Quote:
|
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
This may be off-topic, but weren't all the reservists involved in the Abu Graib scandal part of a Military Police unit? If so we aren't talking about regular Army grunts, but people who should have received specialized training in the management of prisoners both in and out of combat situations. I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention given this fact.
|
VM, your point is well taken. I agree with you, but I don't find its application peculiar to military police. It applies to all soldiers, but perhaps to MPs more than others.
I'm not sure what you mean by "regular Army grunts." "Regular Army" actually has a special meaning in the U.S. Army, distinguishing it from the U.S. Army Reserve and the Army National Guard components. For purposes of this discussion, however, we can forget about that. "Grunt" is a slang term for a infantryman. You might already be familiar with the following background discussion. If so, please accept my apology for rambling on about it, but it might be helpful for others.
All enlisted soldiers, whether from the regular, reserves, or national guard components, receive basic training, which includes some infantry skills. The idea behind this is that underneath everything else, all soldiers must be trained and ready for combat. After basic, all enlisted soldiers get assigned a military occupational specialty (MOS) and go on to advanced individual training (AIT) in their respective specialities (there are hundreds of these). Officers go through a roughly parallel track, with basic leadership and military skills training, followed by an officer basic course (OBC) in his or her designated branch of the army (examples of branches include infantry, artillery, aviation, engineer, medical, transportation, adjutant, and many others).
Military police is another branch specialty of the army. You are correct that MPs receive at least either AIT or OBC training in the special skills required of MPs. Like all soldiers, however, they complete initial training in basic infantry skills and tactics and other military skills.
Infantry is a branch specialty of the army as well. Those given an infantry MOS or officers branched in the infantry receive further, specialized training in advanced infantry skills and tactics. They are the ones to whom the term "grunts" usually refers.
Even reservists receive the initial and specialized training I describe above. After their initial training, however, those serving in the reserves go about their civilian lives, performing army reserve duty by training two weekends each month and for two weeks each summer. National guard duty is the same, except that guardsman are governed by state law and serve their respective states, rather than the United States.
*******************
Back to the Abu Ghraib soldiers. My understanding is that they were members of a military police reserve unit that was activated and deployed to Iraq for duty at the POW camps. You are correct in that as MPs, each soldier had to have completed basic and then AIT for MPs, and any non-commissioned officers (NCOs) would have also likely attended the basic NCO course for MPs. Thus, all of them would had to have had specialized training in military police duties, which would include safeguarding prisoners of war (POWs).
I suspect that a basic common misconception here is that other soldiers do not have training in handling POWs. That simply isn't true in the U.S. Army after the Second World War, and especially after the My Lai trials in 1970 and 1971. Every soldier, regardless of specialty, receives some initial training regarding the lawful treatment of POWs and other non-combatants, and all soldiers on active duty receive at least annual training regarding the same. Reservists and guardsman are required to receive periodic training as well, but I suspect training may be uneven among units. Therefore, even "grunts" have some training on the lawful treatment of POWs. It is impossible in today's army, reserves, or guard to claim ignorance regarding the lawful treatment of POWs. No one in any component of the U.S. Army can truthfully claim to believe that it is lawful to humiliate, torture, or kill unarmed prisoners of war under one's charge.
Although Lieutenant William Calley claimed he did not know it was unlawful to kill enemy women and children non-combatants in the Vietnamese village of My Lai, his court-martial panel refused to accept it as a lawful defense to murder, and he was convicted and sentenced. Today, every U.S. soldier learns about Lt. Calley and why his defense of following orders is not a lawful defense to a war crime. Even in Calley's time his defense was simply hollow. Take a look at this link to this "pocket card" given to all U.S. soldiers in Vietnam after September 1967 during the Vietnam War.
MACV Pocket Card--The Enemy in Your Hands
Notice this rule:
"You cannot and must not:
* Mistreat your prisoner.
* Humiliate or degrade him.
* Take any of his personal effects that do not have significant military value.
* Refuse him medical treatment if required and available.
ALWAYS TREAT YOUR PRISONER HUMANELY"
And this one:
"5.) All persons in your hands, whether suspects, civilians, or combat captives, must be protected against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind.
Leave punishment to the courts and judges. The soldier shows his strength by his fairness and humanity to the persons in his hands."
Lt. Calley would have been given one of these cards, as would each of the members of his platoon that he led.
Today, soldiers deployed overseas are given something similar and receive regular briefings regarding the same. I simply do not buy anyone's claim that these or any other soldiers received inadequate training such that they could in good faith believe that abusing, humiliating, and mistreating Iraqi prisoners is lawful under any circumstances. Every member of a court-martial panel would also understand that such a claim today is not credible, as all of them would be soldiers equal to or higher in rank than the accused. All of them would know that all soldiers receive training regarding the lawful treatment of POWs. Anything to the contrary is doubletalk.
Cool Hand