6 US Troops charged for maltreating Iraqi jail inmates

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm taking bets on what happens to the general in charge of the prison.

Karpinski? She'll most likely get whitewashed, but the reprimand in her file is a career-ender. That's just not enough to get the message across, especially if the usual practice is followed and the worker bees get the brunt of any punishment.

[DinoDoc]

How sad. I was hoping for sometime in Fort Leavenworth given that her criminal stupidity has both endangered the overall mission and put field units in greater danger.

[MichaeltheGreat]

We don't do that to field grade or general officers.

Remember Calley and My Lai? We need a useful, marginally qualified scapegoat in the O1 or O2 grades. Shouldn't be that hard to find, given that the shafting will make the designated scapegoat a hero in some circles, and there should be book and movie rights available to compensate for the inconvenience of being demonized for a while.

FWIW, I agree with you that Karpinski and the entire responsible chain of command should pay, and pay severely, but I'd be less surprised about Bill Clinton getting elected for a third time than I would about real justice hitting the senior ranks.

[Ramo]

It looks to me like the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is over, and we've decisively lost. Iraqi street (as well as Arab street in general) seems to have gone ape**** over the prison abuse (the only thing so far to unite just about every political faction in the country). After we've alienated both Sunnis and the Shia with incompetent policy after incompetent policy (and it looks to me that we're going to invade Najaf soon ), this is the last thing we need.

And it doesn't help our reputation any that the civilian contracters involved in the abuse in Abu Ghraib (and quite possibly the murder(s)) not only haven't been prosecuted, but are still working there. Whomever decided that ought to be prosecuted themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Screw the Iraqi's "hearts and minds" we're there for their weapons, their oil (at least they still have that), for a base of operations and to encourage other would-be pains in our ass in the geopolitically significant (i.e. useful for having or transporting oil) middle east.

We still need to clean house, but it sure isn't to cater to some nonsense about "winning the hearts and minds"

[Ramo]

None of that's going to be viable if, say, the Sadrists take over the country (and now that we're starting to rely on Iraqi troops and Iraqi command as in Fallujah, something like that's increasingly likely).

There needs to be some significant public support for us for any of that to happen. Right now, it's totally gone, except to some extent among the Kurds.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
None of that's going to be viable if, say, the Sadrists take over the country (and now that we're starting to rely on Iraqi troops and Iraqi command as in Fallujah, something like that's increasingly likely).

The Sadrists?

Why in hell would all the other Iraqi factions and groups with their own agendas allow that ignorant little peanut and his relatively few followers to take over the country?

Hell, let Sadr and the Mehdi army try to take over Fallujah and see what they get for their trouble.

[Ramo]

Civil War. Maybe some extreme Arab nationalists, take control of Fallujah (since our troops sure can't). Then, they start attacking Shia clerics, so the Shia fight back with maybe some Iranian (now that the conservative gov't is firmly in power) help. Which radicalizes each side, leading to extremists (i.e. the Sadrists) coming on top.

I was just using Sadr as an example. The point is, someone who we won't like will come to power. And they sure ain't going to let us keep an American army base from which we could project our power in Iraq. Who in Iraq is still that friendly to us? We even had to drop Chalabi because his corruption was becoming too outrageous even for this gov't.

As for the Sadrists themselves, a few months ago, I'd have asked why in the hell would the other Iraqi factions and groups with their own agendas allow this minor cleric with only his dad's name and a lot of anger going for him take over Najaf. But it happened. The Shia insurrection is about more than Sadr or even the proper Sadrist movement; and the success it has had implies support throughout large parts of Shia society.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Civil War. Maybe some extreme Arab nationalists, take control of Fallujah (since our troops sure can't).

We can, if we send more than a couple thousand. The Iraqis just don't like to think of what will happen if we have to clean up the mess.

The point is, someone who we won't like will come to power.

We got rid of the last guy we didn't like. We don't have to like the next one, in fact he can say whatever the hell he likes, as long as he plays ball with us on the big issues.

And they sure ain't going to let us keep an American army base from which we could project our power in Iraq.

What exactly would they do about it? Request an UN force to expel us?

Who in Iraq is still that friendly to us? We even had to drop Chalabi because his corruption was becoming too outrageous even for this gov't.

But it happened.

So? Maybe they had more pressing concerns, or figured Sadr would do something stupid, get turned into a spot of grease by the US, and then not only solve the Shiite problem of what to do about Sadr without anyone getting their hands dirty and while giving anyone who wants someone to blame the US as a scapegoat.

The Shia insurrection is about more than Sadr or even the proper Sadrist movement; and the success it has had implies support throughout large parts of Shia society.

It's very far from a full scale insurrection, and doesn't really amount to more than testing the waters and seeing what response is forthcoming.

[Ramo]

We can, if we send more than a couple thousand. The Iraqis just don't like to think of what will happen if we have to clean up the mess.

If we send much more than a couple thousand, we'd have to keep much more than a couple thousand in Fallujah for a very long time, just to maintain control. And if this spreads to other parts of the Sunni belt, same thing.

We got rid of the last guy we didn't like. We don't have to like the next one, in fact he can say whatever the hell he likes, as long as he plays ball with us on the big issues.

Same difference. We aren't going to find someone who plays ball and can keep control of the country if everyone hates our guts.

What exactly would they do about it? Request an UN force to expel us?

Indefinitely long rebellion until political pressure from casualties forces us out.

So? Maybe they had more pressing concerns, or figured Sadr would do something stupid, get turned into a spot of grease by the US, and then not only solve the Shiite problem of what to do about Sadr without anyone getting their hands dirty and while giving anyone who wants someone to blame the US as a scapegoat

You really believe that Sistani et al. had the clout to squash the rebels themselves without undermining their own political goals?

It's very far from a full scale insurrection, and doesn't really amount to more than testing the waters and seeing what response is forthcoming.

I didn't say that it was full scale insurrection. It, however, demonstrates broad support for the rebels among the Shia. And this started before a lot of important things that are giving the rebels greater validity among the rank and file (such as, allowing a Ba'athist general to take over Fallujah and of course the prison scandal).

[Chemical Ollie]

I read today that playing loud rap music for the prisoners at night has been banned, so now they will finally be treated humane

[Boris Godunov]

And now, Rush Limbaugh weighs in:

Rush Limbaugh on how soldiers stacking up naked prisoners is, as one caller put it, "like a college fraternity prank":

"Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?"

---------------------

Wow. I'm...speechless. Wow.

What a ****ing douchebag.

[MrFun]

Yeah -- I'm sure those prisoners were having a "good time" with these so-called "initiation" rights.


Man -- Limbaugh is a ****ing moron.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo


If we send much more than a couple thousand, we'd have to keep much more than a couple thousand in Fallujah for a very long time, just to maintain control. And if this spreads to other parts of the Sunni belt, same thing.

Or we just start running our chosen Iraqi cadres through the School of the Americas.

Same difference. We aren't going to find someone who plays ball and can keep control of the country if everyone hates our guts.

Not everyone does, not by a long shot. We're still dealing with a tiny percentage of the overall population.

Indefinitely long rebellion until political pressure from casualties forces us out.

Won't happen.

You really believe that Sistani et al. had the clout to squash the rebels themselves without undermining their own political goals?

I don't believe they have any interest in doing so. The best thing for Sistani to do was what he did - sit back, and if Sadr gets wasted by the Americans, that's plus two for Sistani, if the Americans back down, then Sadr's stuck if he continues the same **** when there's a sovereign Iraqi government, etc. Sadr painted himself into a corner when he decided to get openly uppity, and Sistani's cool as a cucumber letting it play out without taking any decisive action unless and until it's in his interest to do so.

I didn't say that it was full scale insurrection. It, however, demonstrates broad support for the rebels among the Shia. And this started before a lot of important things that are giving the rebels greater validity among the rank and file (such as, allowing a Ba'athist general to take over Fallujah and of course the prison scandal).

"Broad support" is a bit different from "having better things to do than really care about what Sadr is doing." The Montreal Expos have some fans too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun

Man -- Limbaugh is a ****ing moron.

I'm sure the Bush campaign thinks so, too, right about now. Yep, let's get ol' Rush's followers all worked up about whitewashing this whole thing because it was just some pranks and letting off steam, blah blah blah. Put ol' Dubya between Iraq and a hard place.