Policy Changes: A Pesticide for the "Bad Apples" in the Military?

Essentially since World War II, the US has been a sort of “defender of right and wrong”. There are plenty of examples where the US has stepped-in and stopped an injustice. However, in the age of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) I believe the US has taken a step back, making decisions that may have the best intentions, but have actually given America a black-eye. For example, the decision to allow torture tactics, has broadly offended the international community, especially those committed to the Geneva Conventions. Recent policies seem to highlight a realist decision maker, doing whatever it takes to protect the state.

Distanced from the policy makers, atrocities such as the use of excessive force against combatants and non-combatants as well as improper behavior against detainees by the US military has further added to the growing “black-eye” of American. I am not a soldier but I know that all US military personnel have some training regarding the rules of war and specific rules of engagement. So, despite training, some US military personnel still allow themselves to treat prisoners poorly, or get a little trigger happy.

What policy changes can decrease atrocities in conflict situations?

Based on class lectures, several readings, and the film Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, I propose the following changes that may or may not directly impact US military doctrine, but also offer a guide to decrease poor behavior.

One – Roll-back the DoD memorandum signed by Donald Rumsfeld that effectively granted permission to use creative ways to “interrogate” detainees.

While the memo does not specifically grant permission to torture detainees, it created a feeling or “do whatever it takes” throughout the US military. This assertion is backed by several statements of military personnel at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib.

Two – Improve communication through every level of the Armed Services, specifically changes in military policy and the rules of engagement.

One of the problems noted by several of the personnel that committed atrocities in Iraq was the lack of understanding down the chain of command. One soldier said that the policies changed so many times that he did not remember what rules they were operating under from day-to-day. Furthermore, rules of engagement are important for nearly every person in the military, and yet the specific rules are largely classified, out of the reach of some soldiers on the ground. In addition, there should be regular meetings and/or drill “role playing” so commanding officers can test their soldiers with hypothetical situations and fine-tune their response.

Three – Clearly define acceptable and unacceptable means of aggressive interrogation.

As evident in the Rumsfeld memo, some activities are clearly defined and noted as “acceptable” but the other proposed strategies are not outright condemned. This leaves some uncertainty in the minds of those on the ground. Furthermore, the comments from the DoD seem to suggest that more aggressive interrogation that violates the Geneva Conventions may be used at some point.

Four – Maintain the organizational expertise structure of specific military commands or create new commands with proper training to effectively complete the mission.

One of the major problems with Abu Ghraib may have stemmed from the fact that the guards were actually Marine MPs, not correction officers. Trained for combat, the group was thrown off-guard when they arrived at the prison and were told to put away their weapons. Also, the organizational structure was changed; the MPs began reporting to military intelligence and civilian intelligence personnel rather than their designated superior, General Karpinski. Essentially, there was “mission creep” within the MPs stationed at Abu Ghraib.