The Struggle for Iraq [NEW YORK TIMES]
mparker23 - 1:45 AM ET May 8, 2004 (#13500 of 13500)

Rumsfeld's Testimony
The testimony of Secretary Rumsfeld before the Senate Armed Services committee on prisoner abuse in Iraq further illustrates the inability of the DOD and its Secretary to deal with a crisis that threatens to spin out of control.

Rumsfeld's inability to answer Senator McCain's three simple questions about who was in charge of the interrogation, who was supervising those in charge, and what their instructions were, is symptomatic of a deeper problem, that Senator Byrd correctly characterized as the arrogance of power.

To take on face value Rumsfeld's claims that he is sorry and is fully responsible because this occurred on his watch is to ignore-- as shown by his inability to answer Senator McCain's questions-- that he is unable or unwilling to inform himself on the most basic facts of the case. The fact that he first saw the photographs in question on Thursday further demonstrates his lack of imagination and curiosity. As Senator Clinton rightly said, it doesn't take much imagination to read existing reports and know what is taking place.

Even more troubling is the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld and the Administration persist in wanting to apply the Geneva Convention only if it is convenient. Rumsfeld's unprompted, gratuitous remarks about distinctions between types of prisoner's (criminals, terrorists, soldiers), and types of investigations (presumably with different departments, DOD, CIA, FBI, military intelligence) lead one to wonder whether this approach encourages such abuses, in fact, if it is part of a larger pattern or strategy to encourage, or at least diffuse or shirk responsibility for abuse. It certainly provides opportunities to circumvent the chain of command.

Finally, an anecdote: my brother tells me he knows someone interviewed to interrogate prisoners in Iraq. This person has characterized what he was being asked to do as "slapping them [prisoners] around a bit." If this is the common perception of job applicants, why should we think there are simply a few bad apples, rather than a systemic failure of major proportions?