OK, let me see if I can explain what I was trying to say.
My original contribution to the thread was originally "sympathetic" to the Americans who felt ashamed by the events in Abu Ghraib. So, straight out of the starting block I'm not attacking the "GI's on the ground" (the thread is actually about UK professional soldiers, but that's irrelevant to subsequent posts).
I then responded to Seavers post, simply stating that I think he has a "Hollywood sense" of what war is about. By that I meant it's hardly like the old movies where one side was always good and only did good and never played bad, whilst the other side was evil and only did evil and never played good. In other words, it's not "Good Guys in White Hats" against "Bad Guys in Black Hats". There are people on the US side who do make decisions that are not moral or righteous. It's patently obvious the same applies, even to a much great extent, to the Iraqi side.
So I was not referring to the GI's. I was making a broad comment on the politics of conflict.
Let's go on and see if I can answer the questions you posed.
Quote:
|
are you saying that a monopoly on the high ground can't be had under any circumstance?
|
No I'm not. I'm saying that in the current conflict, the US cannot claim that they alone hold the high moral ground; that they have a monopoly. Are they generally more moral than the terrorists? Undoubtedly. Are they more moral than Hussein? Without question.
But, have they
ever done something that is immoral? Absolutely.
Therefore, they do not have a monopoly. They are not the "Hollywood" ideal of "Good Guys in White Hats" that can do no wrong. There are people who do wrong on both sides.
Quote:
|
does being the "guys in the white hats" necessarily entail that there be no "black hats" among them?
|
Absolutely not. I guess that's my whole point.
Quote:
|
if the answer is "no", then why is abu graib and these british photos an issue with anyone if they believe only a tiny fraction of a single percent of those wearing uniforms are involved?
|
For several reasons.
The first is because we expect more of ourselves. We believe we are righteous, moral and fair. We are fighting
against regimes who use torture. Indeed, the use of torture is used as a reason by our leaders to justify the invasion. Yet here we are, exposed to these acts (by a few people) that revolt us. We are horrified and dismayed that we are becoming what we hate.
Secondly, because to ignore them would offer succour to our enemies. We must highlight them, admit the mistakes, punish the guilty and show that our efforts are indeed worthy of respect and, at least, understanding.
Thirdly, because these actions were illegal and should be punished.
I'm often reminded of the statement "Justice not only needs to be done, but it needs to be
seen to be done." Perhaps I'm just waxing lyrical about philosophical concepts and why we should try harder.
Mr Mephisto