01.29.06
Documents: US ‘Detaining’ Wives and Children as ‘Leverage’ Against Iraqi Insurgents
Well, not like I support the tactic, but now we know why Iraqi insurgents have been abducting Western journalists and demanding US forces release women detainees. Of course, this story broke on a Saturday, known in Washington as “garbage day” because that’s the day they love to dump the really damaging stories. Why? Because Saturdays have the lowest news-attention factor of any other day of the week.
The Seattle Times appears to have one of the longer accounts: US Army detained suspects’ daughters, wives as leverage (Sat. Jan. 28, 2006 - Knight Ridder via the Seattle Times). Some excerpts:
The US Army has been detaining Iraqi women to help track down husbands or fathers who are suspected terrorists, according to documents released Friday and an interview with a female detainee who was released Thursday after four months in prison.
A series of e-mails written by US soldiers and an internal Army memo, all released Friday in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, describe two cases of women who were imprisoned because American officials wanted information about their husbands.
…US officials declined to discuss specific cases, including whether the women were held solely because US forces suspected that male relatives were terrorists. But Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, an Army spokesman in Baghdad, said Friday that the US military held only people who were considered threats.
Other press reports indicate (not surprisingly) that there are more cases than the two referenced above. Meanwhile, a check of the ACLU web site today (the day after the story broke) indicates the documents and emails referred to have not been posted there yet. They’re usually pretty good about getting that stuff up, so check there soon.
Also, this Reuters fragment from the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ web site provides some additional detail, including the text of a note left on the door of one Iraqi home:
“Be a man Muhammad Mukhlif and give yourself up and then we will release your sisters. Otherwise they will spend a long time in detention.” It was signed “Bandit 6,” apparently U.S. army code, possibly designating a company commander. Several neighbours corroborated Batawi’s account of events. When Reuters called a mobile phone number left on the note, an American who said he was a soldier appeared to be aware of Batawi’s accusation but declined further comment.
This sort of thing is standard, if disturbing, fare in the counterinsurgency doctrine of the US and client states dating back to the ’70s and ’80s. But if the Pentagon theorists and tacticians think this is going to play well (i.e. in the way they want) in the Middle East, they are seriously deluded. There may be some short-term gain, but in the long run the practice will backfire just as hard as the “Gitmoizing” of Abu Ghraib did, if not worse.
And shame on the New York Times for (so far) ignoring this story.
