September 8, 2004
CAN HE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TED BUNDY AND A PLEDGEMASTER?:
Military Must Squarely Face New 'My Lai': Abu Ghraib scandal is a test of values for the U.S. officer corps. (Andrew J. Bacevich, August 31, 2004, LA Times)
For the present generation of American soldiers, Abu Ghraib is fast becoming what the My Lai massacre was to the generation that fought in Vietnam — an episode of horrific misconduct transformed through subsequent mishandling into a full-fledged moral crisis.The similarities between the two episodes are instructive. So too are the differences. For those differences suggest what must be done to prevent the current situation from further eroding the integrity of the armed services.
The similarities between My Lai and Abu Ghraib begin with the incidents themselves. In each, units — not wayward individuals but groups of American soldiers — not only broke the law but violated the most basic standards of human decency. At My Lai in 1968, GIs murdered hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. In 2003 at Abu Ghraib (and perhaps elsewhere), soldiers systematically humiliated, abused and even tortured detainees in U.S. custody.
For a time, each episode remained hidden, as seasoned officers averted their eyes, lied or actively sought to suppress all knowledge of what had occurred. In the case of My Lai, conscience eventually moved a young draftee to blow the whistle. In the case of Abu Ghraib, a junior-ranking enlisted soldier refused to be complicit in wrongdoing.
As each incident erupted in public, it evoked a similar response from the upper echelons of the Pentagon. First came denial and then damage control. In passing off Abu Ghraib as the work of a few bad apples, Defense Department officials in 2004 behaved very much as had their predecessors in 1969. Then as now the hunt for expendable scapegoats began almost immediately, with Lt. William Calley the precursor of today's Pfc. Lynndie England.
But in one crucial respect, the two episodes differ. The numerous official inquiries that Abu Ghraib has spawned have amounted to a well-choreographed exercise in evasion. [...]
In contrast, the My Lai massacre produced an investigative report that had no difficulty in calling a spade a spade.
Strange, you'd think the signal difference would be the murder of hundreds in one instance. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2004 11:02 AM
General Patton explains the distinction in language that even the least educated can understand.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 8, 2004 11:44 AMThat that distinction exists doesn't matter to the antiwar Left. They're straining at every analogy they can find, no matter how thin, to equate Iraq with Vietnam, especially in this election year (no matter how many additional difficulties that causes for their chosen candidate, who _doesn't_ need to muck any more with Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia or anyplace within a thousand miles of the region).
Posted by: Joe at September 8, 2004 1:04 PMThe thing is, had Kerry been a soldier at Abu Ghraib, he would have mocked the Iraqis as well and then come home to have an extended conversation with Sy Hersh.
It was left to a guy from a small town in Western Maryland to blow the whistle on his "buddies", and when he did, it was being checked out. The press always wants to attack the officer corps; it makes them feel so superior.
BTW, someone should ask Bob Kerrey if what he did in Vietnam was the same as what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 8, 2004 2:36 PMIf Kerry gets a question about Abu Ghraib during the debates, I fully expect him to handle it as deftly as he did throwing that grenade into the rice paddy 36 years ago.
Posted by: John at September 8, 2004 3:17 PM