I am getting tired of making execuses for our troops in Iraq. I know it's just a few among hundreds of thousands there who were responsible for the ugly deeds. I also know that it was the zealots in the military intelligence willing to do anything to get information and irresponsible army commanders more interested in avoiding political conflicts than doing the right thing.
But the road to understanding how those soldiers can do what they did, even if coerced, leaves rest of the hundreds of thousands American soldiers in Iraq naked. Could other groups of them have behaved better under the same circumstances? Sadly, my answer is no. Only consolation is that armies of other countries would not have done any better if they were traumatized through the same tragic events as US have. Some consolation.
I am not sure which is worse. Death of thousands of American citizens and Destruction of a famous American landmark or stunning blows to our pride like this. The former enraged me, the later left me hollow. I know that most of the pride was more wishful thinking reinforced by the hero-worshiping media, but it's shocking still to be stripped of it.
Update:
I thought this Washington Post editorial titled Mr. Rumsfeld's Responsibility was a good read although it didn't say what I was hoping it would say.
The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Conventions.
This was what I was hoping the editorial should have said:
Regardless of law and origin, people are not born with basic human rights nor are they deserved, earned, or gained by agreement, but they are given by those who value their sanity and the risk they face in absense of such gift to their enemy.
Yes, it goes back to my Selfish Pig philosophy. We must give these rights out of our own selfish need to preserve of our sorry ass morals.


