Abu-Ghraib becomes a few rogue troops, Gitmo because a home of evil terrorists who deserve to be held there, etc.
The media has painted the place as a disgrace (though they also sound more level-headed then the writers of that report when they do it; not the report itself, but the writer's comments to the press), so how that came to be is a real mystery from here on the street in the US of A.
As for Abu Ghirab, the US Army screwed up, and the real crime here is that they were allowed to get away with it. (So they can do it again in the future. The basic regs on the subject haven't been changed.) They gave the job to the wrong people and the results were predictable. Prisoners and dealing with them is supposed to be the province of the MPs and the MPs alone. They are the only people with the training (and perhaps worse, the discipline; more on that later) for it. Bad stuff happens when you give it to other people, it's been that way since at least WWII. There was some interesting commentary on the subject in an older issue of
Proceedings to the effect that Congress and/or the Joint Chiefs should have torn everyone involved in half.
(On the other hand, it's worth noting that at least some of the vitrol in
Proceedings was probably the result of the much higher standards, and much stricter attitude about upholding them, the USN and other sea services have in regards to prisoners and their treatment. This is generally true of any country's naval and land forces, perhaps a reflection of the different nature of naval warfare.)
Now, here's the kicker folks: As of late, some of the other services have been expressing concern on the general state of discipline in the Army. It has always been true that the Army holds to lesser standards then the Navy or the Marines. (The Air Force is...questionable, since they do descend from the Army; but then again, this kind of discipline isn't really required of them.) However, given such incidents as Abu Ghirab, and later reports from the field about violations of the altered instructions on the treatment of prisoners, some voices have been raised from the Navy and Marine Corps, saying that the Army can no longer effectively control their troops. The folks who write these articles in
Proceedings may not be representive, considering the writers are generally field-grade or even junior officers, but the mere fact someone is raising the question is vaguely frightening.
Perhaps more tellingly, all detention operations in Iraq are being turned over to the Navy's Master-at-Arms people. (read that: Navy MPs.) The Navy is also taking over many logistical functions, and there is even some suggestion of the creation of naval infantry units. We had a post here that talked about the US Army falling apart five or ten years down the line...but it may be happening right now.
