Missives from the 6th Floor

I don't give up on books easily - and I certainly don't like to give up on books that challenge my views and assumptions, I just couldn't get past Zimbardo's limp-fish writing - and I couldn't face the idea of slogging through the penultimate chapter, where he "brings charges" against the Bush administration and military chain of command for the abuses of Abu Ghraib .

The first half (two thirds?) of the book was interesting. Zimbardo details the Stanford Prison, and other social psychology experiments that look into how "normal," "good" people demonstrate "evil" behaviors in the right (wrong?) situation.

If the data is as consistent as he reports (and I have no reason - other than my natural skepticism - to believe it isn't), it forces one to think hard about one's own behavior in similar situations. As uncomfortable as it is to think, I'm not sure how I would behave in the situation real or experimental - that Zimbardo describes.

The second part of the book, which examines the Abu Ghraib scandal in the context of "lessons learned" from the SPE and other similar experiments, was just difficult to read. The treatment of prisoners was humiliating - both as an American and as a human - and infuriating. The assertion by the chain of command that these were the acts of a "few rogue soldiers" is preposterous. And the acceptance of that claim by the bulk of the American population - as evidenced by how quickly the scandal faded from public attention - is saddening.

Zimbardo's repeated position was that understanding the social factors that encouraged these mis-behaviors isn't excusing them, but that understanding must temper punishment. I can't say I quite "get it." A friend drew the analogy to the degrees of murder - that the punishment for murder in the heat of passion is different from a premeditated killing. Even here, I can't quite make the leap - none of the situations Zimbardo describe are "moments of passion" - where reason is suspended and our reptilian brain drives our actions.

The other thing that the book brought forth was a frustration that the Abu Ghraib scandal was so "shocking" to the world. To be clear - I'm not excusing the behavior documented, or saying that we shouldn't be angry.

I'm saying that after thousands of years of warfare, we shouldn't be shocked.

Abu Ghraib was just the latest in a long tradition of excesses perpetrated by an invading force.

The Nanking Massacre, the My Lai Massacre, similar events during the Revolutionary War, both World Wars, in Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia.

That is war.

History repeatedly shows us that the notion of a civilized war - where opposing sides are out to eradicate one another and yet reliably play by some set of rules - doesn't exist.

Even if you don't accept the notion that the situation, or the system, play a role in enabling these acts, I challenge anyone to make a convincing argument for how to train men to be killers, put them in the line of fire, and expect them to return to gentile, civilized behavior when faced with someone who looks, speaks, or is otherwise identifiable with the group they've been targeted against.

Even if that someone doesn't happen to be wearing a uniform.

When a country chooses to go to - or is dragged into - war, this sort of behavior is de rigueur.

So should we be appalled at the behaviors at Abu Ghraib? Certainly.

Should the individuals and their chain of command be punished for their acts and lack of effective oversight, respectively? Hell yes.

But should we be surprised?

Hardly.