"The fundamental verity of the Abu Ghraib scandal is this: occupying powers fighting an insurgency that has the tacit or active support of the local population will inevitably resort to torture."
Right, so it should not be a surprise, except that we do not claim that the insurgency has the support of the locals; so far, the US has claimed that these are "outsiders," "Baathists," "Sunnis," "Al Queda" etc. Acknowledging the need for torture is acknowledging the local support. This would cast a totally different light on this "war of liberation."
But I was surprised by the "shock and dismay." as I wrote to PenL:
I would have expected the "if you want to make an omlet, you've got to break some eggs" routine. But no. So, one thing that it brings to mind is the Puritans/bearbaiting joke; that being that the Puritans weren't opposed to bearbaiting because the bears suffered but because the audience was enjoying itself too much. I wonder, if the pictures had shown hatchet-faced guards overseeing the humiliation/torture, whether the reaction would have been less "dismayed."
Joanna