Army IG report clearing senior officers of wrongdoing undermines the legal

[MSgt213]

The latest Army IG report clearing senior officers of wrongdoing in connection with Abu Ghraib ignores centuries of norms within the military profession and undermines the legal doctrine of command responsibility

The Washington Post reports today (also see the AP) that the Army's inspector general has cleared several of the most senior officers involved with the Abu Ghraib scandal of any wrongdoing — let alone any conduct which might lead to a court-martial. I'm finding it very hard right now to square this result with the Army's leadership manual, FM 22-100 (excerpted below). As you can read, the top officers at the chain of command have been exonerated — not just for their official actions, but also for any responsibility they might bear as commanders and military officers.

An Army inspector general's report has cleared senior Army officers of wrongdoing in the abuse of military prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, government officials familiar with the findings said yesterday.

The only Army general officer recommended for punishment for the failures that led to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan is Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who was in charge of U.S. prison facilities in Iraq as commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade in late 2003 and early 2004. Several sources said Karpinski is expected to receive an administrative reprimand for dereliction of duty.

* * *
The investigation essentially found no culpability on the part of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and three of his senior deputies, ruling that allegations they failed to prevent or stop abuses were "unsubstantiated." A military source said a 10-member team began the investigation in October and based its conclusions on the 10 major defense inquiries into abuse and interviews with 37 senior officials, including L. Paul Bremer, who led the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. The report has not been released.

Of those 10 major inquiries, the inspector general's was designed to be the Army's final word on the responsibility of senior leadership in relation to the abuses. It was the only investigation designed to assign blame, if any, within the Army's senior leadership. Questions about Sanchez's and other senior leaders' role in approving harsh interrogation tactics — including the use of military working dogs to intimidate detainees — have swirled since photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib surfaced almost exactly a year ago.

Army officials said yesterday that they have identified 125 soldiers and officers who were either tried at courts-martial or issued administrative punishments for detainee abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, seven low-ranking soldiers have faced the most serious charges in the sexual humiliation and physical abuse cases arising out of Abu Ghraib; five have pleaded guilty or have been found guilty, and two have courts-martial scheduled for next month.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. In the Army's leadership schools for officers and sergeants, the doctrinal manual preaches quite a different result from the outcome of this investigation. Bottom line: commanders (and NCOs) are responsible for everything their unit(s) do or fail to do, period. A commander, especially a general officer, is not just responsible for those things he/she ordered, but for those things that he/she knew about — or should have known about. This is the essence of the mantle of command, as reflected in several passages of FM 22-100, the Army's field manual for leadership. Consider this excerpt from Part 1:

http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/posts/1114281125.shtml

[0007]

1. When the thief investigates the thief, the thief is always

exonerated.

Does this indeed surprise anyone?

[BeFree]

2. Not surprising

Because, if they did the right thing not only would the top generals get charged but also the political leaders would be included, and that would mean the Sec. of Defense and officials in the White House.

Therefore the ladder had to be cut off at the lowest rung possible.
Can't have the CIC getting painted with his true colors now, can we?