Systemic Leadership Failure - Was the Leadership at Fault for the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse?

1

Was the leadership responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib?

About two decades ago, a group of U.S. soldiers was found criminally liable for abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq. The news about the violations of prisoners’ rights and freedoms shocked the world (Colquhoun, 2005). The soldiers were accused of brutalizing prisoners, keeping them naked, and stimulating their sexual urge, sodomy, and murder. The incident dented the image of the U.S. in the world and drew a lot of local and international condemnation. Different explanations have been put forward since then to try and explain the reason why the incident happened. Some have blamed it on bad soldiers within the military, while other groups have blamed it on the army leadership. The two perspectives offer competing narratives, leading to the question of whether leadership was at fault. The leadership was responsible for prisoners' torture at Abu Ghraib.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2

The abuses at Abu Ghraib went on for longer because the military leadership ignored early reports of abuse. According to the Human Rights Watch group, a soldier raised the issue for about 17 months without action from the military leadership in charge of the prison (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022). He was demoralized by the failure to investigate the abuses on time. The laxity of the army leadership to investigate the abuses encouraged torture and abuse of detainees for 17 months, something that would have been avoided if action had been taken on time (Colquhoun, 2005). To underscore the failure of leadership to act on time, it was until the officer threatened to go public and had already established contact with Congress that the leadership agreed to carry out investigations of reported abuses.

The military leadership encouraged the mistreatment of detainees because it had knowledge about what was happening but failed to act. Soldiers who witnessed the torture revealed that the military intelligence encouraged soldiers to use torture to soften the detainees and push them to reveal more information (Sabar, 2004). Military officers were encouraged to use force, mental torture, and sleep deprivation to manage detainees under interrogation. The leadership should not have tolerated any form of prisoner abuse, regardless of the perception that they were American enemies (Colquhoun, 2005). By encouraging the use of force and abuse to get information from detainees, the leadership of the military intelligence failed to provide the much-needed good guidance to promote lawful handling of interrogations. The junior officers take instructions from their seniors, directly and indirectly, underpinning the accountability of the leadership for the abuses that were committed (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022).

Consequently, the army leadership, in this case, the intelligence unit, did not live up to expectations.

3

Communication between various leadership levels is also an issue that has come out through thorough investigations of the Abu Ghraib saga. Leaders in the military intelligence, CIA, and the 800th Military Police Brigade did not coordinate their activities well. This break in the communication led to each group acting on its own, creating gaps that were explored to abuse detainees (Colquhoun, 2005). In such a complex prison situation, where the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, the CIA, and military police were involved, establishing a seamless chain of communication was needed to ensure that there was uniformity in how each unit handled prisoners (Sabar, 2004). The task of ensuring that there was proper coordination fell on the military commander in charge.

The military leadership also failed to prepare soldiers handling the detainees on the rules and regulations. The investigation into the abuse revealed that the three soldiers involved in the incident expressed a misunderstanding of how the Geneva Conventions treat prisoners of war (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022). All of them had served in Afghanistan, from where they argued that the practice of torturing detainees was practiced. They blamed the leadership for conflicting statements about how to treat detainees. The army leadership has the duty of ensuring that soldiers operate without the law, local and international. The behaviors of the soldiers at the Abu Ghraib are a testimony of failed leadership in preparing soldiers on how to handle prisoners (Colquhoun, 2005). Consequently, the abuse would not have occurred if the leadership had taken a step to train their officers in charge of prisons about the need to observe the international laws governing the handling of prisoners during the war.

The investigations also revealed that the military command does not give soldiers a standard and definite guidance on managing detainees. Each soldier of the prison unit was left to manipulate its process of handling prisoners at will (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022).

4

The leadership did not show interest in establishing a uniform practice on how to handle detainees. The loophole gave soldiers and various units much freedom to deploy abusive tactics as part of interrogating or punishing detainees (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022). In this respect, the abuses would have been avoided if the military leadership in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison had communicated a standard procedure and practice of managing prisoners.

The army commanders in charge of Abu Ghraib prison did not conduct a regular and thorough evaluation of prison conditions and practices. The leadership also failed to act on frequent problems within their units (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022). The work of leadership is to supervise, evaluate situations, and make corrections where the need arises. The leadership is responsible for ensuring that the officers manning or interacting with prisoners observed best practices. However, because of the aloofness of the commanders, the abuses went on without stopping for long. The commanders failed the prisoners and the U.S. by failing to perform their duties to the letter (Sabar, 2004). Regular inspections help leaders to determine areas of weakness in the management of detainees and propose changes in tandem with the law.

The army commanders knew that it was their mandate to oversee the prison but did not take the necessary measure to assess what was happening at the facility during prisoner abuse. Oversight is critical to guaranteeing standard treatment of detainees. Facilities with poor oversight often suffer from uncontrolled mistreatment of prisoners (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022).

Consequently, the leadership would have prevented the abuse if it had conducted its oversight role well.

The investigation into Abu Ghraib abuse revealed that the leadership failure contributed to the incident. The Taguba investigation into the abuses found out that several military officers were responsible for the incident for failing to provide competent leadership (Sabar, 2004). The

5

investigation report recommended sanctions against Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commander in charge of the Military Intelligence Brigade involved with the Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse (Royal Military College Saint-Jean, 2022). The report recommended action against him for his contribution to abusive interrogations of detainees that his officers conducted. The failure of the commander to provide good leadership during interrogations was responsible for the uncontrolled abuse of detainees (Colquhoun, 2005). In this respect, the existence of reports that fault military leadership is a clear indication that leaders were responsible for the widespread abuses that happened at Abu Ghraib.

In summary, the military leadership was responsible for abuses that happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The leadership failed to perform its oversight roles well, which would have helped to avert massive abuse of prisoners. The leadership was also ineffective in training soldiers on humane ways of managing detainees, including interrogations. The failure meant that soldiers were poorly prepared to handle detainees at the time they were deployed at the prison.

The leadership also failed to act on early complaints about the abuses of detainees, providing room for massive abuse that would have been avoided if they had acted in time. The investigation reports into the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib also pointed to infective leadership as the main problem that led to the incident. The military leadership was also accused of condoning the use of torturous means to manage prisoners as part of pressuring them to share more information with interrogators. Therefore, the widespread mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib would have been avoided if the leadership had been competent.

6

References Colquhoun, D. (2005). Abuse of Prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Science, 307(5717), 1873-1875.

Royal Military College Saint-Jean. (2022). Convergence of Errors: Leadership Failures Contributing to Abu Ghraib Abuses - Blue Knight - Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean). Retrieved 14 February 2022, from https://www.cmrsjrmcsj.forces.gc.ca/cb-bk/art-art/2012/art-art-2012-1-eng.asp.

Sabar, A. (2004). Army faults leadership for abuse of prisoners. Retrieved from https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.leadership04may04-story.html.