The Mistreatment of Prisoners and Its Aftermath

In every war there seems to be a defining moment that determines its eventual outcome. It is usually associated with a specific time or place, such as Gettysburg, Stalingrad, Midway, or Tet.  The relative importance of the moment is not always determined by which army was victorious, but rather the affect that its outcome has on the willingness of one of the combatants to continue the struggle. As any military student knows, the primary strategic objective of any conflict is to destroy the enemy’s will to resist rather than to destroy the enemy himself. Destruction of the enemy is secondary, and usually unnecessary, if the enemy can be convinced that continued resistance is futile or too costly. Although the Tet Offensive in Vietnam was, from a strictly military perspective, an American victory, its cost in lives and resources began the destruction of America’s will to carry on. Strategically, it was a victory for North Vietnam and the Vietcong.

The revelations of prisoner abuse that have dominated the news for the past week could become the defining moment in the War in Iraq.  The uniqueness of this potentially defining moment will be that America’s enemies in this war did not have to fire a single shot. The only shots that are being fired here are American, and they are at our own feet.

The news of prisoner abuse is having far more impact in America than it is in the rest of the world. One reason for this is that many opponents of the war, along with many others who have not actually opposed the war but have been quite outspoken in their opposition to the Bush Administration, are greatly over-exaggerating the effects of the news on worldwide public opinion. They are doing this to promote their own political agenda. This is why conservative claims that they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy are quite correct. Any activity that reduces American public opinion to carry through to victory in Iraq promotes the cause of Islamic Jihadists and Baathists, not only in Iraq but also throughout the world.

Public Opinion in the Arab World.  There is no doubt that the pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison will have a negative affect on Iraqi public opinion, but it will be of short duration and eventually offset by the many improvements that Iraqis will experience in their lives. Suggestions that this event will prevent winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi people are politically motivated, and will be recognized as such by most Americans.

Similarly, while the public showing of these pictures in the rest of the Arab world will likely increase the ability of terrorists to recruit new members, the overall effects will not cause an overwhelming change in a situation that was already bad long before the War in Iraq began. If liberals were being honest, they would concede that the only way to improve our support in the Arab world would be to discontinue our support for Israel. Since this would suicidal for them, and rightly so, they prefer to focus instead on relatively minor issues. Because they place their political agenda above everything else, they refuse to mention the positive long-term affects that success in Iraq would have on Islamic public opinion.

Public Opinion in the Rest of the World. Whatever damage may have been done to the American image by the Abu Ghraib scandal, it will probably be short-lived, and the actual impacts probably even less, despite all of the hand wringing and screeching by American liberals. British, Polish, or Australian troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq because of this. France, Germany, and Russia would not have provided military support in Iraq even if the events had not taken place. No treaties or trade agreements will be cancelled. The outcome will be limited to some official finger-pointing and some noisy anti-war demonstrations, both being responses that result in weeping and gnashing of teeth by liberals but are of no real importance in the long run. Intelligent people around the world know that this behavior is not typical of America, nor is it anything that any American government would prescribe or condone.

Public Opinion in the United States. Despite assertions to the contrary, the greatest public relations impacts of Abu Ghraib will be felt in the United States. Because this is an election year, many Democratic politicians are inferring that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld all but ordered the repugnant perversions that were done by soldiers at the bottom of the military hierarchy. The demands by John Kerry and others that Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced is seen by most Americans as nothing but a campaign tactic, one that lacks any rational thought but is instead purely emotional rant. Recent polls clearly show this to be true. On the other hand, this event could become a factor in America’s overall willingness to stay the course. John Kerry’s initiation of a petition calling for the removal of Secretary Rumsfeld, if successful, would be a clear signal to our enemies that the American people no longer have trust in their leaders. This action is as equally self-serving and traitorous as his behavior in the early 1970s during the Vietnam War. It is nothing less than a back-door attempt to turn public opinion against the war, since the time has not yet come when he can call the war immoral and our troop’s war criminals.

The Denver Post columnist Diane Carman does not have to worry about timing. In the May 11, 2004 edition of the Post, Denver’s version of Maureen Dowd and Richard Cohen has an article entitled “War is sick, and outrage may be cure”.  In her article, she states that:

  The American public has no stomach for real images from real battlefields. And the War in Iraq, which
  began as a sanitized war of lasers, smart bombs and computer generated light shows over Baghdad has
  turned ugly.

The intimate pictures of torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison reveal a sadistic streak among the American soldiers that offends the sensibilities of even the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war. 

She quotes comments made by Robert Schulzinger, a history and international affairs professor at the University of Colorado, that equates Abu Ghraib with the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War in its affect on public opinion. Schulzinger states that no war in American history has actually been popular with the people, a point that may be true, but one that belies the oft-heard claim from the left that Americans in general are a violent, warlike people. His point, however, is that because television and other media now bring war’s brutality into our living rooms on a daily basis, we soon grow bored and repulsed by it, and support for the effort is lost.

While it is hard to disagree with Schulzinger’s argument, those who cite him as a source overlook the implications of his words. The erosion of public support means that we abandon the cause that took us to war initially, and are satisfied with a task only partially completed.  Those who would lead us down this path claim that the original cause was unworthy or immoral, a rationalization that could apply to most of the wars that our country has fought. Indeed, there were many who claimed that our cause was unjust in the Revolutionary War and in the Civil War.

A second implication is that in the future, the only way in which our country can defend its national interest is through the use of all of our arms at the outset, a return to the concept of “massive retaliation” that prevailed through much of the Cold War. Of course, this would also be deemed immoral and rightfully so. It would also lack any credibility since most threats in the future will come from sources (i.e. multi-national terrorist groups) that do not provide viable targets for our weapons of mass destruction. The use of such weapons would result in millions of innocent deaths with only minimal damage being done to the enemy. Reliance on the concept of massive retaliation in today’s world is unrealistic and therefore is not a valid alternative. The only remaining alternative is capitulation to any threats that arise. There are a few idealists who believe that reliance on negotiations and/or overwhelming support of the international community could deter these threats. These methods of conflict resolution are successful only in situations where there are mutually shared interests. They have little or no application in our current confrontation with Islamic Jihad. To believe otherwise is to display a lack of  understanding the situation, a serious case of naiveté, or both.

One person who understands these alternatives as well or better than anyone else and is attempting to address them is the current Secretary of Defense. Those who are currently calling for Rumsfeld’s head on a platter do not consider the need to improve the country’s ability to respond to multiple threats more efficiently and effectively. They are far more concerned about assuaging their collective guilt over Abu Ghraib and relieving their mental constipation by bringing down the House of Bush.

If the current slight majority of Americans who support the War in Iraq is eroded, the pictures that we saw in 1975 of Vietnamese trying to escape in Saigon will be repeated with a far more dangerous aftermath.  Ho Chi Minh and General Giap had far more limited objectives than those of Osama bin Laden. And like Uncle Ho, Osama will point to America’s withdrawal as proof that Americans do not have the will to resist in order to protect their vital interests. If America were to allocate all of its resources to improving its homeland security, we still could not be guaranteed that 9/11 would not be repeated.

It is far more logical to take the fight to the enemy, to retain the offensive, and to do battle on the enemy’s turf rather than on our own. And for those who foolishly believe that the enemy’s turf is limited to Afghanistan, and perhaps Pakistan, you are still living in a time long gone when wars were only fought between nations.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE