Laura at War and Piece points to a NY Times article that gives us an insight into the US Army’s routine handling of Iraqis swept up in operations during Mr Bush’s war:

From January 2004 to January 2005, I served in various places in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) as an Army interrogator. Following orders that I believed were legal, I used military working dogs during interrogations. I terrified my interrogation subjects, but I never got intelligence (mostly because 90 percent of them were probably innocent, but that's another story). Perhaps, I have thought for a long time, I also deserve to be prosecuted. But if that is the case, culpability goes much farther up the chain of command than the Army and the Bush administration have so far been willing to admit.

In training, we learned that all P.O.W.'s are protected against actual and implied threats. You can never put a "knife on the table" to get someone to talk. That was clear. But our Iraqi prisoners weren't clearly classified as P.O.W.'s, so I never knew what laws applied. Instead, a confusing set of verbal and written orders had supplanted the Geneva Conventions.

Mr Lougouranis is putting himself right out on the edge with this article, because he’s not only publicly confessing to what many in and out of the military and legal communities consider to be war crimes, but he’s wondering how he escaped the “few bad apples” punishment of underlings that is so common in Bu$hCo.

Maybe he’ll escape, because he’s clearly pointing the finger of guilt right where it belongs:

When an Army investigator asked Col. Thomas Pappas, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, how intimidation with dogs could be allowed under this treaty, he gave the chilling reply, "I did not personally look at that with regard to the Geneva Convention." Colonel Pappas later testified that he was taking his cue on the use of dogs from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who took over detainee operations in Iraq after running them in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

General Miller has denied recommending the use of guard dogs to intimidate prisoners during interrogations in Iraq. He also recently said he would not testify in the courts-martial of Sergeants Cardona and Smith, invoking his right to avoid self-incrimination. As someone who voluntarily spoke at length about my actions in Iraq to investigators, without a lawyer present, I can't have a favorable opinion of General Miller. By doing the military equivalent of "taking the Fifth," he's decided to protect himself, apparently happy to let two dog handlers take the fall — a stunning betrayal of his subordinates and Army values.

How typical of the thoroughly politicized upper command levels of today’s Army. They issue written and verbal order that contradict US law, the UCMJ, and the many international agreements that the US is signatory to. Then they refuse to accept accountability for their actions, abandoning those who acted in good faith, believing the orders they received were constitutionally legal. This is not only illegal, it’s ethically and morally reprehensible. Military discipline can be enforced in many ways. It can be arbitrarily enforced through a comprehensive system of punishment, or it can be developed from within the unit, by soldiers trusting their commanders.

But that trust can only arise in units that believe in their mission, and understand that their commanders will stand with them in times of trouble.

Soldiering should be an honorable profession. While it is terrible that humans need soldiers, it is a fact that soldiers give their word, their honor, to stand with their comrades. I can remember a class in the Army, at the NCO school, where we discussed leadership, and what makes a good leader. The instructor was an old, grizzled veteran of WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam. He gave a very surprising example, briefly describing the historical causes that led to the battle of Marathon, in which the fabled 300 Spartans stood firm against the Persian hordes, dying one by one with their king, Leonidas.

Herodotus tells the story in his Histories:

"Such was the number of the barbarians, that when they shot forth their arrows the sun would be darkened by their multitude." Dieneces, not at all frightened at these words, but making light of the Median numbers, answered "Our Trachinian friend brings us excellent tidings. If the Medes darken the sun, we shall have our fight in the shade."

There is a memorial near the pass at Marathon where those Spartans died with their leader, with a simple epitaph:

Go tell the Spartans, Passerby, That here, obedient to their laws, We lie.

These men gave their lives because they believed in their cause, and trusted their leader.

No soldier wants to give his life in battle, no matter how grave the cause. But those who wear their uniform with pride do so because they trust their leaders and believe in them. When their leaders abandon them, they lose more than trust and credibility. They abrogate the right to command and to wear the uniform.

When people wonder why Viet Nam was lost, and why Iraq was also lost, one of the reasons is leaders who were too cowardly to stand with their men.