Prisoner Abuse = Fewer Casualties?
 

My Dad mentioned to me that he thought US casualties had declined since the prison abuse photos went public. I haven't been watching the toll lately, so what have you folks noticed? Does the crazy old Marine have something? Is the fear of humiliation that powerful?

Hmmm, put the fear of the great satan in 'em. Interesting thought.:confused:

I think its too soon to make such a generalization. There were many days in April when no or only one American was killed over there. So far in May, it looks like the average is about 5 a day. Between April 27th, when I first looked it up and May 12th (the most recent day they give statistics for), 97 Americans have died in Iraq (not counting Berg).

I would think that any possible gain to be had in terms of lower fatalities would be counter-balanced by public outcry on both the national and international level. Besides, why would the revelation that we tortured Iraqui prisoners have a calming effect on the Iraqui population? They already think the worst of us, anyhow. The revelations about the treatment of prisoners would only confirm the Iraqui people in their beliefs regarding the wickedness of the US.

Why WOUD we have taken pictures of us torturing prisoners? Its a good question. I don't think those pictures were taken to intimidate the Iraqui people, however. There's too great a danger of the opposite effect occuring. We have the Berg incident as proof of that. (I know, I know, there's controversy over Berg, but so far nothing else has been proved)

Perhaps our casualty rates would decrease even further if we simply stop taking prisoners?

Or perhaps

if everytime a US soldier cops it you could plug 15 of them!

this policy worked wonders in WWII

shoot to kill, take no prisoners, yeahhhhh! wooopeee!

:rolleyes:

Working theory:

- (per the New Yorker) the US developed an elite interrogation squad to deal with Afghanistan and finding al Qaeda etc.

- This squad determined that humiliation was a "silver bullet" in interrogating Arabs... worked very well without torture

- This team went to Baghdad to deal with A) Saddam Hussein or B) increased Baghdad baddies, to try to quell the violence there (which is what the New Yorker thinks)

- The *idea* for humiliation was shared between the elite and the rest of the prison management, and the notion went around. It could have been shared between management, or it could have been shared over Thanksgiving dinner or something between the elites and the local US units.

- Maybe the AG guards successfully used it to obtain information and somebody got inadvertently rewarded.

- One squad got out of control and went too far with it as is the psychological danger in prison guards

The reason I think one squad got out of control is because the more recent pictures are supposed to be much worse. You can't have broad abuse happening without it becoming a bigger story in shorter than 5 months.

The reason I think they didn't intend to use humiliation in the AG prison is because it wouldn't have made any sense in a systemic way. You'd have to be an ace interrogator to use it correctly. Otherwise a prisoner will just tell you whatever will stop the humiliation. The higher-ups would understand that implicitly.

So my theory is that the New Yorker is correct that there was a program authorized at the highest levels to have this elite team use humiliation, but the weak link in the story is how this humiliation worked its way into the AG prison and became more terrible abuse.

The thing that gives me the most schadenfreude over this whole issue is the gay sex issue. Many of G.W: Bushes supporters would have no problems if guards had been doing torture the "old fashioned way" electrodes or pain etc, but they are outraged that guards could be forcing men to mastrubate or do oral sex on each other.

There is some sort of sick irony in there that makes me smile,

but it doesn't make me feel good about myself

Doesn't seem to have that much effect, judging by events today.
Does seem the attacks now are far more targetted at damaging the political process than killing yanks but that started before all this. They're also softer targets.

The advent of digital photography has made it much easier for stupid people to take incriminating pictures of themselves.

There is a long tradition, of this, however, typically involving adolescent males, a video camera, and either vandalization of a residence or a rape or other nonconsensual sexual act.

Re: Prisoner Abuse = Fewer Casualties?
 

The press coverage of US casualties (with one notable exception) has gone down. We're halfway through May, and we're on track to not be as bad as April, but April was REALLY bad.

We also conceded control of some Shi'ite towns to Iraqis rather than try to force American will on those towns. Bremmer finally learned the lesson of Sze Tsu in 500 BC 'Art of War'. Don't disband the local powers and turn them into more enemies. It did not take a genius to understand that so well proven fact.

Bremmer is now rehiring the Baath party. In short, the American civilian leadership has suddenly conceded to history. Therefore American fatalities decreased. Amazing what happens when top management suddenly learns that reality if more important than political rhetoric. But then the retired military generals (speaking for the current military) were saying this for a long time. Generals are not ordered to attack Iraqi patriots - or what Rumsfeld calls terrorists.

But this will change. After all, they work for god's choosen president. Same one who would not let the military achieve the strategic objective in Afghanistan. Cheap shots that only the George Jr administration clearly deserves.

Ten more casualities since my earlier post. And the beat goes on...