Military Cave-In

What do the Abu Ghraib photos really mean?

by Lewis Whittington

Sometimes a picture is worth more than even a thousand words because it records history. Such is the case with the Iraqi prisoner-abuse photos. Interrogators know that evidence brought forth through physical and psychological torture is contaminated, so what was this really about?

The media proliferation of these images since they were first aired on 60 Minutes II ignited a raging military and political scandal that has government officials scrambling for the damage-control buttons. Last week, the Pentagon made more pictures and video footage of Iraqi POW and detainee abuse available to Congress and the Senate. Members described the evidence as being more of the same, but even worse. For the moment, though, the Nick Berg slaying has put the release of the new crop on hold since the Pentagon thinks it could incite similar atrocities.

That the horrific secrets will eventually come out doesn't mean that the conspiracy of silence among the military won't be protected. Facts will be manipulated and officially obscured in an attempt to contain the growing political firestorm. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even beat a quick retreat to Iraq last week for a PR morale mission after being grilled by the Senate Armed Services Committee about the abuses. The images are not simply proof of soldier misconduct; they are proof of military anarchy at a time when the president is trying to insinuate democratic idealism into Iraq as the model way of life for Arab countries. It is not a stretch to think that despite quick-fix efforts, the global reaction will hinder U.S. efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.

What fueled the reaction beyond what might seem like the isolated cruelty by a few was that they included seemingly routine scenarios of coercion involving handcuffing, sodomy and forced real or simulated sex acts mostly among male detainees. But for all the coverage, there is one aspect of the photos that has not been discussed: Some of the shock of the images is that they contain simulated or forced homosexual sex.

Military brass acting surprised at the use of these methods is a further deception. Forced homosexual sex is a long-standing method of psychological and physical submission. Even in ritualized "hazing' among new recruits, these methods to break soldiers have a long and sullied history in the U.S. military.

This has more to do with the military's deeply homophobic attitudes than effective interrogation techniques. It's not surprising that this type of coercion was used as a torture tool on Iraqis, given that homosexuality is officially abhorrent to the Islamic world. It has been suggested that -- at the very least -- these pictures were meant for blackmail against prisoners in their own countries to put their lives in direct risk. Even in our supposedly enlightened culture, millions of people are willing to buy into morbid beliefs that gays engage in sexual relations that are less than human, even sadistic.

The soldiers facing court-martial in connection with the abuses are claiming that they were following orders. Reservist Lyndie England told CNN that she was told what to do for the apparently "posed' photographs but confirmed that there were worse abuses. Clearly, even if some of the acts in the initial photos were posed, it has also been confirmed that prisoners were, at some point, forced to have sex.

Humiliating soldiers through techniques such as forcing them into sexual acts and other physical abuse is as old as military history. During the infamous Newport Naval Base scandal of 1919, soldiers were even recruited to "collect evidence" of homosexual behavior among the ranks by going all the way with suspects. During those scandals the Navy put together a homosexual shakedown system that has been repeatedly used in the military, by police and in prisons. Even though the investigating committees have promised a conclusive report about the abuse and a change in military policies to prevent further incidents, it's doubtful that the discussion will confront the ugly subtext of military homophobia shown in the Abu Ghraib photographs.

The military is now initiating a ban on any coercive techniques. One wonders that if the incidents were so isolated, what are the brass calling a unilateral halt to?

Lewis Whittington writes about politics and art for several publications including The Advocate and The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide. If you would like to respond to this Slant or have one of your own (800 words), contact Brian Hickey, City Paper managing editor/news, 123 Chestnut St., third floor, Phila., PA 19106 or e-mail hickey@citypaper.net.

-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there