Reader Comments on the Abu Ghraib Scandal

Editor: Your editorial on the Iraqi prison scandal was a superb skewering of Political Correctness run amok. General Karpinski -- who General Taguba said couldn't evenget her soldiers to salute - was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, who sat there like a pottedplant while she offered an un-interrupted, three-minute ramble of excuses. John Connolly

Editor: As one who will probably support President Bush, I wonder how many Americans are watching the Congressional hearings? As a Republican politician, I feel that the prisoner abuse scandal will not sink the presidency of Bush but that the performance of Rumsfeld, Meyers and the under secretary for intelligence would. If seen by enough Americans would doom the Bush administration. I might add the performance of most of the Republicans on the Armed Forces committee was juvenile and lacked any sophistication--and would also help in sinking the Bush administration Being a Geezer gives one time to watch these hearings. Tim Sullivan

Editor: P.C. strikes again. Unwillingness to replace or discipline a female officer has led to a P.R. disaster. We are fighting a war with one hand tied behind us. A large percentage of our population doesn't know that we are in a serious war about our survival. And some of those who do know are so keen to get back into power that they don't care how much damage they do to the country. Donald W. Bales

Editor: I rather think that you missed the point. It was quite intentional for the military to use women soldiers to provide "severe cultural humiliation" to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. As has been pointed out many times by others, Arabs are very tough people and hard to crack. Humiliation of this kind is about the only form of pressure that has been shown to make them crack and provide information. I think that you need to remember one thing: Abu Ghraib is not a criminal prison in an otherwise peaceful country; it is a POW prison in a war zone. The people kept here were not arrested under civil law by civilian authorities; they were captured by soldiers in combat. They are being interrogated not to determine guilt or innocence but to gain information to protect our soldiers and save American lives. If humiliation is all that they suffer in the course of extracting this information from them, they should thank whatever God they worship - we could very well do far worse.

The other point is the abuse of prisoners beyond the requirements of interrogation, the apparent failure of the chain of command (in this case) to make the line plain and to communicate that line to the lowest levels, and the apparent enjoyment of certain guards in humiliating prisoners. I say apparent because it has been stated that at least some of these photographs and videos were staged in order to provide "incentive" to other prisoners. If in fact the set bounds were passed, if the chain of command failed to properly supervise the guards, or if the chain of command was broken then people should be punished. However, in the media in general I have failed to see any distinction between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture, or of the fact that civil criteria for the treatment of prisoners do not necessarily apply here.

Paul Blasé, Alexandria, VA

Editor: I read your opinion piece with interest because I too [a retired Navy Captain] believe the embarrassing incompetence of BG Karpinski was a substantial factor which led to the sad events of detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib. More importantly the understandable reluctance which I am sure existed in effectively dealing with the problem her incompetence or shortfalls created complicated and probably detrimentally influenced effective command action her superiors.

I differ substantially with your view and that of Congresswoman Wilson that the matter of operational control of the Abu Ghraib prison--the infamous Frag order placing the Military Intelligence unit in tactical command of the Abu Ghraib complex--was a key issue. That has been widely mischaracterized in my viewpoint, specifically by Congresswoman Wilson at last Friday's hearing.

It is not only not axiomatic but contrary to what I experience in a 24 year career that the assignment of operational control of units who are co-located in one geographical location or even within a given operational area bears any responsibility for failure to follow standing orders, or to violate Army doctrine or whatever is the sad excuse raised by BG Karpinski. That the Military Intelligence Battalion/unit was placed in "tactical command" of the Abu Ghraib base is without significance for the dereliction of duties by the MP Battalion located there. Repeating for emphasis, a Frag order assigning a unit as tactical command cannot and does not confer any authority to that unit over normal functions and responsibilities of another unit except for tactical/operational matters. If that was NOT so then military officers would as a matter of course be making medical decisions for medical units co-located in their complexes or within their operational areas!

I can go on with examples, many from my personal operational experience in Vietnam where as a Seabee Operations Officer I routinely and repeatedly placed numerous detachment, big and small, under the operational/tactical control of units we were supporting. The detachments responded to the operational control of the on-scene unit commander; conformed to his rules of engagement; and otherwise followed his tactical command without impact or influence on their internal operations and command authorities. Any breach of discipline would have been referred to our Battalion as a matter of course, etc, etc, etc! Moreover that relationship mirrors what was done when my Battalion landed with the Marines at Chu Lai in May 1965. It did so under the operational command of the Marine Expeditionary Force Commander--an assignment made by Frag order although Navy/Marine lingo differed from that. But most importantly that limited command relationship did not confer control of the internal orders or procedures of our Battalion to that Commander, nor would he have claimed it did!

Therefore I will not be distracted by nuance over tactical control when the bottom line was the profound command failure of BG Karpinski. The key element is the consequence of that failure and particularly the role played by her gender as you conclude. I agree with your conclusion that probably because of her gender her superior's chose to ignore or to "work around" her failings in hope the consequences of those failures and weaknesses, or the "work-arounds", would be less distressful and potentially distractive than would doing the proper thing and removing her from command for cause.

You imply this decision was made at Central Command. I had assumed the decision was vested with LTG Sanchez. It is possible both views are correct, or that as Task Force Commander LTG Sanchez's charter was directed towards operational command of supporting units with management/administrative command retained at CentCom by the 3 star, LTG David McKiernan, Commanding General---get this, ARMY CENTRAL COMMAND and COMBINED FORCES LAND COMPONENT COMMAND who was the appointing authority for the investigation performed by MG Taguba. Ergo what exists in Iraq under the Task Force structure headed by LTG Sanchez is a classic "matrix organization"---not unlike what I experienced in two tours in Vietnam!

Whatever was that command relationship, and whoever was BG Karpinski's reporting senior, it is essential the issue of command decision making and the role, if any, played by BG Karpinski's gender be fully explored---for therein resides the potential for future problems unless that "boil" is lanced, and exposed in public.

Moreover there are rumors of a recommendation for a 4th star for LTG Sanchez, which will require Senate confirmation---better this issue be clarified before that happens or alternatively the Pentagon better be prepared to defend his role, if any, in the Karpinski matter. If the decision to retain Karpinski was ultimately made by Sanchez, I believe that disqualifies him for a 4th star, period!

I appreciated your article but I believe follow-up is required in defining the command relationship and where or who had responsibility for retaining BG Karpinski as Brigade Commander of the 800 MP Brigade. The buck rests there!

Jerry Dunn, Greenville, SC

Email the Editor