Declining Army Standards Led to Scandal

[thedrifter]

07-13-2004

Declining Army Standards Led to Scandal







By David DeBatto



I and hundreds (thousands?) of other writers have spent millions of words over the past couple of months on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq.



We have presented and dissected the AR 15-6 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. We have looked at the “leaked” memos to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Graphs and diagrams have been drawn of the prison complex and the military chain of command that was responsible for its operation. Witnesses to the abuse have given their take on the interrogation policy in place and the overall atmosphere at the prison.



Every major media outlet in the world has published articles dealing with the now infamous U.S. military detention facility. Charges have been leveled at seven low- level enlisted military police officers and courts-martial have begun. Countless interviews have also been conducted with various pundits (including myself) who have given their opinions on what went wrong and what the repercussions of the incident will be on U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and beyond.



As details continue to emerge, it has become possible to see that the scandal does not merely reflect a breakdown in discipline among a small group of soldiers. Instead, Abu Ghraib now seems symbolic of a serious decline of the U.S. Army as a whole.



Maybe it is just me, but it seems pretty clear at this point that the senior leadership in both the Army and the Department of Defense were not only aware of what was going on at Abu Ghraib, but were actually the driving force in implementing the policies currently under investigation by several federal agencies and congressional committees.



That senior leadership caused the scandal, but since the story first broke on “60 Minutes II” in late April, they have been trying to convince anyone that will listen that they were just as surprised by the revelations as the rest of the world.



Talk about hubris.



Now, a story published in the London newspaper The Telegraph on July 4 quotes the former commander of Abu Ghraib, Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, as saying “documents yet to be released by the Pentagon would show that Mr. Rumsfeld personally approved the introduction of harsher conditions of detention in Iraq.” Karpinski went on to say in an interview with The Signal from Santa Clara, Cal., that Rumsfeld also approved “particular interrogation techniques for Abu Ghraib.” Karpinski said that she has personally seen these documents and that they bear Rumsfeld’s signature. These particular documents have not been made public yet, she said.



Now, I am not usually the brightest bulb on the tree, but if I was a betting man, I would have to put my money on the crowd that is saying “preponderance of evidence.” I would even toss a few coins to the “probable cause” folks. It really seems to be a no-brainer at this point. Yet, despite all of that and more, the Pentagon continues to put out strong denials that Rumsfeld ever authorized any interrogation techniques in Iraq. This, from a SecDef that is known for his micro-management style, even to the point of having major grumblings from his own senior staff, including the uniformed members.



Give me a break.



Has anyone at DoD every heard of the Watergate era saying, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up”? Apparently not. In this case however, it’s both.



In what I believe is a related story in the same Telegraph piece from July 4, six recent studies by DoD were leaked to The Los Angeles Times regarding the failure of the military to screen out recruits with criminal records. One report stated “one third of military recruits had criminal records.” Another said “a quarter of Army personnel had committed one or more criminal offences while on active duty.” These reports go as far back as 1995 and as recently as September 2003.



I have long maintained that contrary to the recruiting propaganda that the Pentagon puts out, the quality of our new soldiers has been deteriorating over the past few years. I say that from personal experience.



The military, particularly the Army, is not drawing from a pool of our “best and brightest” any longer. They are, unfortunately, forced to accept recruits from the cast-off crowd, including those that could not find any other work in civilian life and would not or could not go to college. This is a group of people that often do not read, have no interest in current events or foreign affairs and the cultural awareness that is off the scale.



In other words, this was a crew just ripe for the kinds of behavior that Mr. Rumsfeld & Co. encouraged them to engage in at Abu Ghraib.



Editor’s Note: Detailed interview transcripts from the Taguba investigation have been posted online by U.S. News, and SFTT.org has added a link to that site.



Contributing Editor David DeBatto is a retired Army staff sergeant and Counterintelligence Special Agent who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom where he was injured in combat. He is currently writing a novel based upon his military service. He can be reached at david@ciadvisor.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.


http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....6501786327678


Ellie

[hrscowboy]

Bottom line is America dont need a bunch of weekend warriors fighting a war. These people dont have the training or the smarts to compare with the full time veteran. So it be said So it be written...

[gwladgarwr]

Originally posted by hrscowboy
Bottom line is America dont need a bunch of weekend warriors fighting a war. These people dont have the training or the smarts to compare with the full time veteran. So it be said So it be written...

I'm a bit surprised to hear a Marine insult "weekend warriors" when many of them "tampons" are Marines, me included.

We most definitely need our "weekend warriors" - we're just as much Marines as our active duty brethren, and they bleed red just like all the other Marines.

In defense of reservists, let's mention the fact the the Reservists who are activated come in with skills and resources that most active-duty Marines may not have (law enforcement, technical and profesional skills). But in the end, they fight like the true devil dogs they are. None of them, me included, joined the brotherhood of Marines to avoid going to war, if that's what you're insinuating. I know I performed honorably; I can't speak for the Army.

Semper Fidelis, Marines.

[airframesguru]

I've got to wonder about the lack of training. It may be an isolated instance here, or maybee not. My point is that my little brother is a 1stLt in the Army Natl guard. He has spent the last two months and will continue to spend it until October training for his deployment to Iraq ( or somewhere in country). Granted the prison deal is different, but they are soldiers, they have been trained and can be jsut as effective as the rest.

I think there is alot we haven't heard here. The second side of the story combined with an apparent struggle to find the fall guy has things some what fuzzy.

Just my 2 cents.

Sempers,

Mike

[hrscowboy]

gwladgarwr,

bottom line is this look and see how many Army reservists have been killed at no time did I mean a marine reservists our training is the best in the world and i have all the faith in world for my marine brothers reservists or full time I know you have been trained to be the best there are. but again look at the deaths of these people. Yes weve lost brothers in iraq but not to the toll that the army has.