Shocking Behaviour

The past week has seen allegations of western troops torturing Iraqi prisoners - allegations that, in the case of the British troops, appear to be of dubious providence. But these allegations are not the first to be made, so why is there the sudden interest? Does torture only matter if we can see photos? And, ultimately, how likely are the allegations to be true, and should we be surprised if they are?

The Mirror's photographs, apparently showing British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner, have provoked a storm. It is interesting just to watch the headlines in the other papers change - from "Alleged Torture" to "Alleged 'Torture'" and finally, in today's Times to "'Fake' Photos". Other than the mirror, every paper has been steadily distancing themselves from the allegations. The army's detailed denials have a lot to do with this.

Someone is lying. The army and the Mirror have both come out with detailed, but completely contradictory stories. The Mirror remains adamant that their sources for the story are within the unit accused, and have neither motive nor means to fake the photos. The army, meanwhile, has claimed that the photos couldn't be genuine, citing uniforms and a vehicle that weren't issued to troops in Iraq. Such a detailed denial should be easy to confirm, and if proved to be false, would lead to severe repercussions. Probably including ministerial scalps. If the Mirror is wrong, the fallout will be much smaller. The standard line of "trusted source, later proved to be lying, very sorry" may well be sufficient. Wrong doing on the part of the paper itself is harder to prove, as well as less damaging. All of which makes me inclined to believe that the pictures are fakes, although I wish the army's claims would be checked by someone who is both independent and far more of an expert on military matters than I am.

Is it sufficient to establish that this particular allegation is false? A similar allegation involving American troops has been generally accepted as accurate, and action has quite properly been taken. But what of other allegations? In January, Christian Peacemaker Teams reported 72 cases of Iraqi prisoners being mistreated. The Amnesty International website details numerous claims of torture and other abuses, including one instance of a death in British custody due to torture. Yet without photographs neither the media nor the military are interested.

The evidence seems to be clear. Some soldiers - both British and American - stationed in Iraq are happy to mistreat Iraqis that are unlucky enough to fall into their hands. Much as Bush might wish it was, the photographs do not represent an isolated incident. And the hierarchy, far from being ignorant of such incidents, is happy to turn a blind eye. Which is not to say that every soldier in Iraq is a vicious thug - far from it. The number of allegations is relatively small when considering the number of troops in Iraq, and the time for which they have been operating in an increasingly hostile country.

While it is very fashionable at the minute for the media to portray "our troops" as some sort of angelic heroes, there should really be little surprise that some of them are vicious thugs. After all, this is the same group of youths who are regularly demonised by the same papers as football hooligans or lager louts. Anyone who has a night out spoiled by squaddies knows how obnoxious, vicious, and uncaring some soldiers can be. Partly this is down to their natural disposition - pacifists and shrinking violets don't tend to volunteer for the armed forces. Partly this is down to training. Soldiers are expected to kill other human beings, and to be capable of that, they undergo psychological conditioning to view the enemy as less than human, the feelings of others as unimportant.

The armed forces always struggle with a careful balancing act. Too much respect and soldiers cannot kill. Too little, and incidents like this one occur. Normally, the only consequences of a failure are the public getting upset over the racist jokes that squaddies tell, or another piece of violence in a pub somewhere. While it might upset the newspapers or the public, the army itself understands that this is a small consequence of asking a man to kill and be killed in defence of his country. It is, perhaps, inevitable that sometimes the balance tips too far. Soldiers are by necessity violent and lack empathy for others. That this leads some to torture prisoners is no great surprise. The prisoner perhaps serving as a scapegoat for his country men who have attempted to kill the soldier.

That occasional soldiers feel the urge to torture their Iraqi prisoners is no surprise. What is shocking about these allegations - and I do not believe they can all be false - is how little interest the military have in investigating them, and preventing a repeat. To an extent, we can blame politicians, the media, and even the general public. Until the allegations were backed with photos, there was little interest in them. If it is inevitable that scared, violent young men will sometimes cross a line, it is essential that all of us bear witness to their actions. Only by diligent observation can such atrocities be prevented.

Graham Robinson. 5th May 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.