After watching the film Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, it appears that there is a lack of responsibility within the leadership of the civilian lead military establishment that left the individual solider confused.
The first thing I found worrisome was the issue of the rules of engagement. In the documentary, there was an interview with one of the military police/soldiers, who said that when he landed in Iraq, he asked for the rule of engagement (ROE). He was told if it looks like the enemy - shoot it. However, that goes against the function of a the rules of engagement card which sets the parameters of action for the solider, which is based on self defense. [For an example of ROE click here.] The ROE also lets the soldier, who is disconnected from policy-making, know what his/her government expects of him/her, as the government is the employer.
However, what is apparent in the film is that there was no 'leadership' that guided the actions of soldiers once he/she became confused. In the documentary, it appeared the the US combatants at Abu Ghraib were fearful and disoriented. They were given the perspective of us versus them, and that they were directly involved with preventing another 9/11. This policy-maker implemented fear and confusion lead to really horrible things.
What comes through is that Bush, Rumsfield, General Miller, and the other 'politicians' are poor leaders. Edgar Puryear argues that a good military leader in the American military is apolitical, selfless (meaning takes responsibility when things go wrong, gives credit when things go well), is professional, loves his soldiers and looks to their well being, and refuses to be or surround himself/herself with 'Yes Men.' The President is the Commander in Chief of our military. However, the breakdown in the chain of command leading to Abu Ghraib results from bad leadership. The Bush possy all acted as Yes Men as did American Generals such as Miller. It is telling that those that did not agree with the Bush possy were sidelined, which is further evidence of extremely bad leadership. They also put newbies in charge of an overcrowded prison, made soldiers/military police into prison guards, for which they had NO training, and it appears that from the video, were never given such training. With a population of several thousand inmates and only a few soldiers guarding/running the facility, it is apparent that fear and an inability to deal with the situation would arise. However, this is not the soldiers' fault. It is the government's fault as it left its soldiers unable to deal with a situation as per IHL, even if they had wanted to.
In the documentary, a clip is shown of Rumsfield stating that he forgot the chain of command paper work so could not answer a question. This incident indicates a dissociation with the military establishment that the SECDEF is supposed to be coordinating. As Clausewitz indicates, the military is an instrument of the civilian government. As the Bush possy were bad leaders, the effects of bad leadership led to confusion and wide interpretation of the 'rules' that permeated down though the ranks. I believe that if the ground soldiers had been given the proper procedural guidance, Abu Ghraib would not have happened (or at least to the extent it did). The government sanctioned the inhumane treatment and torture of these prisoners through a lack of leadership.
A few reflection on how the US government could have prevented the atrocities of Abu Ghraib:
The first thing I found worrisome was the issue of the rules of engagement. In the documentary, there was an interview with one of the military police/soldiers, who said that when he landed in Iraq, he asked for the rule of engagement (ROE). He was told if it looks like the enemy - shoot it. However, that goes against the function of a the rules of engagement card which sets the parameters of action for the solider, which is based on self defense. [For an example of ROE click here.] The ROE also lets the soldier, who is disconnected from policy-making, know what his/her government expects of him/her, as the government is the employer.
However, what is apparent in the film is that there was no 'leadership' that guided the actions of soldiers once he/she became confused. In the documentary, it appeared the the US combatants at Abu Ghraib were fearful and disoriented. They were given the perspective of us versus them, and that they were directly involved with preventing another 9/11. This policy-maker implemented fear and confusion lead to really horrible things.
What comes through is that Bush, Rumsfield, General Miller, and the other 'politicians' are poor leaders. Edgar Puryear argues that a good military leader in the American military is apolitical, selfless (meaning takes responsibility when things go wrong, gives credit when things go well), is professional, loves his soldiers and looks to their well being, and refuses to be or surround himself/herself with 'Yes Men.' The President is the Commander in Chief of our military. However, the breakdown in the chain of command leading to Abu Ghraib results from bad leadership. The Bush possy all acted as Yes Men as did American Generals such as Miller. It is telling that those that did not agree with the Bush possy were sidelined, which is further evidence of extremely bad leadership. They also put newbies in charge of an overcrowded prison, made soldiers/military police into prison guards, for which they had NO training, and it appears that from the video, were never given such training. With a population of several thousand inmates and only a few soldiers guarding/running the facility, it is apparent that fear and an inability to deal with the situation would arise. However, this is not the soldiers' fault. It is the government's fault as it left its soldiers unable to deal with a situation as per IHL, even if they had wanted to.
In the documentary, a clip is shown of Rumsfield stating that he forgot the chain of command paper work so could not answer a question. This incident indicates a dissociation with the military establishment that the SECDEF is supposed to be coordinating. As Clausewitz indicates, the military is an instrument of the civilian government. As the Bush possy were bad leaders, the effects of bad leadership led to confusion and wide interpretation of the 'rules' that permeated down though the ranks. I believe that if the ground soldiers had been given the proper procedural guidance, Abu Ghraib would not have happened (or at least to the extent it did). The government sanctioned the inhumane treatment and torture of these prisoners through a lack of leadership.
A few reflection on how the US government could have prevented the atrocities of Abu Ghraib:
- Ensure that all soldiers have the rules of engagement - the 'if it looks like the enemy shoot' is not acceptable.
- Provide more 'guards.' The government ought to realize that soldiers are trained for specific tasks. If the soldiers are given a specific task that hey are not trained to do, it is important to supplement their new task with guidance and training.
- Do no put a General already criticized of human rights and IHL violations in a position to inflict more damage, as this is a sanctioning by the government of continued violations.
- The US Congress needs to take greater control and FORCE the Bush possy to take responsibility for its bad and inept leadership. This would enhance the institutionalization within the military the importance of IHL and the government's desire to follow them.
- It must be remembered that the military is an instrument of the civilian government, it is the government who makes the policy that the military follows.
