|
Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't have to resign... He should be punished
by Jim Babka
May 12, 2004John F. Kerry and the Democrats, in an election year gambit, are calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The photos coming out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are morally embarrassing. But resignation is not the solution.
Kerry is only suggesting such a thing because it's politically advantageous – not because he holds substantial disagreement with Bush's foreign policy. He doesn't really disagree – he voted for the attack on Iraq.
Moral responsibility
Rumsfeld shouldn't have to resign. George W. Bush should fire Rumsfeld and then Rumsfeld should join the Military Police officers (MPs) who followed orders to use psychological torture in a court martial.
Handling this matter in a morally responsible fashion – punishing Rumsfeld – is a matter of life and death (literally). Moreover, it sends a message to future Secretary's of Defense that launching pre-emptive wars could be hazardous to your career, reputation, and your personal freedom.
The morally responsible method of punishment should be concrete, severe, and very public, because what we have here is a Lifeboat Situation.
Through Rumsfeld overboard
A Lifeboat Situation is a moral dilemma – a scenario where there are a handful of people trying to survive in the ocean, and either their boat is too small or their rations too few to support all the travelers. The question then becomes, is it acceptable to sacrifice one life for the good of the rest.
The photos coming out of Abu Graib prison are recruitment post cards for al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations.
For more than two years, Republicans have been trying to convince us that the reason we were being attacked by Islamic terrorists was because they hated American values – that this was a holy war designed to destroy infidels. The claim was dubious given that Osama bin Laden himself had been quite clear in his fatwa (an Islamic "declaration of war") and in interviews that his beef was with American interventionism, not the American way of life.
But let's assume the Republicans were right for a second. Hasn't the situation just been made incredibly worse?
In a man-on-the-street interview on a national cable news network last week, an anonymous Middle-Eastern male said, "We always knew what America was all about. Now we have the photos to prove it." Rumsfeld's employees have put us in harm's way as a result of a policy he plotted, maneuvered, and pushed for.
Dr. Strangelove
"Wait a minute," you say, "that's not fair. Rumsfeld said this was abhorrent. He didn't approve of this behavior."
It doesn't matter, not even a little bit, whether Rumsfeld approved of the ways the MPs were handling prisoners. It doesn't even matter how long he knew. Rumsfeld is responsible for the war.
As libertarian Harry Browne wrote,
In a kill-or-be-killed environment, emotions run high. Men don't just oppose the enemy, they hate him. And when they think information might save a buddy, they will commit heinous acts to extract the information from a prisoner.
There's only one way to stop such things from happening: don't go to war in the first place.
We now are aware, thanks to Condoleeza Rice's deputy, Richard Clarke that the day after the World Trade Center attacks, Rumsfeld didn't want to attack Afghanistan. After being informed that al-Qaeda was responsible and that they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, Rumsfeld replied, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are lots of good targets in Iraq."
Rumsfeld was playing the part of Dr. Strangelove. And the fruit of his policy is the Abu Graib prison affair and the likely terrorist attack to follow.
A sincere apology?
Before a U.S. Senate committee last week, Rumsfeld said he assumed full responsibility. Because he didn't offer his resignation on the spot, it's acceptable to wonder about his sincerity – especially if you live in the Muslim world.
The actions of the military police officers at the Abu Graib prison are, after all, war crimes. The Golden Rule is proof enough. Those people, like Senator James Inhofe who are outraged that people are concerned for these criminals, would be the very same people outraged if this had been done to American prisoners.
Bush himself has promised severe punishment to those involved. This is as it should be.
But it won't be enough to demonstrate sincerity.
Is it fair that the poop will all run downhill, and only the lowest ranking soldiers will pay for these crimes?
This psychological torture was so well- documented in photography. Wouldn't that seem to indicate the MPs in charge of the prison believed they were doing what their superiors wanted?
Will the people of the Middle East be convinced otherwise, or will they see the prosecutions as sacrificial lambs covering for a corrupt leadership?
Do the right thing
American revolutionary patriot Samuel Adams said, "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters."
George Bush should send a clear, unambiguous message to both his confused troops and to the Middle Eastern world. He should say, by his actions, "We really won't tolerate such immorality. And top-level guys will hang for it when they do."
Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall reap what they sow
Such an act on the president's part would serve another important end. It would Downsize DC. War is the health of the state and the Bush-led government is no exception to that rule.
Secretary Rumsfeld was part of a group of neo- conservatives (including his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney) that worked for years before Bush ever was elected, to get this war with Iraq started. Firing Rumsfeld and trying him for his crimes would serve as a deterrent to future Dr. Strangelove's who might occupy his seat. The rabid rush to use our military for regime change would not seem so politically beneficial.
The president should make clear just exactly how heinous this behavior is by not only firing, but also punishing Secretary Rumsfeld. And he should do it for the safety of American citizens. Sacrificing one irresponsible man's liberty and reputation for the benefit of the rest of us would send a message that we are sincerely sorry and mitigate the damage these photos are doing in the Middle East.
After all, isn't that the bargain we have been given – that since September 11th, we had to give up a little of our liberty for safety?
Copyright © 2004, CultureRepair.com
Comments to: webmaster@CultureRepair.com