After hearing allegations that prisoners being held by U.S. military forces were humiliated and abused, I was shocked and puzzled. 'How could this happen?" I wondered. 'How is something like this even possible?" Reading through the news reports it becomes clear that numerous factors were responsible and the Army’s investigation will no doubt uncover more. But whether we are willing to admit it or not, most of us in the military were not too surprised to hear these atrocities were committed by reservists.
The Department of Defense and every branch of the military has a dirty little secret, what Ross Perot would call, 'The crazy aunt in the basement that no one wants to talk about.' The military’s 'crazy aunt" is the idea that there is no substantial difference between the active duty and reserve forces.
At one time in our history, particularly during the Cold War-era, reliance on a massive amount of reserve forces made sense. The numbers bolstered our end strength and looked -- at least on paper -- impressive. Soviet military planners always had to factor in the reserve units and match them, lest they be perceived as weaker than the Americans. Reserve units also had the advantage of providing a basically trained contingent that filled the middle position between active duty forces and draft-eligible recruits.
The Soviet Union fell apart and the Warsaw Pact no longer poses a threat. Our security threats are radically different than they were just ten, much less thirty, years ago. But the military, like any bureaucracy, is slow to implement change. The Total Force Policy, which was adopted in 1973, not only remains in place but according to the DOD, 'Today, Reserve component forces are fully integrated into all war plans, and no major military operation can be successful without their participation." (The reason the outdated policy was not scrapped was because it continued to look good on paper, this time by shifting the cost of personnel funding to the less costly reserve forces.)
I currently serve as an active-duty member in one of these 'component forces." My job is to train and prepare Marine reservists when they come in on drill weekends and to help maintain the squadron throughout the rest of the month while they return to their civilian lives. Reservists attend training one weekend a month and a typical drill weekend consists of four 'drill periods", each consisting of a four hour period (it's broken down this way to justify reservists getting four days pay for two days of work).
Like every Marine, reservists are expected to maintain proficiency as a basic rifleman. One of the ways that the Corps is unique is that every Marine, regardless of whether he is a pilot, cook, supply clerk, etc., can perform the basic duties of an infantryman. Along with retaining a level of competency with in these skills, the reservists have their own occupational specialties to master. The closer a Marines military occupational specialty (MOS) is to a combat arms job (i.e., infantry, artillery), the more the overlap in training will be. Unfortunately, only a small number of reservists fit that criteria.
Reservists have twelve regular drill weekends and one two-week drill period in the course of a year. If they were to attend all training, they would work for 272 hours a year, the equivalent of about seven 40-hour work weeks. On an average weekend, a reservists will be expected to participate in a number of the following task:
Qualify on the rifle range; qualify on the pistol range; qualify on NBC (gas chamber); take the Military Basic Skills test; qualify for water survival training; qualify on MCMAP (martial arts training); participate in a physical fitness test; take a urinalysis test; participate in unit physical fitness training; attend classes on Professional Military Education; have a dental exam; receive an annual physical exam; get current vaccinations; attend award, retirement, change of command, and/or promotion ceremonies; update pay records; have wills and/or powers of attorney drawn up by legal; get new ID card; schedule appointment with the career planner; attend meetings….
I could include numerous other tasks as well as the common time consuming activities such as eating lunch or showering after physical training sessions. Needless to say, these Marines have a full-schedule each month when they come in for drill. And this is all before we include their primary purpose -- training and working in their primary MOS
The best that can be hoped for under the most ideal conditions is that we’ll be able to find four hours out of the sixteen in order to train our reservists on their primary MOS. My unit, for example, is an aviation maintenance squadron that consists of C-130 and F/A-18 aircraft. The MOSs cover everything from ordnance and airframes to power plants and avionics, all highly technical areas that require years of experience in order to become proficient. The average reservist, however, will only get around forty-eight hours a year of hands-on training and experience.
To put this in perspective, consider how you'd feel about boarding a commercial aircraft if you discovered the maintenance crews were part-time workers. How much confidence would you have in the young man fixing the landing gear or cockpit radio if you knew he was a college student who came in once a month for four hours? Yet this is exactly what happens in the 'Total Force" concept and the DOD expects the public to believe that reserve forces are as adequately prepared as active duty units.
You might be wondering why, if what I claim is true, there aren’t more accidents and problems. The reason is because most active duty Marines either closely supervise the work of the reservists or they keep them away from the 'real work" altogether. Since it would be impossible for a reservist to become adept at fixing an altimeter, much less the entire spectrum of electrical systems on an aircraft, there is really no use in even trying. As you can imagine, though, this simply compounds the problem. When these reservists are activated and sent to perform their jobs under real-world conditions, they are ill-prepared for what will be asked of them.
Let me make it clear that I am not claiming that the reservists themselves are incompetent. In my own experience, both working with them and from enlisting them while on recruiting duty, I would say that the main difference is that their level of 'commitment" is rarely the same as service members on active duty. But many of them are motivated, capable, and genuinely want to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. No amount of enthusiasm, however, can overcome the inherent deficiencies in the system.
While I have no sympathy for the Army reservists who are expected to be court-martialed for their treatment of the Iraqi prisoners, I wasn’t surprised by the claims that they were ill prepared to carry out their assignments. As CBS News reports:
One of the soldiers facing court martial is Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick.
Frederick is charged with maltreatment for allegedly participating in and setting up a photo, and for posing in a photograph by sitting on top of a detainee. He is charged with an indecent act for observing one scene. He is also charged with assault for allegedly striking detainees – and ordering detainees to strike each other.
60 Minutes II talked with him by phone from Baghdad, where he is awaiting court martial.
Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.
'We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations," says Frederick. 'And it just wasn't happening."
…
Frederick says he didn't see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged.The Army investigation confirms that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not trained at all in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members. [Emphasis added]
Before this incident occurred I have no doubt that Army officials would have sworn that all soldiers, both active duty and reservists, had received the same training. They would have known, of course, that it wasn’t true but it would have been necessary to maintain this noble lie in order to preserve the illusion of the Total Force concept. While no one believes it, few would be willing to admit it for, among other reasons, fear of denigrating the service of reserve personnel.
The truth is that the DOD will eventually be forced to make a choice. Will they insist on preserving an outdated Cold War-era policy that is ineffectual or will they reduce our country’s reliance on ill-prepared and poorly trained reserve personnel? Fewer questions are more important to the issue of national security. Yet the question itself will likely remain ignored; at least until the next embarrassing tragedy comes along.
[Note: Once again, I want to make clear that this criticism of the DOD’s policy is in no way meant to disparage the service of military reservists. They are some of the finest men and women in uniform. They do the best they can and deserve better than to be treated as 'second-class citizens" within the military structure. Unfortunately, until the military adapts its policies to take advantage of the unique contributions that reserve units can make, this stigma is unlikely to change.]
1
Good morning, Joe,
I think you're absolutely on the mark here. Anyone who thinks our reserve forces are ready and able to go marching off to war on a whim is seriously out of touch. Unfortunately, W, Rummy et al are in that group, and have potentially put us over the edge into disaster land. Positions and loud statements from individuals presumably speaking authoritatively, like those of General Odom, do not bode at all well.
2
Joe, what kind of specialized training on the Geneva Convention is necessary to ensure that reservist MPs know that stacking enemy prisoners on top of one another naked and posing for pictures with them like they're trophies is wrong? What kind of specialized training on the Geneva Convention is necessary to ensure that reservist MPs know that forcing enemy prisoners to simulate oral sex on each other and taking pictures of it is wrong.
There was a fundamental loss of discipline, a fundamental lack of character and a fundamental loss of humanity at work here, and I'm sorry, there's no amount of "training" on "the rules" that's going to make up for what they missed in a lifetime of growing up in an ostensibly civil society.
posted on 05.02.2004 8:58 AM3
I just ran on to your blog this morning...first time...good stuff, stay with it...it's on my list to read daily.
posted on 05.02.2004 9:31 AM4
Quote: "There was a fundamental loss of discipline, a fundamental lack of character and a fundamental loss of humanity at work here, and I'm sorry, there's no amount of "training" on "the rules" that's going to make up for what they missed in a lifetime of growing up in an ostensibly civil society."
Spot on, Rev. Mike.
I seriously doubt that if they had only read the Geneva Convention then they wouldn't have done these things to the Iraqis. The Geneva Convention doesn't tell you anything that you shouldn't already know from common decency and basic respect for human life; the Convention just codifies them.
The MPs responsible had to know that what they were doing was wrong, and if they didn't, then they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to walk around carrying a gun.
posted on 05.02.2004 9:33 AM5
Those MPs went to the same MP schools as Regular Army. Not that that even comes into play as this stuff wouldn't have happened with common sense and common decency.
This falls on prison warden General Karpinski and the troops that did the acts.
6
Mike,
...there's no amount of "training" on "the rules" that's going to make up for what they missed in a lifetime of growing up in an ostensibly civil society.
I originally wrote the post before I saw the pictures. My main point of the post was about how lack of training in the treatment of prisoners of war could lead to abuses. But you're right, there is more to this that goes to the heart of common deceny and civility. I plan to write more about later today.
posted on 05.02.2004 12:06 PM7
My view is a little different, and likely to be most unpopular, but consider this:
Suppose you happen upon a concentration camp in early 1945. Tens of thousands of emaciated prisoners near starvation, gas chambers, massive graves containing hundreds of thousands more victims, and you happen upon a handful of the concentration camp guards. Whatever treatment they received at my hands would be a whole lot less than they meted out.
Are there more victims? Where are the other camps? What became of the children? Who looted their property, and where is it now? How many are in these graves? Believe me, it would have been a long afternoon for any Waffen SS stormtrooper who was taken alive.
Now, as appalling as the pictures were, who were the Iraqis? Were they regular grunt POW's who happened to be tangled up in the coalition's fast-moving lines? Or might they have been the guards in the rape rooms? Might they have been part of Uday's contingent who recruited young girls, only to shave their heads, beat them, rape them, and send them home?
To me, the answers to these questions matter. I could see myself hooking up some jumper cables to some guy's balls to make sure he told me everything, even if the jumper cables weren't real.
I will withhold judgment on the actions of our troops until we know the story. If the American troops were just beating up on some poor slobs who happened to be in uniform, it's to Leavenworth for all of them. But if it turns out they were prison guards, or in the elite Palace Guards and played a part in the barbarism, I say give the US troops a pass.
posted on 05.02.2004 6:52 PM8
Great post, Joe; and the military may have to make some tough choices. But training of reservists isn't the biggest problem (though it's a real one).
Accountability and follow up, in the field, are the BIG problem. Whenever somebody below calls for help, like asking for rules & regulations, the chain of command needs to be more responsive. Immediately.
Like Enron, like UNSCUM (oil-for-bribes), like Lord of the Flies, if no authority is watching, humans can quickly degenerate. Yes, there's a real human reservist failure -- and humans have original sin, and have a portion of an evil nature. It's the system's job to minimize such acts, through monitoring and pro-active response.
Amnesty Int. was on the BBC saying they'd had many complaints. It needs to be part of the Army's PR work, to document proof that such things don't happen. An audit of prisoner treatment -- perhaps the US Army could ask Amnesty for personnel to act as prisoner ombudsmen? Thinking a bit out of the box seems called for, now -- to reduce bad US Army actions.
posted on 05.03.2004 4:32 AM9
No matter who these prisoners were or what they were guilty of, the Americans responsible for their mistreatment must be punished. Their lack of discipline has set back the effort to win "the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. The United States is even more despised in the Muslim world and less admired and respected internationally than before. Quite an achievement. The first step in regaining some of the esteem and credibility we have lost should be the bringing of charges against those responsible for the disgraceful conduct.
Unlike Kevin, I could never see myself hooking jumper cables to anyone's balls.
posted on 05.03.2004 8:24 AM10
Most of these comments, and the post itself, fail to consider most of the facts of the situation. For instance, the reservists really were encouraged (perhaps ordered) to humiliate the prisoners as a means of obtaining information. In addition, the reservists were supervised by contractors. Despite having not received training in Geneva Convention rules for the treatment of prisoners, many should have known better, as they were prison guards in the U.S.
One of the requirements for effective and insightful commentary is actually reading the stories.
(Also, is it odd to defend Bush's military record, and then decry the reserves?)
posted on 05.03.2004 9:32 AM11
Rob,
What if you believed that a prisoner had information regarding future attacks on US forces? What if he had information regarding the disposition of chemical weapons? What if, in the middle of combat, you found a radio operator--could you put a pistol to his head and order a withdrawal of HIS troops?
If no, thanks for never putting on the uniform. Like I said, until all the facts come in, I'll withhold judgment. If I were in the field, in peril, I would want American troops doing everything necessary to protect me and my unit.
posted on 05.03.2004 9:37 AM12
does doing everything necessary mean abusing people just like Saddam did? what are we there for then, if Americans are going to act just like him? why is it ok to protect americans and theexpense of other's human rights? when did we turn fromliberators to oppressors? and why is this ok?
you would hook jumper cables up to someone's balls? you are a sick, sick man. i am defiantely sleeping better at night knowing there are people like you with guns and a badge.
so, i guess these guys got a repremand. will someone tell me what this means? is there a loss a rank, a slap on the wrist, time in the pokey (that would be ironic justice)?
posted on 05.03.2004 10:00 AM13
DNB,
so, i guess these guys got a repremand. will someone tell me what this means? is there a loss a rank, a slap on the wrist, time in the pokey (that would be ironic justice)?
The only "reprimand" given would be to the senior Army leadership that was in charge of the prison. Essentially, they will be fired and drumed out of the Army.
The prison guards, on the other hand, will be facing a court martial and, if convicted, will likely spend time in a military prison (e.g., Ft. Leveanworth).
posted on 05.03.2004 10:15 AM14
i pity americans that gt captured from this point on. i can only hope that their captors will have a more Christ-like approach to treatment than their own people received.
so what is the problem with reservists? and what is the role of contractors overseeing this prison facility?
posted on 05.03.2004 10:38 AM15
Kevin: You hit paydirt with your third scenario. Yes, I could threaten the life of an enemy combatant in the heat of battle. That scenario bears only superficial resemblance to the mistreatment of prisoners. I hold my country and its representatives to a higher standard. Does this higher standard come with a price? Yes! But we must pay it in order to draw the starkest contrast between us and those who oppose us.
posted on 05.03.2004 10:46 AM16
i found a good article on the role of the mercenaries running the prison in iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html
posted on 05.03.2004 11:27 AM17
In the end, Rob, I agree with you. IF the pictures are as bad as they say, I'll be leading the charge to get the guys tossed into prison.
But I also remember the huge news scoops of late that turned out to be 100% false. The Jenin "massacre" by the Israelis, in which something like four people were killed, not four hundred. The looting of the Iraqi museum, which resulted in the net loss of something like a few thousand dollars worth of stuff. I know how all the news coming out is bad and designed to tell the world how Iraq is falling apart, but in the vast majority of the country it is tranquil. Until I know more, I'm not making any judgment.
posted on 05.03.2004 11:55 AM18
pictures speak a thousand words.
there are no excuses for this kind of behavior.
posted on 05.03.2004 1:27 PM19
Point well taken, Kevin. We should allow the facts to emerge and the machinery of justice to warm up. I think unnecessary delay, though, would send the wrong message.
posted on 05.03.2004 1:48 PM20
BS that these guys have not received any training on the ROE and Geneva Conventions. This stuff is pounded into them from the time of basic training to one of the last things they are briefed on once they leave the United States.
They are given cards with reminders, PowerPoint presentations, etc. etc.
The next American's who is tortured because of their antics will have his blood on their hands. This is exactly why the United States teaches its troops not to do this even though the enemy does it to our troops on a regular basis.
What's sad is that the media and Blogs are perpetuating this into a political issue - which will lead to the torture and death of a young American.
Humiliation is wrong, but guarantee that the retribution will be torture of one of ours.
posted on 05.03.2004 4:34 PM21
I don't know agreed with making a blanket condemnation of reservists. My brother-in-law is an Army reservist and does his job quite well, Of course that's because he was regular army before joining the reserve and because he does similar work for the Army Corps of Engineers. But that fits a lot of reservists. They do in the military something like what they do as civilians.
And I agree with those who don't think lack of training has anything to do with humilitating prisoners. Most of those reading stories about this haven't read the Geneva Convention either, but they know this behavior is wrong.
If I were to affix blame, I'd put it on a foul military subculture that is not being dealt with. I started reading Jarhead, a standard work on recent military life, and abandoned it because the author clearly thought that one thing that was cool about military life was being surrounded by just the sorts of crude and cruel sexual behaviors these guards are guility of. And if Jarhead is the cruder side of military life at least since the Gulf War, then the generals had quite a few years of warning that something like this might happen.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
posted on 05.03.2004 5:51 PM22
Mike,
I don't know agreed with making a blanket condemnation of reservists. My brother-in-law is an Army reservist and does his job quite well, Of course that's because he was regular army before joining the reserve and because he does similar work for the Army Corps of Engineers. But that fits a lot of reservists. They do in the military something like what they do as civilians.
I'd have to disagree on one point. A large the majority most young enlisted reservists are college students or entry-level workers. Prior service soldiers, like your brother, are unfortunately the rare exception. If I had my way, though, at least 75% of the reserves would be composed of prior active duty. (By the way, you should ask your brother what he thinks about the abilities of non-ps reservists. I'd be curious to hear how the Army views their reservists.)
And I agree with those who don't think lack of training has anything to do with humilitating prisoners. Most of those reading stories about this haven't read the Geneva Convention either, but they know this behavior is wrong.
Since I plan to address this point in a future post, I'll save it until then.
If I were to affix blame, I'd put it on a foul military subculture that is not being dealt with. I started reading Jarhead, a standard work on recent military life, and abandoned it because the author clearly thought that one thing that was cool about military life was being surrounded by just the sorts of crude and cruel sexual behaviors these guards are guility of. And if Jarhead is the cruder side of military life at least since the Gulf War, then the generals had quite a few years of warning that something like this might happen.
After hearing some of what my fellow Marines had to say about that book, I decided against reading it myself. From what I've heard, though, the author takes a lot of "poetic license" with the facts and the way things really were. Also, a lot has changed since GW I (the period when I was a young Marine).
As for this latest atrocity, I not only think it is an aberrantion but I truly don't believe it would have occurred if active duty NCOs had been involved.
posted on 05.03.2004 6:39 PM