[Previous entry: "So many questions..."] [Next entry: "Take that, varmint!"]

05/07/2004: "Where was the outrage?"

The Religion News Service opens a story on Muslim reaction to the horrible events at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad this way:

As soon as Ingrid Mattson [professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut] saw the photo of the smiling American soldier, cigarette dangling from her lips, pointing at the genitals of a hooded, naked Iraqi prisoner, she knew this would touch a deep, inner chord in Muslims, no matter where they are. Indeed, as that image and others like it are published and broadcast around the world, they assault on a visceral level, core Islamic values such as modesty and dignity and honor, say Mattson and other scholars of Islam. If one image could amplify the hurt and anger and mistrust and fuel the rage of the next generation of violent radicals, then the sexual abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison might be it.

Should Muslims be outraged by what happened at Abu Ghraib? Sure. So are Americans, which is why the perpetrators are going to pay severely for their crimes. What I'd like to know is why Muslims evinced no discernible outrage (or even concern) about the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib when Saddam was running it. Is it because the prisoners our soldiers abused were men, while Saddam's torturers specialized in sexual abuse of women? Or is it because of some perverse notion that Muslims shouldn't point out human rights abuses committed by Muslims, only those committed by non-Muslims? One might start by asking the Saudis, who are worked up in such a lather about the photos from the prison, but who have worse stuff going on in their own prisons.

Replies: 6 Comments

on Friday, May 7th, Phillipa said

No, it's because Saddam never claimed to occupy the "moral high ground." It's because everybody knew Saddam was a tyrant and wasn't trying to masquerade as a benevolent leader. It's because we claim to be a champion for human rights, and then violate them in a dispicable manner.
Our effort to bring democracy to Iraq is now a hopeless farce. Why would they want to embrace our system of government when that system perpetuates the very behavior from which it is claiming to save Iraqis. Every man and woman in our armed forces in Iraq is now fair game for any kind of physical, mental or sexual torture should they be captured.
The "they do it, so why isn't it okay if we do it too?" reasoning stinks. Get real, Athanasius, it's time for us to to stop being defensive and get out of Iraq!

on Saturday, May 8th, Athanasius said

I'm hardly suggesting that because they do it, it's ok for us. In truth, behavior like this and far worse has been standard issue stuff by Arab governments for decades. The difference is that we do something about it when we discover it. For them, it's official policy. Yet the "Arab street" is now outraged because of what happened at Abu Ghraib. They would find it far more beneficial for their lives ot get as angry with their own governments, overthrow them, and install governments that respect human rights as much as America does–including having the will to punish those who violate human rights.

on Saturday, May 8th, Phillipa said

The problem with that sentiment is that we all live in the real world. Whether we like it or not, the actions of a few have seriously harmed our efforts in Iraq. I don't know if we can recover enough to do much more that could be considered beneficial. America operates on the assumption that every crisis can be mitigated by the presence of the US. That can't be and is not true. Also, the crimes that were committed inside the walls of Abu Ghraib developed in a cultured that permitted or maybe even encouraged these crimes. These events remind me of the massacre at Mi Lai in Vietnam. Just like Mi Lai, this is an indication of the morass that we are in. And no, I don't think that every soldier in Vietnam or Iraq is complicit in this or just generally evil. It is time to pull our heads out of the sand and take a realist assessment of the situation. It took years to come to that decision in Vietnam and then it took years to broker a peace deal.
As an afterthought: to anyone out there who believes that protesting the war is un-American, our country was founded on the belief that every citizen has a right and duty to speak against the leadership. Could that be because the framers realized the dissent can often lead to positive changes in a country?? It's time for this administration to stop generalizing about this conflict and address all of the thorny problems involved in this conflict. Maybe if George Bush hadn't partied through school, he could bring some intelligence to bear in this. Alas, I fear that is not to be.

on Monday, May 10th, Greg S said

I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, but you won't find me accusing disenters of being un-American.

Frankly, your bitter and childish comment about Bush's party boy reputation damages any credibility you may have in providing insite into a serious and scary situation.

As National Review put it last week (and you seem to suggest here), the actions of a few may very well costing us dozens of American lives.

on Wednesday, May 12th, Phillipa said

Do I sound bitter? I don't think so, but let me rephrase the point. I think Bush is out of his depth. "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it." Are we going to repeat Vietnam?

on Thursday, May 13th, Greg S said

It seems like Vietnam comparison's are too convenient to be valid. Frankly, it's the DNC "talking point" of the year so far.

This war presents a whole new set of problems. We've made and will continue to make entirely different mistakes. If there's a potentially comparable mistake, it would be Somalia. Running away from trouble breeds more trouble.

Vietnam had a Cold War context, Iraq has a War on Terror context. Even if you disagree with the motivation for the war, it deserves to be analized distinctly.

BTW, Ben Franklin's party boy reputation didn't seem to matter at the time!