Climate & Culture Of Abuse Confirmed
US Army Colonel Reprimanded For Role In Deaths Of Iraqi Civilians
Those of us with military experience, or even civilians with experience working with the military, know that a "full bird colonel" (O-6) is a career-minded officer. These high ranking officers are in a position that anything they do that results in a screw-up will mean that they get passed over for flag rank (Brigadier General). There are not too many officers of that rank that have established records of being screw-ups. The O-6 rank is not easily achieved, especially in the Navy and Marine Corps. Officers achieving this rank have a lot of years invested in their military careers, have an established track record of following orders, demonstrated significant expertise, developed a wide range of military experience, and have enough knowledge of the inner workings of their branch of service to avoid many of the political pitfalls that can trip them up. In short, an officer of this rank is unlikely to foster an atmosphere, climate or culture of abuse, maltreatment, atrocities or loose interpretation of orders passed down the chain of command.
This climate of abuse, loose interpretation of orders, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming was shown to exist at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in the field at several Afghanistan prisoner detention centers. In fact, one female general officer was chosen as the scapegoat for the Abu Ghraib fiasco. In my view, she was sacrificed by her chain of command for two reasons: 1) orders came down from the top (Secretary Rumsfeld or higher) to find a convenient scapegoat and 2) the pervasive view of women officers in the military remains unfairly prejudicial and biased. The generals that were directly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere were protected.
But this article about the colonel "giving improper orders." Is that really a feasible argument? Are we to believe that someone that reached that high, gave that much time and effort to his career, and was in line for that first star on his uniform would deliberately screw up?
Something ain't right in this scenario... and I think someone in the Army, the Pentagon and the DOD went looking for another easy scapegoat... and found one. I think those orders were given to this colonel with a plan for plausible deniability as part of those orders. If this was a lieutenant, a captain (Army) or even a major, I might buy into the idea of a screw up of this magnitude. But I don't buy it at this level.
Given that the search for a scapegoat was undertaken, and that Col. Steele is an experienced combat officer, and that Steele may have brought some unflattering attention to the military in his past combat incidents (c.f. Blackhawk Down), I now have questions about the entire incident at Samarra. Are the soldiers accused of murder and Col. Steele being hung out to dry because someone higher up in the chain of command--perhaps a few civilian politicians--needs their ass covered? It certainly smells that way. And that stink is worse that a poorly maintained field latrine.
Those of us with military experience, or even civilians with experience working with the military, know that a "full bird colonel" (O-6) is a career-minded officer. These high ranking officers are in a position that anything they do that results in a screw-up will mean that they get passed over for flag rank (Brigadier General). There are not too many officers of that rank that have established records of being screw-ups. The O-6 rank is not easily achieved, especially in the Navy and Marine Corps. Officers achieving this rank have a lot of years invested in their military careers, have an established track record of following orders, demonstrated significant expertise, developed a wide range of military experience, and have enough knowledge of the inner workings of their branch of service to avoid many of the political pitfalls that can trip them up. In short, an officer of this rank is unlikely to foster an atmosphere, climate or culture of abuse, maltreatment, atrocities or loose interpretation of orders passed down the chain of command.
This climate of abuse, loose interpretation of orders, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming was shown to exist at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in the field at several Afghanistan prisoner detention centers. In fact, one female general officer was chosen as the scapegoat for the Abu Ghraib fiasco. In my view, she was sacrificed by her chain of command for two reasons: 1) orders came down from the top (Secretary Rumsfeld or higher) to find a convenient scapegoat and 2) the pervasive view of women officers in the military remains unfairly prejudicial and biased. The generals that were directly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere were protected.
But this article about the colonel "giving improper orders." Is that really a feasible argument? Are we to believe that someone that reached that high, gave that much time and effort to his career, and was in line for that first star on his uniform would deliberately screw up?
Something ain't right in this scenario... and I think someone in the Army, the Pentagon and the DOD went looking for another easy scapegoat... and found one. I think those orders were given to this colonel with a plan for plausible deniability as part of those orders. If this was a lieutenant, a captain (Army) or even a major, I might buy into the idea of a screw up of this magnitude. But I don't buy it at this level.
Given that the search for a scapegoat was undertaken, and that Col. Steele is an experienced combat officer, and that Steele may have brought some unflattering attention to the military in his past combat incidents (c.f. Blackhawk Down), I now have questions about the entire incident at Samarra. Are the soldiers accused of murder and Col. Steele being hung out to dry because someone higher up in the chain of command--perhaps a few civilian politicians--needs their ass covered? It certainly smells that way. And that stink is worse that a poorly maintained field latrine.
US Army Col. Michael Steele has been formally reprimanded for giving improper orders to soldiers in Iraq, leading to the deaths of four unarmed Iraqi civilians near Samarra last May, according to recent reports by two US Defense Department officials. Military documents indicate that Steele, a subject of the book and movie Black Hawk Down, led his soldiers in the Third Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division to believe that they did not need to distinguish enemy combatants from non-combatants during a raid. The investigative report by Brig. Gen. Thomas Maffey did not suggest that formal charges be filed against Steele in the four deaths, including that of a 70-year old Iraqi man, because of Steele's "honest belief" that the soldiers would face hostile fire in the mission, even though that did not occur.
Steele was formerly reprimanded in private for not reporting the deaths or details of the mission and was reassigned to an administrative position. The reprimand essentially prevents him from being promoted to general. Four soldiers of Steele's brigade were charged with premeditated murder in the incident, but two have since pleaded guilty to lesser charges.
posted by Jim Downey at 10:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home