Posted on 05/06/2004 8:04:04 PM PDT by Imal
The photographs of apparent "abuses" of insurgent prisoners by U.S. servicewomen are the scandal du jour. At first blush, it seems to be a devastating blow to America's efforts in Iraq. However, things are not always as they seem. There is definitely more to this than meets the eye.
I'm pretty sure this all got whipped into a scandal because it benefits the U.S. to direct and control its course. Someone released those photographs, and did so purposefully. Their apparent source is a DoD investigation into prison abuses that dates back some months. The DoD even issued a press release when it opened the investigations, but it didn't get traction -- then.
Now we have photographs, most of them featuring U.S. servicewomen humiliating Iraqi men. And the press has ran with it, giving the resulting scandal worldwide resonance, and rousing the usual suspects to rail against the abusive, arrogant Americans. The general in charge claims her troops were probably acting under CIA directions, and indeed, they most likely were.
U.S. interrogation techniques are noteworthy for their almost exclusive reliance on psychological techniques versus relatively crude physical pain techniques. We use fear, discomfort, sensory deprivation, lighting, sound (including carefully chosen music), a wide variety of drugs and yes, humiliation to break the wills of interrogation subjects.
In this case, I smell psyops and clever manipulation. Jihadis will fear humiliation in our prisons (a fate worse than death) and suffer a general sense of demoralization. It's already happening.
Specifically, being humiliated by women is terrifying to them. They value their masculinity, bravado and machismo above all, and are consequently very insecure about it. If we want to make jihadis feel uncomfortable and squirmy about alternatives to glorious martyrdom, we have done so.
Whether deliberate or not (and I think it was), the viral meme is working its way through the Arab mind. Threats of "greater rage" are absurd in the face of already constant rage. The practical threat of humiliation instead of glory will work its doubt into even the most devoted insurgent.
Bush's contrition only rubs salt into the wounds to Arab pride. Not only are these jihadis reduced to naked, groveling miserables -- in front of the world, and without a mark on them -- but we act like it didn't even require effort.
The message: "We didn't do it on purpose! Some of our women got out of control and abused your men." Ouch! Anathema to the Arab man. That's gotta hurt.
Meanwhile, Bush and Rumsfeld will weather a ridiculous partisan tempest in a teapot and come out looking more noble than before, while once again leaving their opponents with egg on their faces. But first, they must face the same old music they've always faced, just louder and more shrill for a short time.
And perhaps most important of all, U.S. troops have, in the course of a single "scandal", been elevated from the dubious status of being "beaten down by entrenched insurgents" to being "abusive occupiers". That's quite a change in perception. Indeed, it is a master stroke in public relations.
The only real losers in all this are the soldiers who were played for patsies as part of the operation. But America has ways of taking care of its own. I see money in their futures.
I may be wrong, but it looks like a queen's pawn opening to me. We'll see who wins the game. My money is on the United States.
You're absolutely correct, Imal. Having spent some time in the ME, I can say that muslim machismo rivals that seen in Central and South American countries. Muslim countries are very patriarchal, so to have a woman dominating you is a punishment worse than death.
I haven't spent much time on this whole prisoner-humiliation thing until today, when I took some time to study the pictures. The first thing that jumped out at me was the point I just discussed--this is a very humiliating thing for a muslim man. Secondly, I had to wonder just how these pictures were (a) allowed to be taken, and (b) how they were released since it was known that they were taken (smile for the camera!). Like you, I suspected that this might be a setup, especially when I saw that frail girl (Lindy?) holding a strapping Iraqi man on a leash. We can't bury them in pigskins, so we went for the next best thing. I think your theory has merit.
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there are reports that she is now pregnant and engaged to Graner.
Before the "prisoner abuse" scandal, little jihad Johnny might be looking at Al Jazeera and seeing Iraqi insurgents dragging mutilated bodies of Americans through the town to the cheers of their neighbors. He might then be inspired to do this when he grows up.
When Al Jazeera replaces these faces of triumphant insurgents with the hooded naked bodies of Iraqi prisoners with American women soldiers pointing at their genitals and smirking, all of a sudden growing up to be a jihadi has lost its lure.
When Al Jazeera replaces these faces of triumphant insurgents with the hooded naked bodies of Iraqi prisoners with American women soldiers pointing at their genitals and smirking, all of a sudden growing up to be a jihadi has lost its lure.
I am against this barbaric behaviors by our military, however, you bring a new angle to this! If humiliating these Moslems in front of a "half a human" would make the jihadists rethink before signing in, then, I am for it. Remember Islam consider one woman to be equal to half of a man!
I don't really see the value, but it is interesting.
Before the "prisoner abuse" scandal, little jihad Johnny might be looking at Al Jazeera and seeing Iraqi insurgents dragging mutilated bodies of Americans through the town to the cheers of their neighbors. He might then be inspired to do this when he grows up.
When Al Jazeera replaces these faces of triumphant insurgents with the hooded naked bodies of Iraqi prisoners with American women soldiers pointing at their genitals and smirking, all of a sudden growing up to be a jihadi has lost its lure.
If you think about it these guys have no "real" motive for fighting us. We aren't trying to rape their women or steal their property. If they want us out, the rational thing to do is wait until June 30, constitute a government and ask us to leave.
So, what is the motivation for the teenaged foot-soldiers to fight? As far as I can tell, it's for status in the gang. So much for that now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.