Rob Blackhurst

03 May 2004

---

Last week's photographic evidence that barbarism had returned to Iraq's prisons, at the behest of American soldiers rather than Baathist henchmen, confirmed the worst fears about US military attitudes towards prisoners. After all, the Bush administration's bypassing of the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay was already well-known before American troops in Iraq subjected prisoners to mock electrocutions, sexual humiliation and a rifle butt in the groin. But it is the images of a soldier from the Queen's Regiment urinating on an Iraqi prisoner that will cause consternation at home and abroad. Regardless of attitudes towards the war, there was a sense that British soldiers behaved differently. In the words of the Prime Minister: "We went to Iraq to get rid of that kind of thing, not to do it."

Last week's photographic evidence that barbarism had returned to Iraq's prisons, at the behest of American soldiers rather than Baathist henchmen, confirmed the worst fears about US military attitudes towards prisoners. After all, the Bush administration's bypassing of the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay was already well-known before American troops in Iraq subjected prisoners to mock electrocutions, sexual humiliation and a rifle butt in the groin. But it is the images of a soldier from the Queen's Regiment urinating on an Iraqi prisoner that will cause consternation at home and abroad. Regardless of attitudes towards the war, there was a sense that British soldiers behaved differently. In the words of the Prime Minister: "We went to Iraq to get rid of that kind of thing, not to do it."

Doubts over the authenticity of the photos remain. It seems unusual for front-line troops to take their wartime snaps in high-resolution black and white, and experts have cast doubt over the prisoner's spotless shirt and the type of weapon visible. But though it matters deeply to the British Army whether this was a staged incident, for Arab public opinion it might be an academic concern now that al-Jazeera has aired the images. Even if it turns out to have been a hoax, that will have little credibility in a region where conspiracy theories (often justified, given their experience of autocratic leaders) are part of everyday political discourse.

The treatment of prisoners by British as well as American troops remains a matter of urgent concern. The Independent reported four months ago on allegations that Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel receptionist, was beaten to death in custody by soldiers from the same regiment. Six other cases officially remain under investigation by the Royal Military Police, but so far no charges have been brought, and no disciplinary action has been taken. Meanwhile Amnesty has claimed that there is evidence of a "pattern of torture" among coalition troops, including sleep deprivation, beatings and prolonged restraint in painful positions.

The "very high-level investigation" that Jack Straw promises must investigate whether the alleged incidents are the result of individual misconduct, or whether they were tolerated further up the chain of command. Soldiers freely show their faces and offer thumbs-up signs in the US photos, suggesting that they are not overly worried about the reaction of their superiors. The US inquiry, too, needs to find whether these abuses were part of an institutional culture of cruelty.

These images have grave implications for the ability of British soldiers to police Iraq. Until now, the British have prided themselves on wearing berets and patrolling on foot rather than in convoys of armoured personnel carriers. Through years of training on peacekeeping operations in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, they have developed, in the words of General Mike Jackson, "doctrinal differences" with the American military, priding themselves on fostering community relations - the rebuilding of schools and hospitals that were famously been dismissed by the Bush administration as "social work".

With these photos dominating conversation in Iraq, the ideological differences between wings of an occupying army are likely to become increasingly lost on the local population. And this could not have come at a worse time for the British. Reports suggest that the Prime Minister has decided to deploy up to 4,000 additional troops in Najaf. British troops, reaping the whirlwind of US heavy-handedness, are likely to face far greater casualties than seen up until now. If Mr Blair is to commit more troops, he must secure guarantees from Mr Bush that British commanders will have operational freedom to apply their own brand of peacekeeping, and not come under de facto US control. But the photographic revelations of the last week may already have made that task impossible.