Fact or Fiction

By now, you have all heard about the "Torture" / "Detainee Abuse" which occurred at the prison in Iraq. Some members of the Government are spinning the event as "the work of a few bad apples". Some of them even cite the The Stanford Prison Experiment as an example of how good soldiers go bad. It is a plausible argument, and many left leaning and centrist publications are running with that theory. Some members of the right have moved beyond the 'bad apple' theory into calling the soldiers patriots motivated by a love for their country, and some of the more inhumane rightists simply don't have a problem with it. Rush Limbaugh used the "its war, sometimes bad things happen in war" excuse.

The reality is more insidious. The Red Cross is telling anyone who will listen that it is a systemic problem, Amnesty International is trying to get the media to pay attention to the network of prisons in Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Cuba.

So, what I'm going to do here is to look into the crystal Ball and tell you what is going to happen. And, as a bonus, I will tell you why. What I wont do, is tell you that it's wrong. If you haven't figured that out on your own, then you are well on your way to being a jackboot already.

To see through the haze, you need to know that the haze exists. You need to understand that there is fact and there is fiction. There is a desired outcome, and a problem to be dealt with. There are players who will benefit, players who seek to have the damage to them selves minimized, and there are innocent victims, and perpetrators.

But who is who?

First, there is the macrocosm of the world, A mish mash of nations each seeking to get benefits to themselves at the lowest cost. Some countries benefit at other countries expense.

One country, America has invaded another country, Iraq. The reasons for this invasion have been bandied about and shifted over time. Its been said that the invasion was done for security reasons, and for idealist reasons. Iraq was said to have Weapons of Mass Destruction. America was so bent on attacking Iraq that it ignored the world, and attacked. I personally believe that ideological forces within the Republican Party kept one upping each other until they had to attack. Like a perverse game of chicken. If they didn't attack, they would have been pilloried for being weak kneed or worse, endangering National Security.

Once the country was shown to be free from weapons of mass destruction, the excuse changed to making Iraq a democratic country. This would make Iraq an American ally and a friendly nation. Unfortunately, you cant make friends with someone by pointing a gun at them. The Iraqi people are slowly getting up steam, and fighting back, but it is described as an insurgency. Obviously, the Iraqi people see it differently.

In Iraq, we are asked to believe that the goal of the operation is democracy. If that is the case, and the reality of the situation, then we should be able to point at specific attitudes, and actions which demonstrate that the democraticization of Iraq is occurring.

We should see open and free communication of ideas, preparations for elections, a rebuilding of the social infrastructure, and a growing diversity of individuals, personalities, and social items. If, on the other hand, we are witnessing a colonial occupation, then we should tend to see a minimization of the democratic attributes, and increase in the military attributes, and propaganda.

So far, this is obvious, right?