Replies

Yeah, there's that "saluting" thing again...
What a load of "horse hockey"..
That's a made up excuse to get her out of the way, if you ask me.
Everyone seems to consider that as some sort of "evidence".. Sorry, it doesn't cut it with me..

The unit is operating in a war zone.. while it may not be the front lines, it is still considered proper, even recommended, that officers not be saluted under wartime conditions..
It identifies leaders to the enemy, and affords them opportunity to take them out of the action..
In Iraq, where the enemy is engaged in guerilla warfare, there is no front line..
Saluting, even in a prison, could be dangerous to officers in command..

It is the concern of the Central Command, because they have their head up their asses...
They are so concerned with establishing their own importance, they ignore one of the long established principles of conduct in a war zone..

I don't know about any other "laxness in discipline" because news reports and comments from the pentagon are anally fixated on the whole saluting thing...
Forget that, and let's find out what the actual breakdown in discipline was.. ( like male-female fraternization ? any mention of that?? )

The fact of the sequence of the investigation that preceded the abuse scandal into Karpinski's command is most telling. Saluting is just an example quoted. There were problems in Karpinski's command that they believed warranted correction. They chose an expedient compromise so as not have to relieve her and face potential political/PR flack.

She was in a chain of command. If they simply wanted to turn a cellblock or the prison as a whole over to Military Intelligence, they could have done so at any time.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) for instance has had control of some detainees who were related to WMD activities and still do.