So, no sooner had I finished considering why it is impossible to win a 'war on terror' when you cant even uphold basic human rights, let alone legal rights, and what pops into the news? Another
The army know that their troops are in a highly tense and volatile situation, and it is therefore in their interests to let them blow off steam however this can best be achieved. From turning a blind eye to drug use and the presence and use of prostitutes, to allowing theft and assaults to form a part of routine activity overseas, the army is stuck with the problem of how to control thousands of men stationed overseas, away from their friends and family, and facing real and imminent danger. And their answer has been the same as always - the easiest way to relieve tension is to let the men get a little carried away now and then.
Thus the spectacle of Nicholas Witchell, reporting the abuses, attempting to legitimate the brutality by explaining that the Iraqi's being beaten had 'probably been throwing stones at the British patrol'. Where is the moral equivalence between throwing stones at troops dressed in body armour and armed with assault rifles, and getting the shit kicked out of you by three or four soldiers armed with batons? Not that moral equivalence should even come in to it. As I mentioned t'other day, there's little or no hope for the 'war on terror' (however badly conceptualised and vacuous this term) if the
1 comment:
Yes, their claims that "its just a couple of bad eggs/apples" or other misclaneous foodstuffs for that matter, used to reffer to a small number of naughty boys within a good force, are ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the apparent surprise expressed by the mainstream media that such abuses have occured. I feel though it is for a slightly different reason - or perhaps in addition to the 'blind-eye to soldiers letting off steam argument' you mentioned.
Really, what hell did the politicians expect would happen? - We are talking about a hierarchical, authoritarian organisation here (the army) at whose head is ultimately the State, led by Tony Blair. If leaders of such an organisation wage an illegal war, ridding roughshod over international law with huge loss of civilian lives how can they possibly expect that further down the ranks soldiers will have any respect for such humanitarian regulations? Whilst in the army there may supposedly be a rule or culture of 'do as i say not as i do' this patently is not adhered to. Perhaps the cause is a combination of soldiers following the example of their superiors whilst superiors turn a blind eye, cogniscent of the fact that they have not leg to stand on when their own crimes mirror those of the troops but on a much grander scale?
Post a Comment