- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The soldiers who shot unarmed non-combatants are the ones who bear the full brunt of law.
I always thought the chain of command starts from top. So if the local screws up, the top guy gets the sack. That was how the Wehrmacht and Soviet Army operated. So the top guys were disciplined enough not to let their subordinates run loose.
Here it seems to the opposite. The subordinates take the flak for the top command's failure. The refusal of the soldier to implicate his boss shows his discipline and obedience.
And instead of letting him go and punishing his superiors, the Army punished this poor guy who was just a tool.
The Army was based on the teaching that you watch your friend's back more than watching your own.
The Army in Iraq seems to be more like: The Top Brass watches its own back, while the soldiers watch their Top Brass back.
Unless the top brass comes clean and resigns enmasse, this system will not go.
Supporting troops does not mean instant rescues, or more coffee. It means the superiors taking the flak for the stupid orders they give.
Ideally the commander should resign and court-martialled.
But then we never indicted Rumsfeld, so there's no question of indicting the top brass.
