"charming" - aha, get it? like a charms lollipop.

but really, that's just sick and upsetting.

monsters.

"Not to mention, I'm still waiting for some substantive discussion about rape as a weapon of war."

No kidding. As if the cover-up weren't bad enough (along with the government insisting that the girl was a 20-year-old "young woman"), I can't believe that no one is looking at the CAUSE of this, which I believe is related to the cause of other soldiers shooting two dozen civilians in another part of the country. Rape has always been a way of driving home to a populace the fact that they are a conquered people. In a country where we were supposed to have been victorious years ago, and more and more people dying, it's no wonder our troops are resorting to baser ways of proving their dominance over the Iraqi people (it's interesting to note that in this war men are being violated as well. Not quite as directly as the girl in this particular story, but there's a reason why male prisoners are being sexually humiliated, and it has nothing to do with the hope of gaining information).

I agree that there needs to be a national discussion of rape as a weapon of war, but I also believe that there needs to be a discussion about what has caused such a psychological snap that our soldiers feel the need to resort to that millenia-old means of subjugation. Speaking from a naive but hopeful place inside me, I don't think American soldiers have been caught doing something like this in an extremely long time... I can't vouch for soldierly conduct in Vietnam (where, interestingly, the psychological climate of combat was much the same as it is in Iraq), but I'm fairly certain that US soldiers didn't invade France in WWII and rape its female populace. (correct me if I'm wrong. I'm slightly ashamed to say that this is something I know very little about in terms of the history of the U.S. armed forces).

Disclaimer: although I am referring to potential psychological causes for this atrocity, I am not saying that the five soldiers involved should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't handle this incident in a vacuum and simply hope that it never happens again. To fully correct the problem, the administration needs to very seriously consider the environment it has created by its inept military strategy for Iraq. Of course... that means that the Bush administration has to admit mistakes and correct them. Past experience suggests that we'll be having a snow ball fight in hell before that happens.

I find it disturbing that Green has been tapped as having a "personality disorder". What? Because he raped and murdered rather than "merely" raped? So what does that say about the other men involved, as well as the US military in Iraq in general, not to mention the heinousness of the whole incident? Sounds like another version of "bad apple"...a very disgusting and despicable one.

Andrea:

Be careful with the way you build your conclusions. There's a difference between rape as a weapon of personal dominance, and rape as a weapon of institutional dominance. Although abuses at the prisons show the latter, incidents like this only demonstrate the former.

Also, the "young woman" reports appear to be the result of genuine, short-lived confusion on the part of reporters about how old the victim actually was. If you know of evidence showing that there was deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knew the actual age, please post a link to it, as I'd like it for my archives.

Rapes have occurred in pretty much every previous conflict, though. It was certainly a problem in Vietnam, and I found a paper noting that there were 10 executions of US soldiers stationed in the UK alone for rape or murder/rape between 1942 and 1944, not counting any incidents that didn't reach that penalty, weren't prosecuted, or not even reported -- and not counting rapes that happened in the field. The most recent conviction of US soldiers for rape that I recall was the rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan by 3 soldiers stationed there. I think there was a more recent allegation of rape by a US soldier in England, but it was not proved. I can't find the reference.

I'd like to tie this into another disturbing statistic recently discussed: one in 12 college men admitted to behaviour that matched the legal definition of rape in a 1996 study, and only 1% thought it was a crime. Depending on which other study you believe, 30% to 50% of college men admitted that they would do those things if they could get away with them.

Hand these same college-age men guns, allow them to develop heavy racism against the people they are stationed among, and give them little oversight, and it doesn't take any institutional use of rape as a weapon of war at all for atrocities to happen on a regular basis.

Go ahead and institutionalize it at the prisons, and instead of punishing soldiers who pass around rape-photo trading cards, simply hush it up, and you end up with a large number of soldiers who believe that it's tacitly permitted, whether or not the people actually setting policy want it to happen or not.

One of the few good things I'll say about Ronald Reagan is that he made a very solid effort at getting the military cleaned up. Unfortunately, pretty much all of that work has been undone in the last half decade. It's going to take another decade of dedication to fix.

jenn:

I find it disturbing that Green has been tapped as having a "personality disorder". What? Because he raped and murdered rather than "merely" raped?

While I'm reasonably confident that the military will try to paint all five people involved as "merely bad apples", Green's discharge isn't a part of that. Current speculation is that the defense in the military court is likely to be founded on a "combat stress" excuse. That probably won't fly in the civilian court, where Green is going to be tried.

Hmm.

To me, this looks like what happens when the troops become numb to the feelings of the locals for one reason or another..it doesn't look like a case of the 'bad apple'.

I agree that this isn't the case of the "bad apple," but it isn't a military problem either. It's a societal problem--the number of college aged men who have raped or would and think it is acceptable reveals that. Rape is not treated as the crime it really is enough--in this case, the girl was horrifically murdered, so it gets a reaction, but in our country, so-called "date-rape" is belittle and treated like not a crime at all in many cases.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I do believe in these men being prosecuted and sent to jail, because they simply cannot be part of society after this grusome act. Not because they are "bad apples," but rather due to the way our culture has warped their sense of right and wrong. I blame their environment for their actions--I think they all have personality disorders, due to the sexist, misogynistic societal influences that are only strengthen in the military, and especially when deployed.

The only way that I cannot be overwhelmed with hatred toward the men who perpetrated this crime is that, in a way, I think they are victims too. They should still go to jail (which I think should be a rehab institution, not a place full of abuses that further root in prisoners the influences that led them to crime in the first place), but we shouldn't get caught up in the horror of this one crime, at the expense of neglecting the broader issue that is so deeply embedded in society. While the military itself can certainly be cleaned up to an extent, it will always be a source of problems as long as it spring from a society in which gender roles are unenlightened.

Zed,

I think on some level we're saying the same thing; the larger issue I have with this incident is that we have taken overly-testosteroned young men, given them guns, sent them into a country where the culture isn't even marginally the same, told them that we've won when we haven't, and let them wander around unsupervised. Worse, early incidents of sexual abuse (at the prisons) were painted as okay, and people in charge attempted to cover it up. In that situation, it makes sense that soldiers will do whatever they can to assert their dominance -- to regain some sense that they are in control. Raping a woman is an ideal manifestation of that need. So is mowing down a bunch of civilians after your buddy is blown to bits.

Although I realize that I'm walking a very interesting ideological line. On one hand saying that a poorly-run war (that we shouldn't be fighting in the first place) creates this situation, but I also firmly believe that these men need to be punished for their actions and removed from society where they can potentially harm someone else.

I think that it is easy to look at the atrocity as conquerer vs conquered, but we shouldn't forget the rates of female GI's who are coming home reporting having been sexually assaulted by men in their own units. It disgusts me that in this day in age there is still a culture in the military that would condone the rape of women who are fighting along with men. I don't think an American woman is more important than and Iraqi one, but I think that the issue is larger than rape as an weapon of institutional dominance. I think that when it all boils down to it, rape is an weapon of personal dominance whether it is institutionally condoned or not.

Zed,

I'm confused as to how Green could have been discharged a year prior to the investigation if the crime occurred in March 2006 and the investigation just began.

I certainly do not believe this to be a case of "bad apples". I'm pointing out that I think "personality disorder" is being used to label Green as merely a disturbed individual (which he certainly is) rather than part of a conquering force that has little regard for the lives of those conquered.

Andrea,
I doubt Bush will even bother with it. He has no respect for women. Particularly after watching the video where he rubs the German chancellor Angela Merkel shoulders.We need a future president who is not a misogynist, and that exists in both parties.

This otrocity is absolutely hideous!I would like to see more confrontation of the way soldiers view women inside, and outside of the military.

Jenn,

Green's been home since last Spring. That's why he was arrested in Kentucky, and not on a base in Iraq. He was labeled as a person with an anti-social personality disorder before the rape allegations were made. The evidence of the "anti-social personality disorder" for which he was discharged has not been made public, but I read in an article on CNN that a lot of soldiers have been discharged for the same reasons (though Green is the only one to have this sort of legal trouble later on), supporting your theory (and mine) that this isn't a case of "bad apples"; this is a combined moral and psychological epidemic in our forces occupying Iraq.

I don't think the press is continually referring to Green's mental disorders in order to paint him as a "merely a disturbed individual" -- I think it's to point out that even before the Army knew he was involved in that family's murder, he was exhibiting screwed-up behavior. If the army had taken action to send Green home more quickly, that little girl may still be alive and unviolted.

jenn:

I've just gone hunting, and you appear to be correct. For some reason, I had the incident pagged as March 2005 in my head, not March 2006, with over a year passing before investigators caught up with it.

The timeline appears to be:

Feb. 2005: Enlisted
Sep. 2005: Deployed to Iraq
Mar. 12, 2006: Rape/Murder at Mahmoudiyah
April, 2006: Redeployed back to the United States (I note that this appears to be a shorter tour of duty than normal)
May, 2006: Discharged (honorably) for an "antisocial personality disorder"
June 30, 2006: Arrested by the FBI
July 3, 2006: Charged with rape/murder by the US Federal Court
July 10, 2006: The other four soldiers are charged by the US Military court

The timeline is considerably more compact than I thought it was, and makes it more likely that the discharge was related to a coverup of the incident.

I hear ya, Andrea. And that is a possible explanation. But I'm not sure I believe that the press is trying to call out the military for overextending our soldiers and thus contributing to this horrible crime. Let's not forget that the mainstream media has been spinning stories left and right to try and maintain public support for the occupation.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Zed.

And I just want to say that I really appreciate the civility occurring throughout this thread. The last one got a little heated. I think it's important that we discuss this without resorting to accusations of conspiracy theory or anti-military sentiment. So thanks!

Zed,

Wow, I had no idea the timeline was so compact, either... and I wonder at that, because I seem to remember the media specifically saying that Green had been discharged awhile before the rape allegations came to light. Either I'm remembering things very wrong (which is possible), or someone spun things a little too hard.

And I agree that that makes the discharge much more suspect. I may be giving way too much credit to the media, or perhaps I'm just out of touch (most of the broadcast news I get is via the Daily Show and Colbert Report.)

In light of Zed's clarifications, the idea that "many other" soldiers have been discharged from the army for "antisocial personality disorders" is terrifying to think about. This next comment is a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but I wonder what crimes the others committed that are being covered up.

I'm less inclined to believe that this is an indication that higher-ups are looking the other way at rape and other similar abuses of power, and more that it's an incident of the Army overlooking troubling characteristics in their new recruits for the sake of putting another pair of boots out there on the ground. I mean, this guy sounds like your garden-variety psycho, I have to say. God only knows what's being covered up, but I think there's pretty good evidence that this guy is not the kind that should have been accepted into the armed forces to begin with.

I wonder that too, Andrea. A lot. I'm not sure that we'll ever fully know. Especially when we add to this the fact that the Bush administration is seeking to amend the War Crimes Act.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-08-09T060507Z_01_N09207907_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-CRIME-USA.xml

Without getting into the whole debate on whether the war is good or bad and should have happened in the first place. While this is a terrible crime I do not think it is the same thing as state sponsored rape (or rape as a weapon) such as what I believed took place in the early 90’s in Bosnia or Serbia. Given what the reports say, while there may have been a cover-up, the actual rape and killings may simply be the consequence of war. If you wanted to look at it from a very cold and analytical standpoint it is another form of collateral damage, and anytime there is a war there will be collateral damage, which is why it should be avoided at all costs.

The reason I think it could be a consequence of war is that if you consider how we train soldiers today and how many will actually kill other people; as apposed to say WW I and II where the stats on soldier trying not personally and directly kill people was rather high; we have become very affective at breaking down the natural barriers and resistance people have to killing and hurting other people. I forget the exact stats but I gather soldiers today at 2 or 3 times more likely to be able to kill another person than in past wars. To achieve this the army must purposely break the a person’s barriers and dehumanize the “enemy� so that our soldiers can kill them and more importantly be re-integrated back into society with other “humans� and learn that killing is now bad. This is not new, just look at war throughout history or the propaganda from WWI and WWII. However, we are very good at it today. Also, the age of soldiers is very young. In WWI and II the average age was in their early to mid 20’s, I suspect it is now under 20, and I am doubtful that when it comes to controlling themselves in a very stressful situation that younger is better.

Given this situation I would hazard it is very hard to say to a soldier, this is your enemy they are not people, kill them, but only some of them (I am sure the army tries though). Oh and by the by they wear no uniform, will not follow the “rules� of war, and will hide in civilian populations to ambush you and therefore always keep you on alert and scared - but only hurt the bad ones! I figure it is only a matter of time until some of them snap. This is more true if the stats I have read on previous posting on Femisting are true and that the number of young men who would rape if they could get away with it is as high as posted (I believe I have read stats ranging from 10-25% in various posts). In that case teaching them that a certain group of people are not people and that it is okay to hurt them, and then putting your soldiers in a position of long-term occupation is like putting jet fuel on a fire. Given the number of soldiers involved and the amount of time they have been on the ground it is a miracle the number of problems are so low and probably speaks very well of the level of discipline in the US armed forces.

Or these particular guys could just be monsters who took advantage of a situation…

Anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopath, aka psychopath, aka Ted Bundy-esq behavior)is something that many people don't really understand... It is when a person doesn't feel sympathy for others. These types of people have a fascination with burning things or blowing things up, abusing animals, lying when it suites their purposes, they often have a general disdaine for rules/laws, and enjoying positions in which they are in control of others.
These are the exact type of people that are drawn (often times in large numbers) to the military. I don't really think that combat related stress is capable of turning someone into an ASP, I think it goes the other way. Combat stress has been known to make people schizophrenic, paranoid, or OCD, but ASP is thought to be more genetic/ingrown/based on early childhood than later life experiences.

My solution? Have the military give ASP tests as a part of the recruitment process. If someone is found to be ASP make sure they don't end up in a combat position, if you let them in at all.

Ephemeral,

Regarding your argument about the military getting better at depersonalization of the enemy, I do not know if I quite agree. I think it is more likely to be what you mention in the latter half of your post--which is the nature of the war.

In WWII and WWI, we were dealing with trench warfare with uniformed soldiers of the same race on both sides. In most wars, including Vietnam, only about 10% of troops see combat, the rest are support troops who are not ever shot at, even once. Now, in Iraq, even support troops are put in a position where they are vulnerable to attack. And they have less training. I think this may be the reason that more soldiers are killing, not more effective depersonalization.

I was in the military for two years, never deployed, and my commanders were always deeply concerned about the possibility of us leading our people into (or failing to lead them out of) committing an atrocity.

Of course, since I was not over in Iraq, I do not know what commanders there are telling their soldiers now. And clearly there was a problem with the prison guards--I don't care what anyone says--that comes from the top, whether by omission or commission. (And I believe it was by comission with Abu Ghraib.)

Also, as Ahlana points out, we may need better screens.