For the past several days I’ve been returning to the photos of Abu Ghraib prison in an attempt to make sense of what I was seeing. There was something peculiar, almost familiar, about the pictures. The way the soldiers were smiling and posing gave me an odd sense of déjà vu. I had the eerie impression that I had seen similar photos before.
And then I realized -- I had. While it had been long ago, over ten years, I recognized that these were photos of a hazing incident.
Hazing has a deep-rooted association with college fraternities, athletics, and the military. When most people think of hazing they tend to imagine silly, “Animal House”-style pranks played on fraternity pledges. They’ve probably heard horror stories of hazing that went to far but assume that it’s generally nothing more than a harmless form of peer bonding. The truth, however, is far more insidious.
It’s no coincidence that these “rites of passage” tend to occur in settings involving socially immature young males. The adolescent and post-adolescent periods are a time when young males tend to be both highly insecure and fiercely competitive. Regardless of the justifications that are often claimed, the true value of hazing lies in the way it allows a person to assume a position of dominance and power over another human being. By humiliating others, a person gains an illusory sense of worth and importance.
As a young Marine in the late-‘80s, I both witnessed and experienced these activities firsthand. After boot camp I was assigned to a training command in Memphis where I would spend six months learning to become an avionics technician. Because the base was heavily populated with low ranking military students, an odd dynamic developed where we would constantly attempt to establish our place in the pecking order. Seniority amongst peers was often broken down into a matter of months, weeks, or even days. Though two Marines might both be Privates the one who had graduated boot camp first was allowed to assume a leadership role.
This fragmented hierarchy was of little use almost everywhere except the barracks. The barracks allowed us to be separated from those with genuine seniority and rank and provided us a space to turn on each other. Seniority was the dividing line that separated those who were doing and those who were receiving the hazing. While most of it was relatively mild (i.e., being held upside down with one’s head in a (freshly cleaned) toilet), some of it spilled over into more pernicious physical and mental abuse. Freshly promoted PFC’s, for example, would be forced to run the “gauntlet” where they would receive a punch in each arm on the location where there new stripes would be sewn on. Many young Marines were left with serious bruising after receiving 20-30 blows from their peers.
Upon entering the fleet, however, I discovered that my experiences were tame compared to the hazing that occurred in some units. The stories that circulated made the abuses in Iraq seem mild by comparison. Injuries were common occurrences and often chalked up to “recreational activity.”
Everything changed, however, in 1997. Gen. Charles Krulak, arguably one of the best Commandants in the history of the Corps, instituted a zero-tolerance policy on hazing. Like a papal fiat, the word spread and the culture changed almost overnight. Today, hazing in the Marine Corps is all but non-existent. The penalties for condoning the activity, much less participating in it, are too high to make it worth the risk.
While I don’t know what the experience is like in the Army, I would be surprised if the policy is not the same. Hazing, like sexual harassment and equal opportunity issues, is one of those issues that the military is quick to deal with.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the academic sphere. Although there are fewer fraternity hazing incidents that lead to fatalities, it remains a malignant problem on campuses across the country. Hazing is still condoned and practiced by many college fraternities and is unlikely to die out anytime soon.
Hazing isn’t necessarily a learned activity but I believe there are certain traits that lead me to believe there is a connection between the abuses of the Iraqi prisoners and fraternity-style hazing. There just seems to be too many similarities not to be a connection.
Take, for instance, the fact that incidents were photographed. For some inexplicable reason, people have a strong tendency to take photos of hazing incidents. The fact that the reserve MPs thought nothing of bringing along a camera leads me to believe that they viewed their activities in this way.
Certainly, some people are stupid enough to take pictures when they know they are committing crimes, though this doesn’t seem to be the case here. The way these soldiers pose for the camera and give the “thumbs up” sign gives a different impression. These are photos that they planned to show to their friends and joke about for years to come. Prior to Krulak’s ban, such photos could commonly be found throughout the Corps.
Another reason that leads me to see the fraternity connection is the homoerotic nature of the incidents. Very few military hazing rituals, at least that I’m aware of, involve either nudity or sexual humiliation. College and athletic hazing, on the other hand, have more incidents that involve forcing people to remove their clothing in order to make them more vulnerable. With the exception of the one that appears to be a form of psychological torture, every picture involves exposing nude Iraqi prisoners.
While I think this is a plausible explanation for how the six soldiers involved viewed the incidents, it in no way lessens the moral outrage. The act of hazing is unacceptable even when a person is willing to give their consent to the actions. When the same actions are done on those who are forced to comply it is nothing less than torture.
When the investigations are concluded I have no doubt that it will be revealed that the morally atrocious actions of these soldiers were an aberration. In fact, before the investigation is even concluded the news-cycle will carry us on to the next story and this incident will fade away into a macabre footnote of the war. What we shouldn’t allow ourselves to forget, though, is that the seeds of the incident were planted not in Iraq but in America. When we turn a blind eye to incidents of hazing and humiliation in our own country we shouldn’t be surprised to when we open them and see torture in a foreign land.
1
In light of the frat-boy administered justice program Joe outlined, I'm curious as to how many bloggers out there still continue to believe that (1) this war was a good idea and (2) that our Commander in Chief has done a good job of controlling his soldiers on the ground in Iraq?
I ask because what's coming down the pike will likely make what we've already seen look like Sunday School by comparison:
[summary of Charlie Rose's show today]
Seymour Hersh indicated that there was one entire wing in Abu Ghraib devoted to women and another one for juveniles. He left the impression that the story involving these women and children prisoners would really go way beyond the story as we know it right now.
Dr. Bernard Haykel revealed that the attack on the prison 10 days ago was triggerred by widespread rumor that women and children were being molested in there and death would be better than the humiliation for these prisoners.
posted on 05.04.2004 5:50 PM2
Jim,
I'm curious as to how many bloggers out there still continue to believe that (1) this war was a good idea and (2) that our Commander in Chief has done a good job of controlling his soldiers on the ground in Iraq?
(1) Yes, it's still a good idea. This incident, while tragic, has no bearing on the overall war effort.
(2) Considering that we are going into the second year of the war and this is the worst thing we can complain about, I would say that Bush is doing a fine job.
By the way, according to Hersh: "In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits."
Would you rather have the Iraqis go back to that.
He left the impression that the story involving these women and children prisoners would really go way beyond the story as we know it right now.
Then why didn't he go with that story? That would have been a bigger scoop for him.
posted on 05.04.2004 6:58 PM3
Jim, I'm a little confused how you expect President Bush to control soldiers on the ground in Iraq. That's what the NCO's and officers in the field are supposed to do. Those who didn't control the abusers or participated in the abuse themselves will be punished.
Immediately after learning of the allegations and beginning the investigation, the leadership at the prison was replaced and the suspects were removed. That's how you control your troops.
posted on 05.04.2004 7:19 PM4
"Then why didn't he go with that story? That would have been a bigger scoop for him. "
Joe, I suspect he's making sure he has all the facts before he moves forward with the full-blown story. Based on what you've already seen and read and what you know about frat boys, do you have any reason to doubt that U.S. soldiers raped any of the female or male prisoners in Abu Ghraib?
"Considering that we are going into the second year of the war and this is the worst thing we can complain about, I would say that Bush is doing a fine job."
Well, it's the worst thing we can complain about *thus far*, I guess.
It just looks to me like Bush isn't engaged in the war at this point. It seems as if, perhaps for political reasons, he's trying to stay "above it" and leave all the dirty work to Rummy et al. Meanwhile, the Arabs are flipping out over the Abu Ghraib scandal, and rightfully so.
I don't see the situation getting any better in the near future, that is for sure. Bush has already committed to having troops over there until the end of 2005, which I think is an pie-in-the-sky outlook if he truly intends to "stay the course."
posted on 05.04.2004 7:37 PM5
Jen,
"Immediately after learning of the allegations and beginning the investigation, the leadership at the prison was replaced and the suspects were removed."
Unfortunately, Jen, it appears that the administration has known about problems in the problems for months. Their "outrage" about the abuse was expressed only after the abuse was publicized. :(
............................
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/
The Army’s report on the investigation, which was begun in JANUARY by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, condemns a “pervasive atmosphere” of laxness at Abu Ghraib. It describes the abuses depicted in photographs of detainees at the facility as “horrific” and “wanton acts of soldiers in an unsupervised and dangerous setting.”
The report, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, revealed that several suspects had confessed to their involvement in the abuse at Abu Ghraib and had described the involvement of other soldiers.
It detailed a stunning range of violations LAST NOVEMBER and DECEMBER, from psychological treatment designed to humiliate the Iraqi detainees to direct physical abuse.
According to the report:
Detainees were punched, slapped and kicked. In some cases, soldiers jumped on their naked feet.
Male and female detainees were left naked for days at a time. Some were videotaped and photographed, an especially degrading experience for Muslims who regard being photographed as a sin. Some were forcibly arranged in various sexually explicit positions for the photographs.
Naked male detainees were forced to wear women’s underwear. Others were forced to perform sexual acts upon themselves while being photographed.
One naked detainee was forced to stand on a box with a sandbag on his head. Wires were attached to his fingers, toes and penis to simulate electric torture.
A male military police guard had sex with a female detainee.
Taguba said he had also found several other allegations lodged by detainees to be “credible,” including claims soldiers broke chemical lights and poured phosphoric liquid on the detainees, threatened them with guns, beat them with broom handles and chairs, sodomized one with a chemical light and allowed military working dogs to bite them.
6
you're nuts to blow this off as a "fine job." It's the most disgusting horrible thing I've ever heard of Americans doing and heads should roll!
posted on 05.04.2004 8:06 PM7
Joe,
I really appreciate this perspective on the incident.
posted on 05.04.2004 8:10 PM8
To add to the surreal nature of this whole thing, in the past few days both Rummy and General Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs, claimed not to have seen General Taguba's report - after Myers had asked CBS several weeks ago to delay its release.
And now we're told that because the individuals conducting prisoner interrogations at the Abu Graib - who ordered the abuse and torture - are civilian "contractors" they aren't punishable under the military justice system; and because it happened outside the US they're not punishable under our civilian justice system.
Can we hope that they can at least be fired - which evidently hasn't happened yet? And if that were to happen, would we then be treated to the spectacle of a series of unlawful termination lawsuits being filed?
Let's all say our heartfelt prayers for any American troops who have the grave misfortune to be captured now, after these few have given carte blanche to the "bad" guys. God help us, what have we created?
posted on 05.05.2004 7:29 AM9
Jim,
As Ted Kennedy and other Democrats were fond of saying, repeatedly, until the last week or so, Bush is fighting the war with "Clinton's Military".
Why should we be surprised that Clinton's military acts like Clinton?
The purging of the ranks, the training of troops to fire on American civilians (and removal of all who refused), the forced imposition of homosexuals, and the removal of Judeao-Christian ethics by the Clinton administration; all most naturally lead to what has been happening in those prisons.
posted on 05.05.2004 9:28 AM10
Jim,
When did Microsoft/NBC publish that? What evidence do they have for the dates? They do have a political agenda against the administration, so it would be nice to have corraboration.
11
Bob, if that is the case about the civilians, then they are either punishable by the Iraqi authorities, or possibly by an international court, though I'm not comfortable with the latter option. Handing them over to Iraqi justice might have a very beneficial effect upon the behavior of the rest of the troops and contractors.
posted on 05.05.2004 9:33 AM12
Puzzled,
In case you missed the url in Jim's post, here it is again-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
You'll find Taguda's report there. I don't think MSNBC's "agenda" has anything to do with the report. I'd venture to suggest that whatever agenda MSNBC might have, it's not anti-administration. They seem to be heading pretty firmly to the right.
As to this administration allowing Americans working for the Pentagon to be tried by Iraqi authorities, don't hold your breath. I'm not even sure there is anything that qualifies as "Iraqi authorities" over there - the administration at this point doesn't have a clue who we're turning this bucket of worms over to on 30 June. And given our refusal to allow our forces to be under the jurisdiction of international courts, I doubt seriously that's an option either.
posted on 05.05.2004 10:44 AM13
joe.
'this is the worst thing we have to complain about?'
you've got to be kidding. for every amerian killed last month, ten iraqis were killed. in the military, mind this means, 'great americans are kicking ass!' and don't try to tell me that they well all insurgents, or iranian, or whatever. many were women and children.
how can an evengelical, christ-based blog turn a blind eye to the killing of civilians?
posted on 05.05.2004 11:20 AM14
good deconstruction of the the hazing/torture connection. very interesting. there were three females though, how do they fit into things?
i would be interested to know why they had no training on moral ethics on how to treat prisoners. were they bored? did they think they were helping their troops?
posted on 05.05.2004 11:37 AM15
Puzzled,
"Why should we be surprised that Clinton's military acts like Clinton? The purging of the ranks, the training of troops to fire on American civilians (and removal of all who refused), the forced imposition of homosexuals, and the removal of Judeao-Christian ethics by the Clinton administration; all most naturally lead to what has been happening in those prisons."
Well, Joe Carter is free to nix my comment privileges for saying so, but this is the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard.
I suppose "Clinton's Military" was also responsible for the atrocities in Vietnam.
Whatever.
posted on 05.05.2004 11:45 AM16
Joe,
I disagree with your analysis of hazing. While it may at times be sadism. Professor Robert Cialdini has written that the purpose of hazing is to raise the cost of initiation or membership in a group in order to make membership seem more valuable. Hazing is, in essence, a lot like boot camp. (I am not knocking it -- I am a Marine after all.)
As Mark Twain writes in Tom Sawyer,
Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world, after all. He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it--namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. And this would help him to understand why constructing artificial flowers or performing on a tread-mill is work, while rolling ten-pins or climbing Mont Blanc is only amusement. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign.
In this case, the abuser are probably not interested forging close bonds of fraternization with the Iraqi terrorists. Therefore, it is probably not especially related to hazing.
posted on 05.05.2004 12:56 PM17
JPB,
I disagree with your analysis of hazing. While it may at times be sadism. Professor Robert Cialdini has written that the purpose of hazing is to raise the cost of initiation or membership in a group in order to make membership seem more valuable.
No doubt that was the original intent when many of the hazing rituals were first started. But there are a wide variety of ways to "raise the cost" of membership that are neither humiliating or abusive. Boot Camp, for example, was rigourous and stressful but it was never humiliating.
I think hazing, like many other areas of life, has been transformed into something entirely differnt than it was originally meant to be.
posted on 05.05.2004 1:50 PM18
ABU GHRAIB HYPOCRISY
First let me say that these crimes must be punished. Everyone is shocked and disgusted by this psychological torture and humiliation, which will effect the victims for the rest of their lives.
But the International Community's reaction is riddled with hypocrisy:
1. Bad treatment for US troops?
It is conventional wisdom among pundits that ill-treatment by a few US troops will result in worse treatment against American POWs. Really?
In the past, US POWS and even civilians have hardly been treated according to the Geneva Conventions. Daniel Pearl beheaded, the Fallujah four mutilated and burned, Jessica Lynch raped come to mind. Tiger cages and torture in Vietnam, forced death marches and executions during WWII. Perhaps the pundits could tell me of a conflict where American POWs were protected?
The threat of bad treatment for POWs might have more effect if it hadn't already happened.
2. Torture=bad, Torture-Killing=Good?
How did the world respond when 4 civilians were tortured, mutilated, burned, shot, executed, their bodies parts burned, stepped on, dragged and hung from bridges? In much of the press, it was hardly denounced, and actually used as more evidence of either American failure or blame was cast on the non-combatant civilian workers as being "spieds" or "mercenaries".
Clearly a few humiliating sexual poses would be preferable to mutilation-death-desecration. Apparently rape, torture, mutilation and execution of Americans POWs and even civilians is okay....
3. Demand for apologies
Here's the game:
-If you only apologize, Iraqis will forgive you
-Bush and others apologize
-Declare these apologies invalid for some reason -- they were too indirect, they were personal statements, etc.
-The apology provokes no forgiveness, only shrill denunciations about trying to sneak out of responsibility. A Saudi paper screamed "Killers should apologize!"
4. War=Bad, Terror=Good?
This is a part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy: War is "evil", terror is good. War by nations against nations is wrong. Civil war and insurgency are "heroic". Thus, nations which fight wars must be harangued for real and imagined war-crimes, while their insurgent, terrorist counterparts can extermination civilians, rape, torture and mutilate with impunity---after all, they are not governments, so how can they be held responsible.
Thus, the rape of Jessica Lynch and female soldiers in the first Gulf War are laughed off. Thus, executions of American civilians like Daniel Pearl and an elderly wheel-chair bound Achille Lauro passenger is never called a war crime--the terrorists act with impunity. Only wars are protested; Terrorist atrocities and war crimes are laughed off, ignored, or worse, secretly sympathized and justified.
5. Get ready for more hypocrisy
Some Iraqis despite official apologies and even compensation ,and despite experts from the Arab media who claimed that “if only Bush would apologize” the Iraqis will forgive you, radicals in Iraq and elsewhere will no doubt seek to get “Revenge”. When American POWS are tortured and executed what can we expect? Loud, shrill denunciations by the world’s press?? I doubt it. More likely are apologetics, excuse-making, justifications, and even glee. Such is the craven nature of the “World Community”.
19
The Iraqis were forced to sexual actions by the Americans,
the Yanks are assholes, go home !!!
posted on 05.08.2004 2:55 AM