corrente

One annoying aspect of reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal is the bipartisan fretting that the scandal has "damaged" our moral prestige in the world, as if the rest of the world had previously shared our preening self-regard. This abuse story is really only news to people who have not been paying attention, or who have conveniently forgotten. John Kerry's efforts to erase his perfectly truthful 1971 statements about atrocities in Vietnam, aided by a jingo media, are only the most conspicuous example. The CIA contra assassination manual has also apparently been consigned to the memory hole, as have the small library of books by disaffected CIA (not to mention the Church Committee report on the CIA) that document our long history of official support for atrocities abroad. The amnesia continues right up to the present: the New Yorker, one week before breaking Sy Hersh's story, ran an article on Iraq that matter of factly recounted the CV of James Steele, whose peregrinations through Central America in the 80s constitute a virtual Fodor's Guide to Third World abbatoirs. Only in a world expunged of this history could the Abu Ghraib photos come as much of a surprise.

What makes Abu Ghraib a scandal is the incontrovertible, photographic evidence; for that we have the Bush Administration's signature incompetence to thank. Surely the millions of people around the world, who have been on the receiving end of our tender mercies over the decades, do not have the luxury of our comfortable amnesia. In this regard it's like the Rodney King video, which, we should recall, only surprised white people.

As far as I'm concerned, losing our illusions can only be a good thing. The question remains how long until we once again "forget". Meanwhile, outside the United States, the Abu Ghraib story doesn't so much "damage" our reputation, as it merely cements it.