Interesting sociological theory

I would like to preface this post with a brief disclaimer, because people sometimes jump down my throat about this. I did not invent this theory, and I'm not saying I subscribe to it. I am simply saying it is an interesting idea, and pertinent to our discussion. That said...

I discovered this theory in a class on Anglo-Saxon literature and Tolkien (on top of being an IR freak, I am also a history and lit buff, so ignore the general geekiness to follow). It actually derives from an analysis of Anglo-Saxon history and literature, particularly Beowulf. There is a general underlying theme in
Beowulf in which warriors are both heroes and monsters. For example, Beowulf, the soldiers in Heorot Hall, and Grendel are all, at various points, referred to by the same kenning (kennings are different words that the Anglo-Saxons came up with to describe things, I suspect because they needed more alliteration in their poetry). Historians and English majors suspect that the point that the Beowulf author(s) is/are trying to make is that Beowulf is a hero so long as he uses his power against an enemy. He can become a monster if he turns his power inward against his own people. This is something that can be seen across Anglo-Saxon, and indeed, most of Germanic, society in the pre-Christian era. Kingdoms have to continually expand so that soldiers can take loot. Once a society ceases to grow, the warriors turn their violence inward, and shred the kingdom. For this reason, kings actually attempted to war with their neighbors. They were also known as "ring givers", because they won loyalty by giving loot to their earls. This is important because it initiated a sociological theory that war exists so as to turn the destructive forces of a people outward. Otherwise, there is internal chaos and collapse. This branches into an idea that people drawn to the military may be of a certain mindset, and will either kill foreigners, or commit crimes within the state (like I said, I don't necessarily agree with this). It's just an interesting way to look at whether we can ever end war, or at least the abuses inherent in it, because we will always need to orient destructive forces outwards.

Mistakes at Abu Ghraib

3) Based on the film, the class discussion and the readings, what specific policy changes to US military doctrine would decrease the levels of atrocity by US forces in conflict situations and in detention?

I am going to specifically address Abu Ghraib, because I compulsively wrote a few notes during the video, so those thoughts are pretty fresh.

One issue that I specifically noted during the film was that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were severely outnumbered. The atmosphere of sheer terror that must engender could only contribute to the sort of abuses that occurred there. Obviously, we're in a war, and just because more troops are needed does not mean they are available. Nonetheless, the sort of statistics the film related - was it something like eight MPs for 800 detainees? - almost require brutality simply to hold down a much larger population. Of course, that can always lead the subjugated to riot, as happened at Abu Ghraib.

Another suggestion is to ensure that the right type of soldiers are doing the right jobs. The MPs were clearly not trained to be prison guards, and certainly not guards who are supposed to control a group of enemy suspects. There have to be soldiers who are better trained to handle these sorts of situations.

Still another policy option is to ensure that detainees who hold no information are cycled through the system quicker. There were simply too many prisoners for Abu Ghraib, and the vast majority of them evidently held no intelligence that was of use to the military. As soon as military intelligence officers realized that people they were interrogating did not have useful information, they should have released them. Obviously, an intelligence officer cannot release someone on a whim, but there should be some sort of system in place for discharging people who have been wrongly arrested.

Really, all three of these suggestions come down to the same basic problem: there were too many prisoners, and too few, poorly trained, guards. It is obvious that this sort of a situation would almost automatically lead to "othering", simply in order to survive. By putting these soldiers in an untenable, terrifying situation, they were almost guaranteed to bond together and to lash out at those who are vulnerable when something goes wrong.

Also, really, the military needs to do better screening. There was at least one soldier in the film that I immediately singled out as not belonging to this war. As soon as he said "I wanted revenge" he should have been pulled out. There is a difference between wanting to defend your country and wanting revenge. I recognize that a lot of soldiers signed up after September 11 because they wanted revenge, and that we might lose half our military if we were to screen them out, but these are the people who might not distinguish between noncombatants and enemies. Because, strictly speaking, revenge is not feasible. The men who committed the attacks on September 11 died. We cannot take revenge on them. Besides, just war doctrine states that war cannot be done out of revenge. Perhaps the military should consider screening for those who seek vengeance.

An additional suggestion goes to the culture of permissiveness that had been promulgated by officials. I think this topic has been addressed ad nauseum, but it still needs to be addressed. Especially because I don't want a glaring hole in this post that will pull my grade down. Anyway, officials from the very top of the military and civilian hierarchy created a perception that all Middle Easterners are enemies, and deserve to be treated badly. The Bush Administration, and all the way down through the ranks of the military, created a system in which no clearly delineated rules were given to the troops on the ground, and in which results were encouraged without consideration for methods. To argue that they did not authorize the terrible treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib is incorrect. If they did not directly authorize or know what was going to happen, they should have. Combining a bunch of terrified twenty-somethings, with no rules, a war, and a recent terrorist attack is a pretty clear recipe for mistreatment.

On the other hand, I think this sort of thing will always be a problem. The process of formal military training, and the chaos of war creates this sort of behavior, and I don't know that there is a way, short of pacifism, to prevent atrocities.

I would, however, like to point out even with all that has been said above, I still think that Americans in general are well trained and have behaved remarkably well in this war. Abu Ghraib was such a scandal becase it was seen as being inconsistent with our principles and practices. If one compares what happened at Abu Ghraib with the sort of horrors inflicted on prisoners in, for example, Latin America during the 1970s, Abu Ghraib looks like small potatos. It is very sad that this awful event has turned so much world opinion against the United States. This doesn't excuse what happened, but I try to bear in mind that whether or not the average person could become a monster, most of our soldiers haven't.

Speaking of less lethal weapons...

Here's a video from 60 Minutes about that laser cannon we discussed in class.