.
That is Bush for you and I am beginning to suspect that he is not the thick-skinned defiant cowboy I imagined him to be, but that there is a brain damage somewhere. Those words must have been scripted for him, just as the Iraq War was, right after Sept 11. To make things more jarring, he said this during the 90th annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. He even had the cheek to liken dead GIs in Iraq to a late football star.
Pat Tillman was eulogized in name while fallen soldiers arrive quietly in anonymous coffins, which, the public are not supposed to hear or see. This is after all, a neat little game.
This shameless oratory was described as "lighter remarks" They must be. The president was praising journalists for supporting his bloody war. To my shock, Ralph Nader and Howard Dean were among guests at this unreal orgy of bedfellows. Let's hear their reaction soon.
His favorite poodle though, had plenty to say. Before that, recall this recent Churchillian quote.
We will match their determination with our own, we will be as resolute as they are fanatical, as strong in defence of good as they are in doing evil... this is a battle which is far from over but like previous battles vital to the humankind, this one too will be won. - Tony Blair, March 13, in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings. This happened just six weeks back.
Tony is now "appalled" but has "stressed the abuse by a few soldiers at the Abu Ghraib jail was not representative of coalition troops."
What about the 9/11 attack by "a few hijackers"? The entire Iraqi nation had to pay for it while Osama Bin Laden is on the loose. You need to ask Ann Clywd, Blair's pro-war special envoy to Iraq, for clarification. This is what she said:
"I was particularly concerned that so many prisoners are being held there over a long period of time, that their families quite often don't know they are even there."(BBC Online, April 30, 2004).
Clywd, who had personally seen the prison, raised this concern during a recent visit to the White House. This was known for some time or, at least, it was sensed to a great extent.
It is very telling that the US army didn't clear up their act, and their torturous prison, for a visiting British envoy.
Situation has not changed much since those fateful photos were taken. Someone ought to ask Tag-along Tony how he could have kept up his pretences.
A folie a deux? It has since spread.
There will come a day when we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane.
Now, you can understand why the US army needed their very own BDSM chamber, the same one used by Saddam with greater, perverse vigor. When you have lunatic politicians, soldiers need a little kick themselves, much more than just delivering them. The use of Abu Ghraib made perfect logistical sense but was bound to create a propaganda nightmare. Status quo remained till the photos leaked out. There was at least four months for damage control, yet nothing was done.
Here are some questions:
1) Why are mercenary thugs, provided by private contractors, hired to interrogate and torture prisoners of the US army? And escape with impunity, without any Geneva conventions and a possible Hague trial to restrain them? Is that only reserved for Slobodan Milosevic and his civilian thugs? Why are mercenaries allowed to interrogate in the first place in the hope of extracting information that could turn out to be top secret? Isn't that undermining operational and military security? Do these paid thugs actually extract secrets and keep their mouths shut out of patriotism? Is the US military undergoing corporate privatization? Or did they know that there was no secret to be extracted from those civilians and this was just another brilliant idea to rev up the great game called George's Crusade versus Bin Laden's Jihad? We have had some nasty attacks in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the past 24 hours while Bush cracked his "light" macabre jokes.
2) Why did it take so long for this story to leak out? The army was investigating it for some time and a report was supposedly completed in February (The New Yorker, April 30). This was the ultimate scoop for any reporter. Is that why the president regularly humors them?
3) Why didn't the British Army warn Blair of an impending public relations disaster? They didn't know? Soldiers talk out there, and they talk to reporters as well. Tag-along Tony seems bent on finding his own fall guys as developing events in UK reveal. Some Brit commander may go down soon.
4) How come the accused soldiers couldn't distinguish between torture, "interrogation", or even "forceful interrogation"? This wasn't exactly kicking backsides in anger; they seemed to bring much-needed recreation and photo-ops to the soldiers. The senior one among them worked as a prison guard in the Virginia Department of Corrections. Is that where they sodomize inmates? He didn't know right from wrong? The US has the highest concentration of prisoners in the world. Included among them are those who stole candy and video games three times coz they couldn't afford Christmas gifts for their kids. They get life imprisonment for this while Bush keeps up his war games fantasy. He must have got more than three lucky strikes in his life. It sure seems allright, though, for maniacs from CACI International, the private contractor, to get away with war crimes.
"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. I didn't like it one bit."
Those soldiers did it because they were dehumanized enough to enjoy it. They learnt that from Saddam? Or from the CIA spooks, military intelligence officers and "private specialists" in that hellhole? Or right from home sweet home itself? Well, some people don't seem to like home. Here is what the culpable Brig Gen Janis Karpinski had to say of the prisoners around the time of this incident.
Living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn't want to leave." (quoted by The New Yorker, April 30, from a St Petersburg Times Interview in December).
Certain people have crossed the boundary of delusion. The madness spreads. She can send the entire US prison population there. I am wondering what's Karpinski conception of a "home"?
Finally, here is something sinister: "There were gross differences between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. (The New Yorker, April 30, quoting Major General Antonio M. Taguba, the senior investigating officer who compiled the February report.
Where did the missing go? Or was there an army surplus in Iraq this year? My boys couldn't count the scores. Tillman is gone!
That could be Bush's next joke!
Kuala Lumpur, May 2, 2004. Copyright @ Mathew Maavak, 2004.
Update: Pat Tillman, it later transpired, was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. (May 29, 2004)
More of my articles can be read at the Maavak Corner .