The enlisted personnel convicted in this case will finally get company (hopefully) by somebody of a little higher rank. However, those who are really responsible for the shoot first ,ask questions later policy are still getting away with it. There is no doubt that the initiators of prisoner abuse and the jetting of the principles and the content of the Geneva Convention are at the top level of the adminstration. Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Cheney and Rice come to mind, all having a hand in the misdirected ideology of the top man. Instead of eliminating terror and terrorists they were, through their own efforts, creating more and more hatred of the US and thereby terrorists. The actions in Abu Ghraib and the shooting of women and children by the Marines finally under investigation are as close to terror as one can get.Tomorrow happens to be the third anniversary of the circus performance on deck of an aircraft carrier in which the world was advised by the worlds chief liar that the mission was accomplished! Some mission, some accomplishment. More than 2000 young men paid with their lives for the folly since then, Irak is a mess that seems to get worse instead of better. The cost of this war has surpassed those of all others before and no end is in sight. On the contrary the DECIDER seems to contemplate another adventure of the same kind. How many more terrorists will he create and how many more young lives will he sacrifice on the altar of egotism.

As a fledgling junior Army officer many years ago, the following axiom was drilled into my head:

A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do.

Ever since (my military career long over), I have always been fascinated by the selective application of this axiom: the level of "commander" who will be held responsible is somewhat flexible and fickle. One atrocity is rewritten to generate a war hero, or at worst, a wrist slap (the warrant officer, name forgotten, who was directly responsible for the death of an Iraqi detainee during interrogation). The next atrocity can generate a Lieutenant Calley (of My Lai infamy) or Corporal Graner and Private England of Abu Graib.

It is ludicrous to assume events such as the ones we currently ponder happened in a vacuum, with only the "accused" aware of their existence. As I remember it, a corporal does not report to a lieutenant colonel. His next link up the chain of command would be a senior NCO. The senior NCO would report to a junior officer (lieutenant or captain). Only at the next rung of the ladder does the likelihood of encountering a lieutenant colonel arise. It seems the Army is limiting punishment to those who had "hands on" involvement in the atrocities (the lieutenant colonel built a plywood barrier to hide it?) while exempting those who hold managerial oversight (did they learn this from Ken Lay, or is it the other way around?)

Of course, we are dealing with reservists here, and it is entirely possible the manning tables of our Army Reserve and National Guard troops on active duty in Iraq are a hodgepodge of low-ranking personnel holding "acting" higher ranks and responsibilities well beyond their experience and capabilities. This could be the result of an exodus of senior people with no remaining military obligation, who had no intention of shipping off to Iraq, or the generally depleted state of the reserve forces. I recall the Guard unit I first served with after leaving active duty: of 20 NCO positions, only 25% were held by people who actually held and were paid at that grade. The rest were "acting," and the units capabilities were laughable. If this is the case in Iraq, Rumsfeld is beyond incompetent: he is blind and deaf.

To isolate the blame to one lieutenant colonel (who sits in "middle management"), a corporal or junior sergeant (at the absolute bottom of the leadership ranks), or a private (with no leadership role whatsoever) smacks of the continuation of this selective application. The Secretary of Defense, every general, colonel, major, captain, lieutenant, sergeant major, master sergeant, etc, who knew and did or said nothing about this violation of published military doctrine is equally culpable. History tells us such culpability is unlikely to be assessed.