The Shotgun Blog
« The Stanford Prison Experiment | Main | Hot stock tip »
Friday, May 07, 2004
After Abu Ghraib
I was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War. I never really bought the argument that the combination of weapons of mass destruction plus terrorism made Iraq an imminent threat, but in the end accepted that the war was justified on humanitarian grounds because of the suffering of Iraqi civilians, and consistent with the Thomistic grounds of "punishment of evil doers". That covers Ius ad bello. As for Ius in bello, I thought that the initial American campaign was a masterpiece of restraint, careful targeting, and avoiding civilian casualties.
But clearly, the post-war occupation has been a failure on many grounds. The images of abuse committed on Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison - a hated symbol of the old regime - have inflamed the Arab world and seared the conscience of Americans and Westerners generally.
Some of the most interesting commentary has noted that these abuses are the product of a decadent, hypersexualized culture, and a breakdown of military discipline due to the integration of women in combat roles, and that as such, they tap into the deepest psychological fears of the Muslim world.
Muslim fundamentalists do not hate the West because of our freedom, but because they fear that unrestrained freedom leads to decadence. The American founders, among others (including, recently, John Paul II), recognized that democracy and freedom could not survive if not infused by virtue. Abu Ghraib must be the beginning of an examination of conscience on behalf of the West if we do not want the necessary and just cause of Iraqi freedom to end in failure and a further strengthening of Islamist terrorism.
(Crossposted at Mystique et Politique)
Posted by Mark Cameron on May 7, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83420ab0353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :
» Hanging like this from Twisted Spinster
(I was going to post the following here but it just got too long. This is pretty much a continuation of what I posted about here.)rnrnCharles Krauthammer is worried about how we will look to the Arabs now. Here is what I say to that:rnrnI think... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-05-09 5:43:13 PM
» Things I'm Tired Of from Caerdroia
Here are a few things I'm tired of, all in relation to the Terror Wars: Americans being beheaded by Muslims - whether or not it's filmed Israeli women and their children being murdered by Muslims, with special attention to putting a bullet in her belly... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-05-12 9:50:34 AM
Comments
They fear, rightly, that unrestrained freedom will lead not just to decadence but more importantly to the death of Islam.
Many people like to quip that what Islam needs is a Martin Luther, but to steal someone else's line: Today's Muslim fundamentalists know something that Martin Luther didn't know and couldn't have--the consequences of his own Reformation.
They've observed our decadent oversexed culture and so forth, but they've also observed our sucky, liberal, trendy-crazy mainstream Churches doing everything they can to 'accomodate the culture' and 'live out the spirit of Vatican II'--that is, make themselves impotent, irrelevant, corrupt jokes.
Since there is no concept of separation of chuch and state in Islam, the only alternatives seem to be watered down Islam Lite (tm) or full-on fundamentalism.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-07 1:00:15 PM
What will be interesting is the Islamic reaction to the trial and punishment of the people who committed the crimes at Abu Ghraib.
Pace Kathy and Mark, this was not hypersexualized, western decadence and irreligion at work: it was a small number of issolated, psychologically ill prepared people in a position of improperly supervised power. They did wrong and they should have known they were doing wrong. And they will be punished.
The essential difference between the secular West and the Islamofascist states which make up much of the Middle East, is that this sort of behaviour will be investigated, charges will be brought and individuals will be punished. No one will pretend that the Americans at Abu Ghraib were doing "God's work" or that they were "promoting virtue and supressing vice".
It is not obvious that you can infuse abstractions such democracy and freedom with the ultimate abstraction, virtue - but you can use the rule of law to prevent and punish individuals who behave badly.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-07 1:22:46 PM
Jay,
A free society depends on virtue because in a free society, the law is not omnipresent. Our income tax system, for instance, depends primarily on self-assessment, reinforced with checks on suspicious returns and a few selected at random. We do not have cameras monitoring our every move. Of course the individual soldiers are responsible for their behaviour, and of course they must be prosecuted and punished. But isn't it possible that this is at least in part the result of young men and young women coming from broken homes, lousy, morally relativistic education systems, and an ultra-violent, ultra-sexualized mass entertainment culture?
My suspicion is that there would be less of this kind of thing in an army in which consorting with the opposite sex got you discharged, rather than one which allowed prison guards visitation rights from their pregnant girlfriends in the typing pool. The American army is the mightiest military the world has ever seen in terms of firepower and technical know-how. But Pat Tillman aside, do we have soldiers who have been formed with the Stoic and Christian ideals of virtue common to Civil War officers or Roman centurions? I don't think so.
Posted by: Mark C. | 2004-05-07 2:20:33 PM
"But Pat Tillman aside, do we have soldiers who have been formed with the Stoic and Christian ideals of virtue common to Civil War officers or Roman centurions? I don't think so."
Mark, it is not at all obvious that the American and British (and other coalition) soldiers serving in Iraq are worse than Civil War officers or Roman centurions. In fact, because of a good deal of professional training, they are arguably rather better.
Centurions varied in quality and, if they had one uniting characteristic it was a willingness to impose the will of Rome by whatever means worked. Civilian slaughter, torture, crucifixion? All fair ball if you opposed the Romans.
Civil War officers were hardly an advertisement for virtue. One side was fighting to preserve slavery while the other fought to preserve the Union. Both claimed, as soldiers through the ages have, that God was on their side. Both sides committed attrocities, rapes, pillages and treated prisoners horribly.
While socons seem to want to try to make the Abu Ghraib abuse about the decadent society which sent the soldiers, I am inclined to think the remarkable absence of wholesale slaughter in the face of extreme provocation suggests exactly the opposite. The men and women serving in the heat of Iraq, facing fanatics intent on martyrdom have behaved, by and large, with temperance, forbearance and a degree of cultural sensitivity which bespeaks first class leadership, excellent discipline and rock solid personal values.
If you take a spin around the more military American blogs you'll see the disgust with which the Abu Ghraib abuse has been greeted. These are men and women who are proud of the uniform they wear and hate to see it sullied by the actions of a few bullies.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-07 3:33:13 PM
You could do worse than to start a tour of American military blogs with Sgt. Styker found here:
http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/004403.php#004403
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-07 3:46:06 PM
Mark said:
"A free society depends on virtue because in a free society, the law is not omnipresent."
Just so. Back in 1960, this was recognized in the preamble to our Bill of Rights:
"The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-12.3/28511.html
"I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- the Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons debates, July 1, 1960
http://www.cbe.ab.ca/schools/view.asp?id=235
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-05-08 11:06:52 PM
Muslim fundamentalists don’t hate the West because of our freedom, but because they fear that unrestrained freedom leads to decadence
Under the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law, slavery is legal. Arab fundamentalists in the Sudan are currently using these laws to excuse their propensity to enslave blacks and rape children.
Under the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic (shariah) law, women who are not married by the age of 13 can be convicted of prostitution.
Under these laws, converting to another religion is punishable by death.
Muslim fundamentalists call their nationwide funding of terrorism and mass slaughter ‘charity’.
The morality of these Islamic fundamentalists is the morality of the Thousand Year Reich. It’s the morality of hate and intolerance. I’m very glad that these fascists are our enemies. It would worry me if they weren’t.
Posted by: mary | 2004-05-10 8:08:04 AM
Kathy - good point about Luther, although Muslims have in the past ignored the doings of other religions as being of no interest, so I wonder how many of the fundies really do know what he accomplished.
Also, don't forget that the Muslims have a schism that goes back the the first century after Mohammed's death, something that Chrisitanity lacks, since all those early "heretics" got purged.
Posted by: Oscar | 2004-05-10 8:29:52 AM
"Abu Ghraib must be the beginning of an examination of conscience on behalf of the West"
I really have no clue what you're getting at in this post. What are we supposed to be examining?
The "hypersexualized" link contains a conflation between pornography, abuse, and forced prostitution that borders on insane. Ms. Hughes is flatly saying that the legitimate pornography industry, which pays willing models, is equivalent to prostitution via enslavement.
The "military discipline" link seems to be saying that we should yank women out of the military and stick them back in the kitchen where they belong (of course it's phrased more gently, but that's the obvious conclusion).
The "fears" link seems to be saying that the worst part of this whole mess is the fact that there are pictures of a woman dominating a man.
The common thread that I see running through all of these links is that you're suggesting we reexamine the role of women in our society - that they are either used as objects or have far too much power. Either way, they should be safe, protected, and out of the public eye.
Is that really what you're trying to say?!?
BTW: What's wrong with "decadence"?
Posted by: mrsizer | 2004-05-10 1:44:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.