Clancy, Derek, John, “Mikael”, and Torill all offer considered and insightful reflections on the atrocities of Abu Ghraib. The sources to which Derek links are especially worth a look, as are Mikael’s thoughts on the consequences of the scandal. I found John’s anecdote simultaneously disturbing and pathetic, but I agree with him on what it says about the chain of command. The comments to Clancy’s post are becoming a thoughtful dialogue on what constitutes torture (the subject of Derek’s post) and, furthermore, what constitutes appropriate punishment, and for whom: while I don’t entirely agree with Clancy’s perspective (I’m too disgusted by too many different aspects of this to be able to remain dispassionate), the discussion there is very much worth following. Finally, I find deeply compelling the connections Torill makes to deviant sexuality, and her conclusions that “what we see here [is] the very source of all images of pain: the human with too much power and no control”, and that “It is not like our culture does not recognize and know about the capability of cruelty inherent in humanity”.
Curtiss wrote a lot about power, control, and rhetoric, but he’s lately decided to hang it up. He’ll be sorely missed, especially since Hektor Rottweiler Jr now redirects to Wealth Bondage. To which I have to ask: how ’bout at least giving us access to your archives, Curtiss? There’s too much insight there to be discarded.
“the human with too much power and no control”
*That*, I think, is precisely what we are not seeing. We are seeing quite
ordinary people — ordinary people (albeit soldiers), not sexual perverts,
not deviants, not sadists — obeying orders, orders that form part of
a coherent and organised plan, orders that have a purpose. As Bruno
Betelheim observed in “The Informed Heart”, the thing about the SS in
the camps was, that they really *were* “just obeying orders” — and that
was precisely what was so bad about it. Then as now, it was organised and
systematic dehumanisation and torture *with an end in mind* — the breaking
of the internees’ spirit. In the case of the Germans, this was to the end
of providing a compliant slave labour force; in the case of the Americans,
it is (I presume) to soften the internees up before interrogation.
What did it say over the gates of Auschwitz again? Ah, yes: “Arbeit
macht Frei”. And the Iraqi resistance fight back because, “they hate
our freedoms”. Strange, how imperial powers always talk to us about
freedom as they torture and kill us.
Thanks for the comment!
I do think that Torill’s post, upon reading its entirety, offers somewhat more complexity than your response might allow, and the more I think about this debate, the more inappropriate a metaphor the crimes of Nazism seem. But then again, I’m appropriating Tacitus as a metaphor, so maybe I’d best not complain.
But, uh, wouldn’t “Paul Dunne” be a much less involved signature? 🙂
Well, it was precisely your appropriation of Tacitus that persuaded me
to become a regular reader (via the now sadly defunct Rottweiler site).
The “classical analogy” is one that seems all too appropriate to our
present predicament. As for analogies with the Nazis, well, even the
greatest oak grew from a small acorn. I’m sure the Germans of ’33 didn’t
anticipate what the system they had at least tacitly accepted would become
— but isn’t that rather the point? Perhaps we should try to learn from
their experience, rather than using it as a stick to beat Europeans in
general on the head and prove the superiority of US Civilisation? I think
if we want to draw anything positive from the German experience (and I do
wish to do so, I do believe in the Hegelian ideal of the *progression*
of history), we must be a bit “trigger-happy” with our analogies, so
to speak. In general, I would concur with you in being loath to compare
US actions with those of Nazi Germany; but, in this specific instance, I
would argue the that comparison is germane. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein,
“a concentration camp is a concentration camp is a concentration camp” —
whether Dachau or Guantanamo or (however-it’s-spelt). The US has not yet
plumped the depths that Germany did then. But is it not perhaps precisely
because it has not, yet, that we have still time to avert what only *seems*
inevitable? I’d strongly urge a read of Betelheim’s book at this point.
As they say: he was there.
Sure, “Paul Dunne” would be a lot simpler; but I’m addicted to self-parody,
and “The Shamrockshire Eagle, editor and sole proprietor of” suits that
cause admirably!
appreciate the site, Mike.
I agree with Eagle, there’s no reason to think the Bush Admin. would draw the line at (er, before) Nazi Germany level attrocities. From where I sit, the Abu Ghraib peek behind the mask reveals an equal evil in thought if not yet in deed.
Bruce, I’m not quite willing to go there, for two reasons. First, I didn’t buy the use of such ungrounded and abstracted black-and-white Manichean comparisons (Bush=Nazism) from the Bush administration, and I don’t buy it now. Second, your reasoning looks to the future — “would” and “not yet” indicate a concern with potentialities — and that was precisely the kind of thinking that I found so alarming in rationales for the Iraq war and for detaining “enemy combatants”. Let us not become the evil we condemn: I don’t believe in preventive war, and indicting a person for something they might yet do is contrary to any ideal of a free society, even if it’s someone I despise.
On the other hand, these good-for-the-gander comparisons bring to mind one point: after the exposure of the WMD myth, the Bush administration sought justificational recourse for “regime change” in frequently repeated descriptions of the torture houses and rape chambers of Saddam Hussein. Certainly, any regime that perpetuates such atrocities must be removed from power, even without the consent of the United Nations — no?
Ok, I will never compare equate Bush and Nazism again. After all, I think we are talking new and improved here, so we need to deal with the product features of this model. Toward that end, as you say, we’ve seen enough. No need to get into speculation.
Mike, thanks for the kind words.
The archives are back. The idea was to redirect to WB for a while and then change “Rottweiller” to “R-tt–ll-r,” so as to not get so many hits from dog lovers.
Jeez, I’m burnt out. Anybody out there know how to give a lobotomy?
“Certainly, any regime that perpetuates such atrocities must be removed
from power, even without the consent of the United Nations — no?”
No. Ever hear the saying, “the cure is worse than the disease”? But the
real trouble I have with this question is its abstract nature, not to
mention its relativism — couldn’t we justify removing “the Truman régime”
because of Hiroshima?
Yes, I’m actually inclined to agree with you that comparing the Bush régime
to “the Nazis” is hyperbole — but I’d recently read Bruno Betelheim’s
“The Informed Heart”, and his experiences in the camps (which predated
the extermination drive — he was released in ’39) do have such close
resemblance to the methods used in Al Graiba (stet?) and no doubt
Gauntanamo et al (in summary: dehumanisation techniques, either used
before interrogation to render the inmate more amenable to questioning or
as a general “socialisation” measure) that I had to get it “off my chest”!
And I don’t think it’s such a far leap.
However; “imperialism is imperialism is imperialism”. The German
government was led to the extremes it undertook not because of something
basically malign in the German soul, but because of the exigencies of
its position as an aspiring imperial power seeking to overcome other
such powers. As such, its experience — or rather say, the experience
we as humans have collectively gained — is valid, can be generalised,
must be learned from. What one imperialist power did once, another can do
again, if needs must. Of course, it won’t be “the same”. History never
repeats in detail; but in essence, it does, again and again. But perhaps,
just perhaps, we — you and I — have a say in whether it does or no?
“First they came for the Communists, and I said nothing, because I was
not a Communist …”. Etc. We’ve forgotten, I think, what this actually
means. For Niemoeller, a Communist was just about the worst thing in the
world (and as I recall Jews came a close second!); and that is the point,
that’s what he’d learned; that a system like the Nazi régime *starts* by
victimising those everyone hates, “the terrorists”: first, the Communist
van der Lubbe who burned the Reichstag; then the Jew Gruenspan (I think
he was called) who assassinated the German ambassador in Paris; and then,
sooner or later, *and inevitably*, the rest of us. And therefore, people
such as Niemoeller were to blame for allowing themselves to be complicit in
the “war against terrorism”, or whatever they called it then. His “poem”
(as some people call it, I think it was delivered as part of a speech,
I’m unclear on the point) is a “mea culpa”.
Does this make it clearer? The point is not to compare Bush et al to
Hitler et al, but to *learn from* Hitler et al and so stop Bush et al,
or their successors, going a similar road. If the nation of Bach and
Bethoven and Goethe and Schiller can also produce Hitler and his gang,
then I don’t think the USA can afford to be complacent about what might
be lurking in its political machine. Especially since we have seen in
recent weeks revelations that make comparisons between the Dachau of
’33 and the Gauntanamo of ’04 not far-fetched.
Curtiss, I’m glad to see your archives back up, and like I said, your perspective will be much missed. Nice to know you’re still reading and commenting, though; afraid I can’t help with the lobotomy.
Paul (or, OK, “Eagle”), my final sentence was intended as an ironic swipe at the Bush administration after Abu Ghraib: they said “Look at Saddam the torturer; he’s got to go,” so why shouldn’t that logic work both ways? It wasn’t really serious, since I’d said to Bruce that I think those sorts of arguments of equivalence are often ridiculous. So it looks like we’re pretty much in agreement — and, yes, your parallels to the concrete and specific social contexts that produced the rise of the Nazi regime look a lot like what I’m trying to do with my posts on Tacitus and Empire. Interesting in that light that the Nazis adopted both the fasces of the Roman lictors and the imperial eagles of the Roman legions.