A U.S. Marine writes an identification number on the forehead of an Iraqi man detained during a search in Haditha, 220 kilometers (140 miles) northwest of Baghdad, Wednesday, May 25, 2005. About 1,000 U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers encircled Haditha, in the troubled Anbar province, launching the second major operation in this vast western region in less than a month.
I’m sure that Andrew Sullivan finds the very notion of writing on a blindfolded prisoner “gob-smackingly vile.” Where’s the outrage? Where’s the outrage!? It’s like Abu Ghraib all over again! When Teddy Kennedy sees this, he’ll go ballistic.
I suppose in war, there’s little room for thinking about how some actions would look to some folks. Actually, that’s probably not true, as the U.S. is PR conscious, engaging in “humane bombing” and “surgical strikes” and trying to publicly prosecute and jail any lower level soldier for the Abu Ghraib debacle. Still, this photograph, where a soldier writes a number on the forehead of an arab looking man (we don’t know if he is guilty or innocent, just that he’s blindfolded and appears to be bound) can be seen in a negative light. It seems a degrading and humilating thing for someone with a gun to write on your forehead, especially since the caption doesn’t say whether this man had tried to injure the soldier in any way. Perhaps, because it’s war and it’s difficult to keep track of suspects, writing a number on the guy’s forehead is the most efficient way to know who is who.
From a PR standpoint, especially since this picture is seen in the Arab world, this can be nothing but negative. After Abu Ghraib, you would think that the U.S. military would be more careful in what pictures it takes. I suppose this picture was not approved by the U.S. military and is evidence that the press has some autonomy from the U.S. government.
I am sure this picture will spark outrage, and rightfully so. We are not in a moral position to defend every action taken by the U.S. military in its operations at home and abroad. Even in war, we have the responsibility to moralize, to say what we think is right and what we think is wrong. I know that soldiers have a very difficult job. I know that our President has a very difficult job. I know that war forces people to make moral compromises. But we can identify these actions and determine right and wrong. More than that, it is our duty. (note that this different from “judging people,” as that implies judging the worth of an individual. I am talking about judging actions, not people. The Lord will judge people with fairness).
I would hope there is a less degrading way to efficiently categorize suspects in the field and that the U.S. military continues to search for those ways. To me, this is not an acceptable way of treating a suspect.
What’s your solution?
I’m not trying to be obtuse (“what did you say?” Obtuse… how could you be so obtuse?” “3 months in the hole!” and other Shawshank Redemption quotes), but I’m not sure what you want to know. As for the efficient administration of suspected insurgents in a time of war, I am not qualified to provide solutions. There are many problems of which I am not qualified to provide concrete solutions. My argument is that when solutions to problems are presented, we have an obligation to evaluate them. It is our place to be supportive or outraged or whatever. I think the U.S. military has enough people with sufficient experience to come up with better alternatives than writing on the foreheads of suspects. There has to be a better way and I want my government (of which the military is a part) to come up with better solutions. Do we have a better technology that can be used to track suspects in this environment, or is the Sharpie way the best we can do? So, I have no solutions, but I can evaluate what they are considering based on my moral compass.
The solution question was indeed regarding the marking of detainees, at least in the field.
What I find extremely problematic is the decrying of a strategy without providing a reasonable alternative. Anyone can complain about a state of affairs, whether it’s detainee labeling or social security or why X sucks as Chairman of the Three Stooges Fan Club. It takes critical thinking to solve a problem.
The use of a sharpie to mark a detainee in warfare has got to be one of the least inhumane things ever captured on film. Wouldn’t mugshots then spark outrage? I’ve never seen a mugshot that didn’t make the person in it look pretty awful. Sue thesmokinggun.com. Is Court TV uncivilized?
Since you commented similarly in this and the next post post, I’ll respond to both here.
I cannot feel more strongly about the flaws of your approach. You are asking for expert opinion in an area of which there are few experts in the world. I am an expert in some areas and can offer solutions to other problems. It is entirely unreasonable to always demand from the critic a workable solution to a criticized problem. It is a tactic that stifles debate. If we used that approach, then no one save a handful of elites in the world would be able to criticize the government. Perhaps no one should vote, because voting is a form of criticism without providing a concrete solution. Voters want problems solved. They know they can’t do it themselves, so they vote in an expert who will do the work for them. It is up to the expert to weigh alternatives and provide solutions. How many Americans could draft a piece of legislation? Not many, but people can be affected by that legislation and rightly criticize it. If you drive a car that has problems, are you qualified to fix them? No, but you are qualified to tell mechanics and car manufacturers what’s wrong. How many people are qualified to redesign automobiles? How many people are qualified to provide solutions?
My point is: criticism is a right and a duty. Providing solutions would be nice, but it is not a requirement to enter into debate.
I can’t describe how wrong I think your concept of voting is. Voting is much much more than a form of criticism. It is indeed the solution to criticism: by voting you are choosing to solve what you see to be a problem. You even stated it yourself: by voting, you’re trying to elect someone to solve a problem. That’s being part of the solution.
There’s a big difference between simple criticism of policy and actual CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Simple criticism of policy or events has its place, and we all do it, and we all call it the same thing: bitching. If there’s dirty laundry on the floor and you complain about it instead of picking it up or asking someone else to pick it up, you’re bitching. Simple criticism feels good, because anyone can do it and it doesn’t take any serious thought to do it well. Anyone can bitch about anything, and we saw that very clearly during the last Presidential election. Constructive criticism offers a solution, or admits that a solution is difficult to reach.
The request for constructive criticism does not mean AT ALL that there is a requirement for expert opinion. All it requires is a bit more thought than simply saying, “That’s wrong,” or, “He’s doing a bad job.” Why’s it wrong? Why’s he doing a bad job? What can he do to make it better? What I’ve been requesting in the past few posts is something other than, “That’s wrong.”
For example, I don’t need to be an expert on immigration policy to suggest that illegal immigrants are a finiancial drain on local communities and can pose a serious threat to American citizens. I don’t need to be a an expert to suggest that immigration laws be more strictly enforced until the current crisis is over.
To reiterate: simple, non-constructive criticism hasn’t a very big place in reasonable debate. I asked for ideas. I asked for constructive criticism. Saying, “It sucks” isn’t an answer, and I won’t accept it as one. It’s just bitching. Saying, “It sucks,” and admitting that you don’t have a solution, however, is a better answer: it at least acknowledges ignorance and a willingness to think further. I don’t know what the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is, for example. I don’t know the best way to mark Iraqi detainees, though a Sharpie doesn’t seem so bad.
I don’t consider it my duty to bitch, though others do. I don’t think that simple criticism has any inherent value, and I’ll address it with the same thought that I feel went into it. And I also reserve the right to ask for a solution, any solution. The problem is that when you offer a solution, you open yourself up to…criticism! Which brings us full circle.
So, to get back on topic: we can use Sharpies, staple guns, sticky notes, or paintball guns. What’s your choice?
I can’t tell you how strongly I feel about oh never mind.
Look: Your approach remains unreasonable because you are asking too much. Not everyone is capable of this sort of criticism, and I’m not referring to the lesser educated. Experts in one field would have no idea how to come up with a solution to a problem in another field.
You are going to extremes vis-a-vis criticism. In the worldview you presented there are only two types of criticism: constructive criticism with concrete solutions and bitching. In the view you presented, constructive criticism is valid and bitching is invalid. I don’t see the world this way.
The way I see it, there are a variety of criticism types. Bitching, as you call it, is a bad term (and gendered, too. Who else besides women and men accused of being too feminine have the epithet “bitch” hurled at them? It stems from the degradation of women and I don’t advocate it’s use. If I’ve used it before, I now know it’s not the right word to use). “Bitch” has negative connotations. As in the car example I provided, not everyone can provide constructive criticism. Some can only sense that something is wrong and lack the knowledge to give feedback that can directly lead to a workable solution. Some can imagine alternatives which may be constructive, but are less valuable in the sense that they only indirectly lead to concrete solutions.
“Bitching” generally refers to an unreasonable complaint. An example is complaining about not having enough money and spending paychecks like a drunken sailor. However, complaining that the American healthcare system is inadequate to the needs of its poorest citizens without knowing how to change the system is not “bitching.” It is a valid complaint and is valuable in that it expresses dissatisfaction with the status quo. If enough people complain, maybe the powers that be and their experts will provide workable solutions.
You’re right in that you don’t need to be an expert to have an opinion on illegal immigration. Dobbs on CNN is on the warpath against illegal immigrants and he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. I’m no expert, either, and it’s clear to me that illegal immigrants aren’t the big threat they’re made out to be. I commented on that in a previous post.
So, to answer your question yet again, I don’t have a solution, but I have a moral obligation to point out that the Sharpie Treatment is degrading. The Sharpie Treatment smells fishy and Iraq is a long way from the Mississippi River. Our government has to do better.
Poor fish.
I’ve seen women use the term “bitching” more than once, and I’ll keep using it myself. If there are any women out there who are offended by the term, they can bitch somewhere else (just kidding).
Again, I see no intrinsic value in simple complaint or non-constructive criticism. If enough people complain about something, you have…a lot of complaining. Without offering a solution, without actually making an attempt to change something, all complaint is is noise. Complain in one hand and piss in the other, and we know which one will fill up faster. Nobody has a moral obligation to make noise, no matter how much they value complaint over action. Why do anything, then? If bitching/complaining/offering non-constructive criticism has some kind of real worth, then why bother doing anything? It’s easier to bitch.
Maybe the people who complain about American health care might be better served electing someone who’s offered a solution to the problem instead of just, well, complaining.
In my entire professional life, I can’t recall one instance where non-constructive criticism or simple complaint ever solved a problem. Not once.