Disinformation or Hypocrisy?

1 comment May 9th, 2007

By Rowan Wolf

The Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006) was released to the public this week. It is a damning report. It sites a number of mental health problems among the troops in Iraq, which are increased by the number, length, and frequency of deployments. Along with mental health issues, the MHAT found there were considerable ethical behavior concerns. General Patreaus reports being “very concerned” by the findings, and that we need to “make sure that folks remember that that’s (not dropping to the level of the enemy) a foundation for our moral compass.”

Moral compass? Exactly what moral compass is that? Is it the moral compass of the Bush administration which has said that none of the international agreements - from preemptive attack, through the Geneva Convention - apply to the United States? Is it the moral compass which came up with a lengthy justification for approving the use of torture? Is it the moral compass of those who hired contractors to oversee U.S. forces while they “softened up” prisoners for interrogation by using torture? Perhaps it is the moral compass that has shown such high regard for the lives of Iraqi non-combatants that the Bush administration and Department of Defense have refused to count either the number of Iraqi casualties or even fatalities (meanwhile denying the figures that have been released utilizing internationally accepted methodologies).

I think the “ethical behavior” assessment is very much in line with the moral compass that has set the “rules of engagement” in Iraq. In fact, I am surprised that the report shows the troops as “ethically minded” as they are.

What exactly is Patreaus going to “remind” the forces in Iraq of? The ethics that have been put forward by the Bush administration, or the ethics that are part of the U.S. Military Code of Ethics? If it is the latter, how long would Patreaus last as head of command in Iraq?

If the U.S. were following an ethical “moral compass” we wouldn’t even be in Iraq.

Summary of Findings (page 42)
Soldier and Marine Battlefield Ethics was assessed using survey items and focus questions developed ny the MHAT IV members per the request to CG, MNF-1. Four Battlefield Ethics areas were assessed: attitudes, behaviors, reporting and training. Less than half of the Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect and well over a third believed that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow team member. About 10% of Soldiers and Marines reported mistreating an Iraqi non-combatant when it wasn’t necessary either by destroying their property or hitting or kicking them. Less than half of Soldiers or Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior, instead preferring to handle it themselves at a team level. Although reporting receiving ethical training, nearly a third of Soldiers and Marines reported ethical situations in Iraq in which they did not know how to respond. Having a unit member become a casualty or handling dead bodies and human remains were associated with increases in mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants. High levels of anger and screening positive for a mental health problem we also associated with the mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants.
– Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006)