Depraved and decadent are two of the many adjectives routinely used by Al-Qaeda to characterize Western society in general and America in particular. The photographic accounts of torture and humiliation at the Abu Ghraib prison will do nothing to dispel these perceptions. Unless Washington moves quickly, hope for the liberalization of postwar Iraq and the suppression of global terrorism could be irretrievably lost.

As US Army and Congressional investigators probe the depth and scope of the abuse, calls for the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grow louder. But the fate the architect of the Iraq war and its turbulent aftermath is merely a sideshow, except insofar as it may have an effect on the effort to stabilize Iraq, and to separate silent Arab moderates from the radical rejectionists whose voices grow more shrill by the day.

To Rumsfeld, the ‘war on terror’ was never meant to be waged or won solely by latter-day Roman legions. After 9/11 he presciently stated that the struggle would be characterized neither by decisive military campaigns nor by the surrender of the adversary, but rather by “the patient accumulation of successes.”

There has been some success in restoring a degree of ‘normalcy’ to Iraqi society, but true stability will be elusive so long as Iraqis feel that they are powerless. The pictures from Abu Ghraib symbolize not American resolve, but foreign subjugation in all its seediness. The acts portrayed have rightly outraged the viewing public. But in the Arab world the effects are sure to be greater. The images of a woman – an American one at that - playing dominatrix with a Muslim man is not simply an insult to the victim’s pride; it is anathema in a socially ultra-conservative culture. As such, it will not soon be forgotten, nor easily forgiven.

It is almost certain that these sins of commission (by the perpetrators) and of omission (by senior officials responsible for setting interrogation policy and ensuring discipline) will undermine American prestige, and therefore influence, as the critical June 30 hand-over date approaches. A UN-approved transitional authority knows, but will not want to admit, that the American military presence must be tolerated until a credible indigenous security force is established, even if it means letting the militias run loose. 

The pictures’ effect on the wider war on terror is harder to gauge. They will not alter the behaviour of the fanatics who harbour an unquenchable hatred for the American ‘infidel’ or other Westerners. Militants will continue to kidnap, ransom, or kill soldiers and civilian contractors as they did before. No group of nationals are more prized by the insurgents than are Americans. The beheading of business contractor Nicholas Berg may have been inevitable given the events of May 2, when another high-value hostage, truck-driver Thomas Hamill, bolted from his captors. Mr. Berg’s executioners couldn’t have risked letting him escape.

The website featuring Mr. Berg’s grisly murder includes statements from his killers that they were motivated by revulsion to the prison scandal. Doubtful. The method of execution suggest that the men in black had few moral sensibilities to offend in the first place; their reaction meets or exceeds the savagery of the abuse inflicted upon the inmates of Abu Ghraib.

A pledge by President Bush and other senior officials to halt, investigate, and punish further wrong-doing will be grudgingly, if silently, welcomed in allied capitals, and in the small community of moderate Arab opinion. But will it have a salutary effect on the struggle against an elusive and determined foe? Difficult to say. An act of contrition could be viewed an admission of ingrained moral turpitude - a confirmation of Al-Qaeda’s familiar refrain. A demonstration of American scruple may be interpreted as weakness or even squeamishness - an unwillingness to go to the distance. Recall how the America’s hasty departure from Somalia following the deaths of a handful of American servicemen convinced Osama bin Laden that the United States had neither the stomach nor the endurance for a struggle with militant Islam. Emboldened, Al-Qaeda struck again and again.

But it is not militant Islam that America should be trying to impress. As it addresses the multitude of command failures that led to the abuse, Washington must recall that one of the most effective weapons in its anti-terrorist arsenal is the modernization and liberalizing force that it purports to represent. If this image is maintained even under the duress of war and occupation, it may win some converts. At the very least, it will not give ammunition to the professional America-haters whose ranks have swollen in recent years.

The unwillingness to succumb to the ‘anything goes’ mentality is key to ensuring that America’s example is one that others can comfortably follow. Already there are efforts to show that an open, accountable society can deal with the rot within. Apologies have flowed from the President on down. The abuse was neither covered up nor explained away by the US military. (The Army itself launched the investigation back in January.) Lawmakers and the media are fixated on the story. Heads will surely roll.

And roll they must. Failure to mete out severe punishment to the guilty will do incalculable damage not only to America’s international image, but, more importantly, to morale on the home front. It is here that the war on terror will be won or lost. If accounts of abuse are not fully disclosed, but instead trickle out, the public’s faith that America was fundamentally in the right, that it would ultimately prevail in the struggle against terror, could be decisively undermined. The cynicism and self-hate of the Vietnam years might return. Expectations that a new Iraq was within reach, and that America would be safer for it, would yield to pessimism and sullen isolationism. To the delight of many, America would be chastened. But the “patient accumulation of successes” would grind to a virtual halt, with no one to take up the quarrel with an implacable foe.

Which brings us to Mr. Rumsfeld. Would his departure allow America to move ahead with a renewed sense of purpose? Would it enhance America’s image and restore diminishing faith in the course the administration has charted in Iraq? Clearly, a resignation would be justified if it stemmed from gross mismanagement and incompetence. It is not clear that this is the case where Mr. Rumsfeld is concerned. But even some Republicans have begun to mutter that the scandal, and his seemingly inept handling of the post-war phase, has rendered him ineffective.

These are domestic political questions to be sorted out by citizens concerned with the quality of their government, and by an administration cognizant of its electoral fortunes. The rest of the world has other priorities. First among them is to remind Washington that the overall objective – a transformed Iraq – hangs in the balance. Local and international support, however halting, for this grand experiment will falter if the values America professes to embody are trampled upon by its own troops, or if the democratic institutions it wishes to implant in Iraq fail to work at home.

The future of Iraq and its people is more important than the popularity of one administration, or one secretary of defence. Mr. Rumsfeld’s political scalp is a small price to pay to counter the perception of American hypocrisy and Western depravity. It is to the ‘silent majority’ (if one still exists) of domestic and international opinion that America must address itself. It should stand firm in Iraq while seeking pardon for the abhorrent behaviour of its citizens.

The reaction of those waiting for the matter to be investigated and for the guilty to be punished will be interesting. Some will perceive the proceedings as proof of the virtues of an open, accountable society. Those who choose to nurse their grudge will dismiss anything less than presidential impeachment as a white–wash. Justice may ultimately be in the eye of the beholder. But if the pessimists outnumber the optimists, the legacy of Abu Ghraib will be that America did not simply shoot itself in the foot, it blew it clean off.

David Rudd is the President and Executive Director of the CISS.

Copyright CISS 2004

PDF Version

Back to Commentary Index

Back To Home