Ethics
start at the top
The US army in Iraq is being offered lessons in ethics in the wake of
Haditha massacre. But shouldn't the ethical education start at a more
elevated level?
June 2, 2006 03:42 PM
The Guardian
The US occupying army in Iraq is being offered lessons in ethics
in the wake of the unfolding series of murderous scandals it is
implicated in.
These include the massacre in Haditha, and another mass killing of
civilians reported today, the shooting dead of a pregnant women making
her way to hospital and, we can be sure, many other incidents we are
presently unaware of.
It may be that a stiff moral primer delivered by a man in uniform -
which could have been started earlier with advantage, say after the
grotesque pictures from Abu Grahib first emerged - will do the trick.
But a case could certainly be made for the ethical education starting
at a more elevated level. The brutality displayed on the ground is no
more than the articulation of a brutal policy. It is, as Simon Jenkins
pointed out earlier this week, a policy which properly bears the name
of imperialism.
That is reflected, as Jenkins argued, in the refusal of Bush and Blair
to pay any heed to the request by the Iraqi prime minister that they
might think about withdrawing their troops by the end of the year.
And it is reflected far more starkly in the actual behaviour of those
troops on the ground. Let's drop right away the "few bad apples"
theory, which was trotted out after Abu Grahib, Camp Breadbasket and
now Haditha. It defies common sense to suppose that the only war crimes
committed in Iraq are those that happen to have been videoed or
photographed and then leaked. It is certain that these episodes are in
fact the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg of abuse.
It is noteworthy that all these incidents were initially denied or
covered-up by the military authorities. Were it not for Time magazine,
the US brass would still be pretending that the dead of Haditha were
victims of a bomb blast. It would be grotesque to have to rely on the
media to protect the Iraqi people from murderous marines.
So, ethical lesson number one, for the commanding officers of Britain
and the US: Thou shalt not lie.
Let's also abandon the pretence of surprise. The abuse of civilians, up
to and including their massacre, has been part of the warp and weft of
foreign military occupations throughout the history of imperialism. The
British did it in Kenya, India, Iraq first time around and Malaya
(remember the photos of the severed heads being displayed by a
soldier?), the French did it in Algeria, the US in Vietnam, not to
mention the Belgians in the Congo and the Germans in Namibia. And that
is a very partial list.
The fact is that violent and racist behaviour by soldiers follows from
the aggressive and chauvinistic policies of political leaders in great
powers who believe they have the right to take over the governance of
any country in the world should it suit their interests and be within
their grasp.
Ethical lesson number two: Do not covet thy neighbour's country.
Rather than take ethic lessons, however, Bush, Blair and their
supporters in the commentariat from liberal to conservative are
bemoaning the problems facing the policy of "liberal interventionism"
and casting around for ways to refloat it in the face of the
catastrophes in Iraq, and growing anti-US anger in Afghanistan, where
chauvinism apparently finds expression in deliberately dangerous
driving by military vehicles.
Blair has long since given up on the pretence of an ethical foreign
policy. Now he merely hopes for ethical troops to implement a policy
that is as old as the empire, as founded on a mixture of ideological
fantasy and outright falsehoods, and as doomed.