Hanging Out the Troops -David Hackworth on the Torture Scandal

As an American citizen, I’m ashamed of the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq. As a former professional soldier, I’m appalled not only by what has happened in the prisons there, but also by our military leadership. From the very top of the Pentagon down to the 320th Military Police Battalion, the brass have spent months covering up obscene behavior while placing the sole blame on Joe and Jill Grunt.



The damage to our country and our just war on terrorism is already devastating. And these war crimes not only diminish the sacrifices of our gallant soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they place the troops at even greater risk. But I’m certain that these abhorrent acts wouldn’t have occurred had the right kind of leadership been exercised by the chain of command.



In 1951 in Korea, I was told by my commanding officer to kill four POWs and refused his direct order. I well remembered the Nazi generals’ sorry rationale for their despicable conduct: “We were just following orders.” I would get booted out of the Army before I went that route.



In 1965 in Vietnam, I saw a very connected intelligence captain torturing a POW with a field-telephone wire attached to his testicles and decided my personal belief system outweighed his father’s four stars. When I told him I’d shoot him if he didn’t cease and desist, the atrocity came to a screeching halt.


More...


http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=65&rnd=481.34775234767755

He's telling it like it is. Let the REAL investigation begin - not the White House whitewash.

He's the dude who called Wes Clark a "perfumed Napoleon" which pissed me off tremendously. Hackworth later wrote an article stating he hardly ever admits to being wrong, but after spending time with Clark, admits he was completely wrong about him. Said Clark was the real thing. Of course that doesn't stop the Freepers from quoting Hackworth's earlier statement, but oh well. He did right by Clark as far as I'm concerned.

How about this quote --
"“My nephew Chip, who’s been charged with war crimes, wasn’t trained to be a prison guard. He was a part-time soldier marginally trained for even conventional military police (MP) work. But Chip was such a good soldier that he was selected to escort Gen. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Staff, when Chip was guarding the vice president right after 9/11. Myers gave him both great reviews and his personal coin.”

& this is one of the soldiers being charged with war crimes?
hmmmm.

Does it have a flattering portrait of Rumsfeld on one side, and Meyers licking his nooks and crannies on the other?

The practice of a senior enlisted member presenting a coin or medallion to an individual actually goes back just about 100 years ago in the British Army. During the War of the Boars, the officers were the only ones authorized to receive medals. Whenever an enlisted person did a good job - typically the officer he was assigned to would receive the award. The Regimental SgtMaj would sneak into the officer's tent, cut the medal from the ribbon. He would then call an all hands to formally "shake the hand" of the exceptional soldier, and would "palm the medal" in the soldier's hand without anyone knowing. The officers of course would sort of know what was going on, and typically condoned the action, as many often felt ill-at ease in accepting the medal in the first place - although there were a few exceptions. Whenever that would happen, other officers would cover for the enlisted men by blaming it on the nearby civilians who often stole goods from the army camps.

As time went on, the coin recognition was eventually extended to the American forces in WWI - by then of course the British Army began recognizing their own enlisted soldiers. The coin turned into a recognition piece which was specially struck with the unit's crest on it. Senior NCOs presented them as their form of recognition, since they were not authorized to present any medals or awards. In Vietnam, the coin took a different twist of recognition -- it became known as the "challenge coin" in which those who had them, would slam them on the bar counter to challenge anyone in the bar if they had one - it was one of those Combat "machismo" thing. If a person didn't have a coin, they would have to buy the bar a round of drinks.

more...

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/mcpocg/1faq/histcoin.htm

Um, sorry to nitpick, but I believe that would be the Boer War, referring to the conflict between the British imperialists and the Dutch settlers--the "Boers"--in South Africa.

I don't think the Brits or any one else ever declared war against wild pigs. Does kinda make you doubt the source....

I remember reading somewhere that the Hindus used to drive wild boars into the fields of their Pakistan neighbors to disrupt their crops. This eventually led to some serious problems and the Americ er.....I mean the British got involved and this led to some military action.

I'll do some research tomorrow and see if I can get you some details

Low-level commanders will have something like a unit coin. Someone in Meyer's position will have a coin for their office. I got a Air Force Chief of Staff coin in 1999. That's what they're talking about.

No wonder Faux let him go.....he can tell the truth about this administration.

From Hackworth.com a posted letter from MI, again mentioning Barbara Fast. She was mentioned in another thread. The Senate hearing HAS to ask about her tomorrow, better yet, question her.


"05-10-2004
Prison Abuse: An MI Officer Sounds Off

Hack,

The abuse and humiliation actually took place at 3 prisons in the Baghdad area. This was not done by accident, it was a planned, systematic way to break down the prisoners will to resist any interrogation, degrade them and then blackmail them into working for US Intelligence.
The pictures were taken as a way to intimidate the prisoner and then keep them working as low level collectors (if they did not the pictures would have been released to their family and tribes) Videos were also made as a way to record the "success" to be used as a teaching tool at Fort Huachuca (to train future interrogators). The MPs and Interrogators were told the Geneva Convention did not apply to Iraq Soldiers and Civilian Detainees. The methods the MPs used were actually taught to the MPs by military intelligence professionals and civilian contractors. This was a sanctioned operation and the methods were known to be used by Generals in the chain of command. Women MPs were sought out to further humiliate the Iraqi prisoners. The female MPs who accepted the jobs, conducted degrading acts upon the Iraq men, because such acts by women on men in the Arab culture are so humiliating, it was thought that the men would then talk just to stop the abuse by the female MPs. This abuse was done in stages and the less cooperative Iraqis were given the more degrading abuse to condition them to interrogation. The Major General (Barbara Fast) in charge of the MI personnel in Baghdad sanctioned this treatment.

Hack, if they are going to hang privates and NCOs for meting out this abuse, they better go after the Generals and Colonels who sanctioned and approved these methods be use. This is a not an isolated cace of abuse my a few soldiers, this was a planned campaign well know by the entire chain of command. There is also evidence that people in the Pentagon also knew and approved of these methods many months prior to the pictures being relased and only told the President when the pictures were published.
The DOD is now trying to pin the blame on anything else, other than the Generals amd Colonels who sanctioned this treatment.

MI Senior NCO"

I think it's important enough to warrant its own thread.