Torture Follow Up
Something big is brewing in this torture flap. Lynndie England is stating she was ordered to pose in the various pictures.
We have grunts pointing fingers at the chain of command, the chain of command pointing fingers at the administration, and the administration pointing fingers at the grunts.
There’s a lot more to this than we know. Heads should roll and right now, they’re not.
May 12th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Well, as you say there’s more to this story. Wanting to see heads rolling at this point seems to be premature until we’re confident who’s heads, and how many.
(Now that I think about it, in light of yesterday’s development, I’m not sure head rolling is an appropriate metaphor in this situation anymore)
But assuming the investigation is two or three steps ahead of what’s publicly known, surely something has developed by now to firm things up.
Who knows.
May 12th, 2004 at 3:12 pm
I tend to agree that it’s too soon to decide who. However, the left seems quick to crucify rummy.
May 12th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
Uncle:
It’s not unprecedented. When a screw up is that huge, it’s usually a good move — even if only symbolic — to shitcan somebody near the top of the chain, even if that somebody wasn’t necessarily personally responsible for the gaffe. Because the person in charge is accountable for what happens on their watch; that’s their job. They get the credit when their people do well; they take the fall when they do poorly.
At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But it seems as though Bush won’t fire anybody, ever, for any reason. Karl Rove could go to work for the Kerry campaign and Bush would express “disappointment” but keep him on board…
May 12th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
Because the person in charge is accountable for what happens on their watch; that’s their job. They get the credit when their people do well; they take the fall when they do poorly.
That conventional wisdom often has little to do with reality. For some people it seems to be comforting, but I do not believe it’s true, as an across the board assumption.
The truth is, the higher ups cannot know everything that every one of their subordinates are doing 100% of the time. Therefore if a Private takes a leak on the floor of the head, it’s not the Defense Secretary’s fault, or responsibility. Nor is it the General’s fault.
However, it is the responsibility of the head of the chain of command to ensure the right people are chosen for the right positions. If that Private had a history of insubordination that his Sargeant overlooks, and that Sargeant has a history of letting things slide that his Lieutenant overlooks – who drinks, incidentally, and his Colonel is known to frequent houses of ill repute, etc. etc….that is the DefSec’s responsibility to ensure the right people are in the right positions.
But what they do after they’re there, to personally blame the head honcho for any transgression of the men (or women) under his command is illogical and counterproductive.
May 12th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Barry:
The truth is, the higher ups cannot know everything that every one of their subordinates are doing 100% of the time. *snip* But … to personally blame the head honcho for any transgression of the men (or women) under his command is illogical and counterproductive.
This logic would be valid enough if the incident were isolated. But we’re getting more and more information to indicate that such abuse was widespread and systematic, at least at that location. That’s when the responsibility starts to transcend the grunts who actually carry out the abuse (although this doesn’t absolve them from punishment, either), and point to the people in charge. At best, they didn’t take necessary precautions to prevent such abuse. At worst, they created an environment where such abuse was not only possible but probable. Either way, the responsibility lies with command.