This has been a bad week for the US military. From one scandal to another. From accusations of barbarity to common thievery and now to this:
"The Army closed a criminal investigation of abuse allegations by an Iraqi detainee last year, finding no reason to believe his claims, even though no Americans involved in the case were questioned, according to Pentagon records made public Thursday." More here ...
No reason to believe his claims. Why? Well, because he is an Iraqi. And Iraqis in their own country under the boot of the foreign occupation must be lying.
Abu Ghraib was an imagination.
The article goes on to say that investigators were blocked from conducting their investigation, that the names of the American (could they have been Israeli?) interrogators were faked, and that no effort was made to identify the alleged interrogators despite explicit descriptions from the detainee.
Can you imagine if this was a US soldier who had made such an allegation about his captors in say ... Tanzania. The US would have nuked Tanzania.
Or if this was an Israeli held by some faction in Lebanon?
But it's an Iraqi, and after Abu Ghraib, its cool.
This report came fast on the heels of an earlier report that General Geoffrey Miller who was in charge of detainees in Iraq from March to December 2005 pleaded the fifth amendment when asked about the use of dogs during interrogation.
You got guts, Geoff. Seriously. A General too cowardly to admit/deny his role in violating the Geneva Conventions and soiling the reputation of the US. Can you imagine the trend he sets for his troops?
Hey, did the Nazis plead the fifth at the Nuremberg Trials? I wonder ...
Hold on, there's more good news of roasting Iraqis.
Five Danish soldiers, including a female officer, were found guilty of abusing Iraqi detainees in southern Iraq.
Justice served, right?
Wrong. A judge ruled that because of ""extenuating circumstances" they five Danish soldiers would walk free.
No punishment.
So, what exactly is the message here.
Let's take a look at history. The Nazis committed atrocious crimes during World War II, both against Slavic Europeans and also against the Jews.
But, we have stories of the French committing atrocities in Algeria. And before them, the Italians in Ethiopia and Libya.
And the white Apartheid government in South Africa.
And the My Lai massacre.
And Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam.
The actual real roasting of a Somali over a fire pit by Belgian UN soldiers.
Abu Ghraib in Iraq and thousands of other stories of valiant US soldiers abusing, torturing and murdering Iraqis.
What's going on here?
Let's do a quick review of the above.
Nazis, white, western. French, white, western. Italians, white, western. South Africa, white, western. My Lai, white, western. Somalia, white, western. Abu Ghraib, white, western.
I don't mean to talk race and color here, but seriously Jack, am I to understand that the lives of Easterners are considered forfeit?
By eastern, I refer to everything east of Vienna.
Once again, let's look at the victims here.
Nazis, Jews and Slavs. French, Algerian Arabs and Berbers. Italians, Arabs and Africans. South Africa, Black Africans. My Lai, Asians. Somalia, Africans and Arabs. Abu Ghraib, Arabs, Muslim.
I would like to ask the reader to play a simple mind game: switch them around. Imagine a black South African torturing a White Afrikaans man in jail and beating him till death. Or imagine an Iraqi interrogator torturing a 15-year old Irish-American in Chicago.
What would the reaction be?
Hmm ...
Racism. It has always been about racism. The way the World Bank dishes out loans that further impoverish a nation - racism. The way the G8 talk trade and finance - racism. The way the WTO functions - racism.
Look at the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. All White, except for China, which they dared not ignore.
Liberators? Reconstruction? Aid?
Code words for oppression, destruction, wanton war and violence, enslavement, torture, rape, and murder.
The 19th century's imperialism is alive and well and very kosher, thank you.