Walking the Fine Line

Chris Young, the proprietor (so to speak) of Explananda, is a very sharp
guy. He and I often differ, but I consider him a member of the
intelligent and honorable opposition.

He has a recent post up which he "dedicates" to Republicans, though I think the piece is actually a challenge to anyone who
believes that, in light of Abu Ghraib, it's still defensible to "support" GW Bush. I'm no
Republican, and would qualify my support for President Bush in many ways, but I view the matter very differently than Chris does.

Read Chris' post to check my interpretation - my take is that the animating question at issue is: If the culpability of Bush vis-a-vis Abu Ghraib isn't a "firing offense," then what is? What does Chris understand Bush's culpability to be? Ignoring the laws of war (notably, the Geneva Conventions), which "led inexorably" (Chris' exact phrase) to the tortures of Abu Ghraib, and even murder.

I am aware of no evidence that shows that Bush and Co. authorized or welcomed wanton sadism - naked pyramids of prisoners, female soldiers gallivanting with nude male prisoners, impromptu electro-shocking of inmates, opportunistic sexual exploitation, etc. - or murder; i.e., elective cruelty for its own sake.

One could argue that rejection of the Geneva Conventions might create a climate in which abuses are more likely to occur; to a point I would credit such an argument, and the extent to which that
possibility wasn't an object of concern is blameworthy. (Though here one needs to be on guard
against circular formulations - in effect arguing that if any abuse occurred, then the possibility of it occurring simply wasn't taken seriously "enough" beforehand).

Anyhow, to acknowledge as much is a far, far cry from claiming that an "inexorable" logic connects policy to
prisoner abuse. In other words, in confronting the exigencies of the war against Islamism, policymakers have far more options than religious observance of Geneva or a saturnalia of cruelty. To suppose otherwise entails a failure of imagination, and reifies historical constructs - creatures of determinate conditions, intended to meet determinate ends - into principles/ideals of timeless validity; a tendency exemplified most uncritically by NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, which Chris quotes approvingly. (NB: the traditional "laws of war" - as generally recognized norms of/for belligerence - precede, and are independent of, agreements,
treaties, etc., which formalize and codify them).

To address Chris' question: in connection with Abu Ghraib, if there was evidence that the administration was glad to transform military prisons into little shops of horrors - an attitude which would evince striking
disrespect for prisoners AND soldiers - then that would certainly be a candidate "firing offense." There are other imaginable scenarios that aren't so far-fetched - but that the administration concluded that "the laws
of war" don't apply to certain kinds of "irregulars" is no firing offense in my book; on the contrary I consider the position to be plausible and defensible.

As I suggested above, where I will sympathize with the critics is in view of the fact that it's a dangerous, unpredictable business to sanction aggressive and violent interrogations - in effect an unshackling of the passions that can all too easily led to excess; again, a danger both to prisoners and soldiers.

Update: For another view that's closer to Chris' than it is to mine, but refracted through a different ideological prism, cp. Gregory Djerejian