[I noticed that this was not posted last week. Fortunately, I had it saved]
(I always assumed being at Stanford resembled something like this.)
Stanford is not a war in Iraq. The differences are easily identified. However, generalizing a bit helps. The lesson appears to be akin to "character roles are good for establishing the ground rules, but roles are easily co-opted unless a director molds and shapes the performance." However, at Stanford, the researches could have easily stepped in at any time and simply said, "these are peers and this is an experiment." Little shots of reality often have great impact as anyone who has bickered with a class project group member could attest.
Abu Ghraib appears to have been a headless chicken. When soldiers are expected to only follow orders, with minimal reflection, what do they do when leadership fails to give orders or reign in unwanted behavior? Graner was given commendation of sorts on the "intelligence" he produced from interrogations, much as the Stanford guards were encouraged to enforce humility in the prisoners.
What really strikes me though, is the thought that any Colonel could have changed the priorities from information to humanity. When information is obtained at the expense of the humanity of all individuals involved, perhaps the info isn't worth the effort. When the inhumanity became int'l news, the priorities changed rapidly (maybe?). As my mother has told me, "don't do anything you wouldn't want your wife to know about."
The situation in Abu Ghraib (AG) was perhaps more psychologically intense than a sterile lab in California, but soldiers are trained to act as professionals. Part of that means following orders, ensuring the safety of your peers, and upholding the ideals of one's homeland. Unfortunately, popular sentiment may actually have been on Graner's side, until the public had a chance to reflect and reconsider.
Policy choices for avoiding AG-like events in the future? 1) explicitly make the chain of command responsible for failures to maintain discipline and obedience, especially when a war crime has occurred where the superior should have known of the actions. 2) Ensure that soldiers are protected by whistleblowing acts for grave crimes. Give an incentive of money or promotion or a medal for those who inform superiors, whether or not superiors act on the info.
That's all for now.
1 comment:
"Unfortunately, popular sentiment may actually have been on Graner's side, until the public had a chance to reflect and reconsider."
What actually most shocked me is the way that Americans tend to rally around soldiers guilty of these sorts of acts. Why? Why do we defend them? Yes, they're soldiers, dying for their homeland, and they deserve our support, fine. But there is still a difference between right and wrong. Sometimes the line is blurred. Torturing and humiliating naked prisoners is not a grey area. It's clearly wrong.
I think the reason Americans rally around guilty soldiers is because we have a sense that they are not totally at fault. They are MADE that way. We don't feel that they should take all the blame. And to some extent I agree. Some of this has to do with the soldiers' superiors, with the conditions of the war, with the state of the country. But when you get down to the bottom of it, people are responsible for their own actions, and they have to be held accountable, individually.
Post a Comment