The torture at Abu Ghraib was of an institutional nature and this is one of an interpersonal nature.

I'm making no judgment about which is more heinous an act, but I believe the focus needs to be kept on the institutionalization of such behavior even as individually motivated atrocities continue to be a fact of life under the stresses, angers, and fears, of war.

This picture and caption from another tragic incident in Tal Afar Iraq make me want to cry when I see it (Image - Not graphic, but disturbing)

When the internet was finally wresting itself free from DARPA and becoming a public (if geekish at the time) entity in the mid/late 70s, one of my hopes for it was if a US schoolchild could meet their Vietnamese counterpart online (dating this thought) it would be SO MUCH HARDER to 'de-personalize' our alleged 'enemy' and teach our youth such slurs as 'Slope', or 'Gook' (Rag head, etc....

It hasn't happened yet as of this comment, but I'm still hoping, and have noticed the improvement in reporting for not only Stars and Stripes, but VOA as well.

An improvement I credit to the availability of easily available viewpoints from across the planet causing these 'house' media outlets to conform to a new standard.

"The whole world is watching"... What our government says, and what everyone else is saying too, and it's happening in near real time.

That's a good thing for everyone except people who would lead us into wars based on false pretense, albeit, as can be seen from our Iraq 'adventure', it is not enough by itself.

When I, as an adviser in Baghdad wrote a letter, as Abu Ghraib was taking its toll, asking for general officer resignations to the editors of papers, among them one known as Gray Lady or owned by an old lady, only the Stars and Stripes offered space. They are good reporters and editors and I suspect that they might have more chutzpah than some of the institutional advocates that hangout at select cocktail parties in Washington and New York.

Leahy has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of Parole. I agree with the comment above about the fact that Abu Ghraib was institutional.

This does point up, however, the problems of an army that is stretched too thin. I think it was on this blog that Ricks talked about how most of the army actually hasn't done an overseas tour, but those who have been overseas have done multiple tours. This contributes to PTSD. While most soldiers with PTSD do not shoot bound prisoners, Leahy did. I also come away from this more convinced that serious PTSD ought to be grounds for a Purple Hurt. The wounded psyche is far more difficult to treat, and in its own way more devastating, than physical affliction. Of course, the two frequently go together.

Our country, our troops, our war, right or wrong.

This morning I had a long conversation with a young friend who is in non-com school now, after two combat tours. We touched on the subject of how troops respond to losses. Why will some face death fighting, as opposed to the UN or NATO reputation for being bullied by the bad guys?

Combat leadership theory holds that fighting men will seek payback after suffering losses, as in the Leahy story. That urge is so strong that denying (or failing to seek) the opportunity for retribution can destroy the unit as a fighting force. The leadership challenge is to seek payback within the rules of engagement. to find and defeat the enemy, without wasting more lives.

COIN theory is psychologically sound with respect to slowly gaining the trust of the population. But sacrificing men to protect a population that looks like and shares family relations with snipers and IED bombers, that's asking more than most of us, most of our children are willing to give.

When we send our young men to war, especially in an urban insurgency situation like Iraq, they will be killed by a faceless enemy, and they will seek revenge, one way or another. If the seargents and officers are tough and sharp, that energy will be limited and channeled into ops that support the mission.

If the unit continues to lose men without being able to shoot back, some will try to take it out on prisoners or population. Other's will cease being effective soldiers, beyond protecting their own unit until they rotate home.

Whether the survivors of an IED or suicide attack become heroes, villians or victims may be very much a matter of chance, what the war brings next in the way of action and temptation. In Leahy's story, the unit first seargent that was supposed to protect him snapped, and led him into the murder of prisoners.

There, but for the grace of God...

Our congress voted to enable this war. Our newshounds provided pictures and a 'shock and awe' narrative of heroism that had no room for the war that consumed Leahy, his seargent, and their prisoners. Not everyone is willing to be honest, but from Tom Friedman to the reservist Pfc's, we knew that going to Iraq was about payback.

The idea that America's retribution will always be righteous is a fantasy, magical thinking.

were many of the same soldiers involved in the earlier firefight where the Iraqi victims were taken into custody. Am I mistaken in my notion that prisoners are suppose to be turned over by combat troops to other troops whose job is to deal with prisoners without the hot passion of recent combat? These Iraqis may have been guilty or they may have been the usual MAM's, "military aged males" that are routinely scooped up under these types of circumstances. At any rate they were ordered released. It seems like after all this time the handling of detainees should not still be done so badly. A failure of leadership put these soldiers is a position I don't think they ever should have been in.

The purpose of the focus on Abu Ghraib was to end the presidency of George W. Bush. Clearly that no longer applies.

Obama has inherited this war now and the media would like to afford him maximum flexibility in shaping his approach. It is not clear what political purpose would be served by focusing attention on American atrocities there.