OK, now I'm going
May. 12th, 2004 11:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
addersljOK. Those photos of soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq. I have two main reactions.
1. Why the hell is anyone surprised? Did it never occur to you that some people join the army because they like hurting people? And, if not properly supervised, they might do so in a way we wouldn't approve of? Well, that's probably because we're busy covering up the fact that soldiers do the same things to each other. Does the name "Deepcut" ring any bells?
2. Why is no-one paying attention to the fact that the UK variations on the picture appear to be faked? Or don't we like to think about the fact that we harbour in our midst people so eager to prove their political point that they'll put the lives of serving servicemen and women, as well as other people in Iraq, at risk? Regular readers will remember how depressing I find the quality of debate around the issues. This "political tribe" mentality - are you pro or anti-war? - demeans our whole culture and I find it thoroughly sickening.
1. Why the hell is anyone surprised? Did it never occur to you that some people join the army because they like hurting people? And, if not properly supervised, they might do so in a way we wouldn't approve of? Well, that's probably because we're busy covering up the fact that soldiers do the same things to each other. Does the name "Deepcut" ring any bells?
2. Why is no-one paying attention to the fact that the UK variations on the picture appear to be faked? Or don't we like to think about the fact that we harbour in our midst people so eager to prove their political point that they'll put the lives of serving servicemen and women, as well as other people in Iraq, at risk? Regular readers will remember how depressing I find the quality of debate around the issues. This "political tribe" mentality - are you pro or anti-war? - demeans our whole culture and I find it thoroughly sickening.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 10:55 am (UTC)This is the heart of the matter. A 5-Live interviewee yesterday put it in a nutshell: "The difference between an army and an armed mob is discipline". Discipline has clearly failed, and the as-yet unanswered question is from which point downwards did discipline break down? There are some who would love that answer to be Blair and Bush, but I find that hard to swallow.
2. Why is no-one paying attention to the fact that the UK variations on the picture appear to be faked?
When you look at the US pictures alongside the UK pictures, the UK images are hardly credible. So crisp, so well-composed, so perfectly hiding the faces of the 'soldiers' and 'prisoners'. The argument that they're a "reconstruction" is a fig leaf. I wonder if No. 10 will have the stomach to 'do a Hutton' on Piers Morgan?
Tribalism is human nature, but it's depressing that those with the best slogan win. What's the pro-war riposte to "No War For Oil"? "No appeasement for France's continued skimming of money from the oil for fraud programme" hardly makes a good chant.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:04 am (UTC)It seems that we've at least figured out how to organise sufficiently large tribes (nations) that the most extreme elements become noise. Is the internet (or perhaps just the media in general) taking us back a step or two, with its ability to amplify the smallest noise in the signal beyond its importance?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:46 am (UTC)When the 506th found Dachau they lined up several camp guards and shot them. But time and distance have provided us with the context to react appropriately to that instance, and to the many less sympathetic instances that occurred and are documentes, and yet which did not make the fight against fascism any less moral or justifiable.
Personally, I am wondering - as Adder does - about whether this spin-sensitive government will have the guts and political capital to act against Piers Morgan. It would be ironic if they can fire the good public servant but not touch the sickening but private-sector newspaper editor.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:37 am (UTC)That said, there are about 112,000 people in the UK's regular army, and if you can pick 112,000 individuals and not end up with a few who have... umm... issues, you're a better man than I, Gunga-Din. The fact is that everything we've seen proof of is about the level you'd expect in the average college hazing ritual.
Anyway, I'm kinda hoping (as i just wrote in my own journal) that yesterday's beheading of an unarmed, bound civilian by Iraquis simply because he was an American Jew will have a galvanising effect: we are not perfect as a culture, nor are our troops. But it's a damn sight better than what we're fighting to end.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:45 am (UTC)You're correct. That's why I used the word "some" in front of the phrase. It significantly qualifies the meaning...
Military training is a funny thing. It has to strike a balance between readying people to kill, without innuring people comletely to death, rendering them sociopaths. It's inevitable that some people who have some inclination that way, but not enough to stand out at recruitment, will have those tendencies blossom within them as a result.
And I have no idea what it's like to be in a country where people are actively trying to kill you, and what affect that would have on your mind.
What happened is unfortunate, upsetting and wrong. It's just not surprising.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:04 pm (UTC)Certainly. There are supposed to be institutions to prevent it. It now appears that not only did the leadership fail to act, but it was, in fact, the architect of the whole thing. Everything I'm reading, from the Teguba Report upward, indicates that this was systematic torture instigated by authorities, not in spite of them.
2. Why is no-one paying attention to the fact that the UK variations on the picture appear to be faked?
A few reaons:
* The British were, in fact, the first to have photographic evidence of using torture in Iraq. This is not a new problem for the UK in this war.
* Complaints about UK troops behaviour exists separately from the phots (which have, by and largely not been mentioned lately).
* The accusation of fakery is somewhat dodgy to begin with. Modern armies have quite a bit of variation in their gear above and beyond what the average war geek claims would or would not show up in a particular spot. If that gear really was the deciding factor, you'd have seen a definitive MoD statement about it by now.
Or don't we like to think about the fact that we harbour in our midst people so eager to prove their political point that they'll put the lives of serving servicemen and women, as well as other people in Iraq, at risk?
I can't help but think that this is a rather backhanded accusation levelled at the antiwar crowd, despite you insistence that you're not thinking in terms of binary affiliations. It certainly seems premature of you to ascribe a particular motive. Since the US efforts in war have seen intelligence officers coordinating their efforts with CNN, soldiers shooting journalists and propaganda campaigns directed toward US newspapers (mass form letters to the editor about how good things in Iraq are), I'd be just as inclined to believe this is domestic propaganda designed to confuse the issue.
I was, for a time, more prepared to soften my stance about the war. In fact, I was desperate to do so, because I don't like seeing fruitless death. But what has happened now is that not only have I not seen anything to contradict what you might call the antiwar stereotype, but events have conformed to its most nightmarish speculations.
I wish I could tell you I enjoyed the security I feel in my stance, but given what that implies, that would make me a sadist.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:36 pm (UTC)And you'd be 100% wrong.
But then, if I'm not with you, clearly I'm against you.
Thanks for proving my point.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:48 pm (UTC)Of course, I didn't actually say that you had any particular position about the war, rendering:
But then, if I'm not with you, clearly I'm against you.
Thanks for proving my point.
. . . rather premature, don't you think?
Perhaps you would find people's politics less rigid if you were willing to recognize nuance in others' opinions. Quid pro quo, Adam: Would you try that, or are you yourself too committed to the thesis that other people are rigidly opinionated and that you're the moderate?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:55 pm (UTC)Remember nuances? The things I can't do?
You were the one who waded in with accusations that I was digging at the anti-war lobby, remember? Missed a nuance, perhaps?
That said, I'd put money on the fact that there are people on the anti-war side who will go to those lengths to smear the pro-war side. And we already know there are people on the pro-war side who will do the same. (Faked documents "found" in Iraq, for example).
. . . rather premature, don't you think?
Uh, no. It'd have been premature if I'd said it before you opened you argument by accusing me of attacking a side.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:17 pm (UTC)Remember nuances? The things I can't do?
Where exactly are you getting this level of hostility from? I'm not asking this to bait you. I believe that you'vee seriously misread the tone of my statements.
You were the one who waded in with accusations that I was digging at the anti-war lobby, remember? Missed a nuance, perhaps?
I noted that your "could" statement seemed lopsided to me.
That said, I'd put money on the fact that there are people on the anti-war side who will go to those lengths to smear the pro-war side. And we already know there are people on the pro-war side who will do the same. (Faked documents "found" in Iraq, for example).
And somewhere, there is a man who believes he's against the war as part of supporting a Maoist revolution. Or fighting space aliens that control the government. The question is a matter of the hypotheses you believe are worthy of comment versus the ones you believe are not. Even if you hedge or bets with "might" or "could," by presenting that idea in the fore it biases the statement toward it. That's a stance.
Uh, no. It'd have been premature if I'd said it before you opened you argument by accusing me of attacking a side.
Yeah, I suppose I did accuse you. I don't regret it, since I don't think I was impolite about it at all and your explanation does seem to confitm to me that what I suspected was forefront in your mind.
Venturing that you may have that bias doesn't mean I throw you in some sort of homogenous camp. Where would you get the idea that it does?
I'm not making extreme assumptions. I'm reading something you wrote in the context of the contents of your journal, where you've regularly talked about the changes in your political sentiments. My response was not a presumptuous hermeneutic exercise performed upon an isolated, ancient text by someone I've never heard of before. It was a guesstimate based on what I've been reading from you for the past couple of years or so.
There's a world of diffference between exercising the judgment and being, as you seem to think could be possible, a political automoton. Ask yourself which of these is claims casts greater aspersions on the participants, here.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:27 pm (UTC)Y'know, I think you forget that we come very different political contexts.
In Britain, the liberal viewpoint is the predominant one.
In the US, the conservative viewpoint seems to be the predominant one.
Go back, and reassess the whole discussion in the light of that factor.
Now, consider the way you chose to open the discussion, and which of us is displaying defensiveness and hostility.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:29 pm (UTC)Oh, and if you're going to ludicrously misrepresent my position like that again, please don't bother replying at all.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:55 pm (UTC)Adam, we can go at this for as long as either of us would care to, where I point out that even you have your biases (even if they can't be assigned to a particular camp -- something I never did with your feelings, but you sure as hell did with mine) and you can be terribly offended that I ventured that you might actually have an opinion that can be nailed down. You of course, will have the advantage, since you seem to consider actually rebutting any significant portion of my statements beneath you, opting to send broadsides at the way I approach politics and the way I approach dialogue in general.
Fine. You are the enlightened guy who defies all attempts to categorize him and slips out of my gormless ignorance of your true feelings (which I've been reading about for ages) and your country (which half of my immediate family are citizens of). You own the anti-category category.
You're also behaving like a shithead.
In that, at least, you have managed to transcend the boundaries that I assumed existed.
Bye.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:14 pm (UTC)This has been very enlightening.
Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:42 pm (UTC)Go back, and reassess the whole discussion in the light of that factor.
Good sentiment.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:51 pm (UTC)It's this:
1. You accuse me of having a hidden agenda.
2. You accuse me of an inability to understand what other people are saying.
3. When called on points 1 & 2, you then accuse me of hostility, and portray yourself as the rational one and me as someone reacting irrationally and with the same hidden agenda, which you then repeat. Then you reduce the thrust of what I’m saying to a ludicrous extreme.
This is known as “playing the man, not the ball”. It’s an interesting evasive technique many people use while being interviewed. Rather than trying to discredit what’s being said, the person tries to discredit the person doing the saying.
Boy, that one gets the journalistic hackles rising.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 04:34 pm (UTC)No. I implied that it *could* be a deliberate attempt.
Adam, I've got to say that I didn't read the 1st statement above as an implication - I read it as a straight accusation.
It may be a failing in my reading comprehension, and frankly, not something I'm bothered enough about to argue. However, if it is, then
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 04:43 pm (UTC)Now, obviously, if the photos are fakes, then someone (probably in the anti-war lobby) has created them. So, yes, you can find an accusation in there, particularly if you look at the first quote you give above without the context of the other lines around it. However, I was talking more about why there was very little discussion of the possability that this was the case, rather than saying it was the case. As a journalist, I know all about what you can do by quoting people out of context. :-)
I do find it interesting how different people will interpret the same sentance based on their own set of views of the situation. There is also a definite subset of people who tend to view each line in isolation (and I'm not accusing you of being one of them) and never give much regard to context.
Boy, it's hard to have a discussion with those people.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:28 pm (UTC)I would say it is a comment about those who would put our servicemen's lives at risk just because they don't like the reasons they were sent there.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:16 pm (UTC)Exactly. I asked this back on the 9th:
(And got some interesting responses.)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nerd_king/77521.html
"We musn't get so wrapped up in our own western guilt to start trivialising the deaths of our own people (in an admittedly ill conceived war) yet throw our hands up in horror when our own scared and angry and confused troops do the equivalent of College fraternity hazing stunts on a group of prisoners who for all we know might have been eating babies for breakfast and pusing blind badgers under buses"
>>>>>>>2. Why is no-one paying attention to the fact that the UK variations on the picture appear to be faked?<<<<<<<<<
Because A: The mirror shouldn't have printed them unless there was no doubt whatsoever - and if tehy are proven fake Piers Morgan will be in a shitstorm from hell.
B: They look so blatantly fake.