Questions We Would Ask

[Ed. Note: Reader feedback is important to us. We thought opposition to the abuse of prisoners didn’t require a long statement in the last JINSA Report, but you thought otherwise.] JINSA is adamantly opposed to the torture or abuse of any prisoner by any U.S. service person. We expect our government fully to investigate allegations of abuse, and to prosecute and punish the perpetrators.

[Ed. Note: Reader feedback is important to us. We thought opposition to the abuse of prisoners didn’t require a long statement in the last JINSA Report, but you thought otherwise.] JINSA is adamantly opposed to the torture or abuse of any prisoner by any U.S. service person. We expect our government fully to investigate allegations of abuse, and to prosecute and punish the perpetrators. Furthermore, misdeeds in the lower ranks often indicate a command failure in the higher ranks, so the prosecution of individual soldiers may be insufficient to remedy any structural defects in the training of soldiers and the orders they receive. All of this must be accounted for in the military chain of command.

But the previous JINSA Report wasn’t actually about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. It was about the misuse of photographs supplied by the American media to the propaganda machines of enemy organizations. This one isn’t about prisoner abuse either. It is about the military and political goals the United States has set for itself in the war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them. It begins with the belief that America is at war with forces, organizations and people who want to defeat us and the values we cherish. It ends with the requirement that the resources of our government and our people be directed to the defeat of our enemies.

America’s broad goal in this war is to ensure that governments across the region and around the world understand that it is not in their interest to supply terrorists with money, safe haven, training and weapons. The fewer places terrorists have from which they can operate, the safer the rest of us will be. The short-term goal is to turn sovereignty over to an interim Iraqi government on 30 June, knowing that government will be weak and inexperienced. The next goal will be to provide broad military cover for the development of a representative government to be elected in 2005. It includes the continued training of Iraqi police and military forces, and should include securing the borders of Iraq from the stream of “foreign fighters” entering from Iran and Syria.

The chorus crying for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s head this week should answer the questions, “Would firing Mr. Rumsfeld contribute to the achievement of those goals? How? Who would do a better job? Why? What might our enemies learn from it?”

Firing Mr. Rumsfeld may provide temporary visceral satisfaction to those who don’t care for the goals or the Secretary. But in the same way that neither the President nor Mr. Rumsfeld’s apology assuaged the anger of those – Americans and others – for whom anger is the preferred emotion, to jettison Mr. Rumsfeld now would have no more than a weak and temporary effect.

We believe Donald Rumsfeld has the strength of character to pursue the charges of abuse to their end; pursue the necessary corrections up the military chain of command and through the political echelons of our government; and fight the war that must be fought. We don’t see anyone else that comes close.