Their careers are essentially over, but the buck stops at the top! The lack of planning, training, supplying,etc. I will never forget that picture of GW landing on the carrier deck in full uniform with that smug look on his face declaring the war was over.

One thing to keep an eye on at this point is how the scandal will be politicized. I was listening to the senate investigations on this and noted that the democrats are going after Rumsfield, and will likely then go after the administration, just to help them try and win the election. However, I definitely agree that this is a military problem and should be handled in a military manner. Amber told me a of a quote in the NY Times that said that the people in charge of the prisoners are reservists who were clerks, managers, etc., prior to the war and that the next day they are managing hundreds of prisoners. Personally, I think that is one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard. I was a reservist for years. Had I been called to war, I would have been a well-trained reservist because I took my training seriously and made sure I was well-prepared. These people are trained year-round to do their jobs. Now, I can't say that the next day they weren't in charge of prisoners, but that does seem a bit unlikely. From my remembrance of the reserves, anyone called up would have to go through initial briefings, get shots, get checked out, get trained (as needed), etc., prior to hitting the dirt. Then, once they hit the dirt, they'd be working with the units that were already there. This means that this abuse has likely been going on sense the inception of the conflict (though my guess is that is started small and then escalated over time). Scott is exactly right - where were the generals, colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, etc.? They should be hung out to dry. We signed the Geneva conventions to prevent these sorts of atrocities from happening to our soldiers. Then we turn around and commit them ourselves? I totally agree - all of the people that can be linked to this should be doing hard time in Leavenworth - from the general on down. All of them, no exceptions. And we need to let the world know that due process was followed, that everyone involved was punished, and that the United States won't stand for this sort of behavior. I certainly don't believe that it reflects the character of the vast majority of our troops, and it certainly doesn't change our mission - it just means that we need to make sure everyone completely understands our mission.

One last thought - this might also implicate our intelligence gathering methodology. It seems that orders were given that stated that the prisoners needed to be put in an atmosphere 'conducive to giving information' or something like that. Things that we would scream about if they happened to our troops (and have screamed about in the past). This means that while some of the generals may have had strategic control of the prisoners, they likely didn't have tactical control - that was controlled by Intelligence. That doesn't change their responsibilities, but it may affect the level of culpability and punishment that they should receive...

lacking strong leadership or no, they should have known better. they aren't five year olds anymore, they shouldn't need their hands held when they go to the bathroom or do anything else. their leaders need to be held accountable for allowing this to happen, but those little punks aren't victims in the least.

Ron,

I too was in the Reserves and normally your right we do train for our mission. Unfotunatley this was such a cluster #$#@ from the begining and we were in such a rush to start the war that training for the reserves went to @#*!.

Most of the reservist who were working as guards in these places were indeed part of an MP company. However they weren't MPs. We did not have enough trained MPs available so the clerks, mechanics, supply folks etc from the MP companys were pushed into being guards (With No training AS MPs.)

Everybody in the administration was shocked that the Iraqi's didn't welcome us with open arms (They were expecting it to be like the US army entering Paris in WWII). We went in on a shoestring and it's only due to the fact that the US military IS the strongest in the world (And the Iraqi army wasn't exactly a strong opponent) that we were able to roll over the Iraqi's at all (Given the kind of preperation/force deployment that Rummy and Co decided was good enough.)

I just have to wonder if the author of this webpage now will admit that waiting a few months more might not have been such a bad idea?? (We have already had this discussion)

I just have to wonder if your question means you will finally admit the entire war was not a giant mistake?

Also, we rolled over Iraq due in part or even in main to tactics and strategies developed by John Boyd.

If Pat is suggesting impeachment over this, I really don't know what to say...

I am in no way suggesting impeachment just no re-election. I am still waiting to see how long it will take to place the blame on Bill.

I never said going to war in Iraq was a Huge mistake.

I said going to war in Iraq THE WAY WE DID was a HUGE mistake.

If the UN weapons inspectors had said they found WMD's or if Iraq had actually represented a Clear and Present Danger to the US then by all means go in and wipe the floor. Problem is that they didn’t, we rushed in and are now paying for it.

I ask Scott this. IF the inspectors in Iraq had come back with a report saying that Saddam had complied with the UN mandates should we have gone to war??

If the administration had come out and said "Saddam has no ties to the 9/11 attacks and the UN can't find any WMD's but we want to go to war to liberate the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator" should we have gone to war??

If I remember correctly Boyd's tactics were “Tactical" level not "Strategic" level. Yes it's nice to be able to go into combat with a minimum number of troops because we are that good and that advanced. The problem with using Boyd’s tactics on a strategic level is if something happens that is unexpected (The great Demon Murphy may appear after all) and if you don't have the forces available to deal with it then your just SOL (Ringing bells here??).

We want our small unit commanders to use tactics such as Boyd’s to keep the body count down and roll to victory. We don’t want to use his tactics as an excuse to lower troop levels, get rid of proven weapons systems etc. A small elite force is good. A LARGE elite force (even if you only use a fraction of it) is MUCH better.

In war it's so much better to have TO MUCH power available to you (Gives you all kinds of options) than to little (Which denies you all kinds of options) which is what we did in Iraq.

More of the same. None of it matters, as we are there. I'm looking for things that will help us succeed instead of wishing for "woulda, coulda shoulda".

Jeff - I have to take some issue with your comments. It almost seems like you are offering some defense to the soldiers that committed these atrocities by saying that they weren't trained. That's nonsense. Everyone receives basic training on the Geneva Conventions (during basic and after). Therefore, they knew the rules. Also, even if they weren't MP's, there were likely some MP's floating around to ask "Hey, is it okay if we get a bunch of these guys naked and stack them in a pyramid so I can send a pic back to my girlfriend in the States?". That MP should have said, "Hell, No!". Apparently this didn't happen, either. Then, lastly, they should have used a rather simple test - would I want this done to me? Since they obviously failed at that, it shows that they aren't decent human beings. They, their superiors, and anyone else who can be reasonably implicated in this nonsense should be sent to Leavenworth for hard time - given the maximum sentence allowable.

I say all of this because no matter what training I had been given (in fact, I was an airframe mechanic), there is no way that I would have committed such atrocities - and in fact, I would have felt compelled to report them up the chain of command, even to the Inspector General if necessary.