I haven't written anything about the Abu Ghraib scandal because what I
would have written about the scandal itself had been said better
elsewhere. A quick synopsis of my thoughts on the matter: the abuse is
disgusting, abhorrent, reprehensible.
And that's the extent of what I think about the scandal itself.
However, as far as the commentary in the blogosphere and in newspapers
regarding what the military should do now that these photos have been
released, well, that's another matter entirely. I've got plenty to say
about that. I've read accounts that cover the oh-so-colorful spectrum
of political views that we all look forward to reading on a daily
basis. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The suggestions range
from drawing and quatering the accused to listing out the reasons for
Rummy to resign to speculating wildly on how this will affect the
campaigns in Fallujah and Najaf. Some are wild in nature, yet others
make some sense. Do I think these bloggers and commentators should shut
the fuck up? No, they're allowed to say whatever the hell they want to
say about it. I would, however, ask them to stop armchair marshalling
this war and declaring in bold print what the military should do about
this scandal. Why do I ask this? Because most people aren't qualified
to comment on what it takes to win a war, how hard it must be, and the
horrible situations soldiers find themselves in on a daily basis to
fulfill the will of a plan they haven't seen, let alone commented on. I
know I don't, which is why I haven't written anything about it other
than to tell you to read what Sgt. Hook had to say. He would know,
after all. I don't. Oh, she's pulling a Micah Wright! The only people qualified to
comment on a war are the ones who've served! Lambast and crucify her!
No, I'm not.
Say whatever the hell you want to say about this scandal. I don't care.
I can choose to disagree with it. It's my position, however, that you
should actually have some level of military experience before you start
pontificating on how these people should be strung up and what sort of
adverse effects this scandal will have on troop and homeland morale,
how this will affect the war overall, and how this has ultimately
wrecked the mission we set out to achieve. I've come by this opinion
honestly, just in case you were wondering. Go here and
look at the list of promotions and know that my cousin is on it. (I'm
not going to email him and ask him if I can publish his name here.
Quite frankly, he's got other, more important, things to deal with.)
He's a talented guy who's made a career out of the Army. He's really
cool guy, too. Yet I'm always and forever terrified to open my mouth in
conversation with him about anything even vaguely related to the war
because he will set me straight if I'm wrong. Yet he only does this
sparingly, which makes it all the more effective. You see, it's pretty
obvious he wants people to have opinions about what is going on
with the military, but he's not afraid to correct them if their
opinions are faulty. I've been wrong in the past and he's corrected me.
Which is why I'm hesitant to shoot my mouth off when chatting with him
because he always adds something new and very impressive to the
conversation about which I had no clue. As terrified as I am of looking
stupid, I still ask questions and he still answers me.
The essence of the difference is this: as a civilian I see things one
way. I can follow a to b to c and make my conclusions based upon my
civilian knowledge. But there is a whole set of knowledge that as a
civilian, I am not able to access to formulate my opinions. My cousin
does have that information, however. He is in the know. Does that mean
his opinions are infalliable? No. But I would take his word over
someone who is in their very comfortable apartment, blogging about what
really should be done about this scandal to make sure we don't lose the
war because of it. I'm asking bloggers and commentators to realize that
they don't know everything and that perhaps, just perhaps, they should
have faith in their Armed Services.
I do. Look hard and look long for evidence that the Army does not know
what the hell it is doing when it comes to dealing with this problem.
The logic follows that you must have lost faith in the army's
operations somewhere along the line to decry now that they're not
competent enough to deal with this crisis and that the entire mission
is in jeopardy as a result. Where was that event on the timeline and
why did it affect you? Did they make an effort to resolve the problem?
But most importantly, do you have all the information about the issue from all sides?
Chances are, you probably don't. Should this stop you from publishing
your assertions? No. Not at all. But it should make you think twice
before you draw your rhetorical sword out of its sheath and declare
that all is lost.