Charles Krauthammer explains why what happened at Abu Ghraib was such a huge setback (hopefully not permanent) to our cause.

...the torture pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison could not have hit a more neuralgic point. We think of torture as the kind that Saddam practiced: pain, mutilation, maiming and ultimately death. We think of it as having a political purpose: intimidation, political control, confession and subjugation. What happened at Abu Ghraib was entirely different. It was gratuitous sexual abuse, perversion for its own sake.

That is what made it, ironically and disastrously, a pictorial representation of precisely the lunatic fantasies that the jihadists believe -- and that cynical secular regimes such as Egypt and the Palestinian Authority peddle to pacify their populations and deflect their anger and frustrations. Through this lens, Abu Ghraib is an "I told you so'' played out in an Arab capital, recorded on film.

Jihadists, like all totalitarians, oppose many kinds of freedom. What makes them unique, however, is their particular hatred of freedom for women.

I continue to be amazed that the left, so supposedly solicitous of women's rights, continues to support these people. It brings to mind the idiocy spouted by Sunera Thobani during the Afghan war. Apparently there are no evil acts unless they're acts by the United States, and then they're evil simply by dint of the fact that we commit them.

And of course, to repeat what I said last week, it's hard to imagine how the morons in that prison could have done more harm to our prospects for a free Iraq than what they did. The sad thing is that it looks as though a lot of them were simply carrying over business-as-usual habits from being prison guards stateside, which is a devastating commentary on our own penal system.

[Update on Friday morning]

As I said, morons. I don't know if Rumsfeld should resign over this, but somebody should.

There was an interview with Peter David (The Economist) on the Today programme this morning (BBC Radio 4) suggesting, as I understand The Economist will do this week, that Rumsfeld should go.

Their key reason for this call is it is the only way they can see this actually showing that there is recognition that something must be seen to be done.

I've got a better idea. Raze the prison.

While it may bring some satisfaction (I prefer nuke the prison) the local population would just see it for the shell game it would be... the prisoner's would have to be housed somewhere.

Personally, I think the military should dismiss the members involved (all the way up the chain of command until a reasonable point) then both the contractors and the former military should be handed over to the provisional Iraqi government to do whatever is proper in their eyes.

It's time the Iraqi's began to understand they need to take responsibility for the criminal acts that occur in their own country... and help them to realize the responsibility due from the citizens of a democracy.

Personally, I think the military should dismiss the members involved (all the way up the chain of command until a reasonable point) then both the contractors and the former military should be handed over to the provisional Iraqi government to do whatever is proper in their eyes.

Whatever the merits - that will never happen.

The idea that U.S. detention facilities are outside of international law goes all the way to Rumsfeld. The abuses at Abu Ghrahir, although enhanced by the very poor morale situation there, began after General Miller (of Camp X-Ray) advised last summer
"it is essential that the [Military Police] guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees." [Taguba]
The heavy use of contrators, though it began in Bush I and gather steam in the Clinton years, was definitily heavily endorsed by Rumsfeld.
This goes all the the way up. It's time for Rumsfeld to go.

May I suggest Warren Rudman as a quick replacement?

I read Krauthammer's comments (and after snickering about Limbaugh and the mileage he gets with his femi-Nazi lines) I decided Charles is really quite accurate about this.

Often I disagree with Krauthammer but he is always intellient and since he likes Patrick O'Brian books he cannot be all bad.

Anyway, Krauthammer is correct. Islamic males will resist Westernization when it is seen as empowering their women. Therefore, the West must win this.

Yet humiliation is a great motivator and the idea that American power can be used to force the Islamic male to accept American values runs contrary to all common sense. The vast majority would rather die than be humiliated and what does Runny propose as our strategy? American boots on their heads.

Also read riverbend's latest blog.

Islamic women are not too happy about their men being humiliated even if they woud like more political equality.

The Brits saw this months ago. Take off the helmets, they said, and don the berets. But no, we Texas Yanks were too macho to do that.

Read Krauthammer's last paragaph which I interpret as follows:

An American woman leading a humiliated naked Iraqi man by a dog collar is the BEST propaganda bin Laden could ever ask for. Give in to the Americans and this will happen to you, bin Laden says.

Cooperate and their women will humiliate YOU. How can we possibly win this with JDAMs and Bradleys?

I want to know why the NEA paid all that money to folks like Mapplethorp when they could have got the same quality product for much less from these clowns who are already drawing gov't pay.

"This goes all the the way up. It's time for Rumsfeld to go."

This is a pretty serious claim. Although Rumsfeld today told congress he might have to resign over this, I don't think it's been established that he's responsible. Obviously some heads are going to roll, but when you look at what happened when that one officer shot a pistol near a prisoner to get him to talk, it's pretty obvious that military decorum has held up fairly well.

These stupid morons have given all Americans a black eye, but as yet there is no indication that this was a widespread behavior. Perhaps somebody would be willing to contradict me, but my impression is that jailers in general are not exactly the cream of the crop. Most people don't aspire to be prison guards.

I not saying that Rumsfeld ordered (or wished) these warcrimes to happen. I'm saying that policies he directed made this stuff inevitable.
The Geneva Conventions exist not just for the benefit of the enemy, but to protect yourself from yourself.

A second point: Krauthammer misses one point in his column. The sexual component made this huge in the Middle East - but also here in the States. This first came out in January - but it wasn't until the porn component came out that it became a front page story.

The Middle East is not the only region with hang-ups.

Hm. There was plenty of disgusting sexual abuse perpetrated by Saddam's torturers too, or what was all this rape I was hearing about?

And I just had another thought -- while I agree that this sort of thing doesn't help the common perception among Arabs and other Muslims that Western civilization is nothing but a giant whorehouse, I doubt that there is anything we could have done or can do against this stereotype except convert to the strictest form of Islam and cover all females in black sacking. After all, one of the heroes of Bin Laden and others, that Qutb fellow, was so incensed by seeing women with bare arms dancing with other men in public in America. It's only a short hop, skip, and jump from that to "Americans are lust-crazed fiends who will turn our women into lust-crazed fiends and then-- and then!" Impuning the overt sexuality of the enemy is one of the oldest human practices; so is impugning the lack of sexual virility and fertility -- the two positions aren't so opposed to each other as you might think, especially if you think your civilization has figured out the "right" was to control the sexual impulse, and everyone else is doing it wrong, which has also been standard human practice for all of its history up until now.