Your editorial on the sentencing of Lynndie England for the Abu Ghraib incident was relatively well written, but showed a lack of understanding of military operations and contained some inaccuracies (Sept. 28, "Soldiers unconvincing conviction").
As a point of reference, I have spent just over 10 years in the military. For much of it I was enlisted, although now I am a commissioned officer on active duty. From my perspective, Ms. England received precisely what she deserved. Every soldier has the ability to reject an unlawful order. Although I understand that questionable orders probably will not be challenged by the average private, when an order is clearly wrong it is the soldier's duty to refuse it.
I highly doubt private England was ordered to smile emphatically or pose in the manner she did. Even if we assume the actual abuse that occurred was the result of an order she was afraid to disobey, the photographs strongly suggest that she was doing much more than following orders. In fact, she enjoyed humiliating these prisoners. This is inexcusable - period.
Finally, in your article you stated, "the grunts go to jail and the officers involved find their careers advancing." Although I will concede that it is not uncommon for officers to be treated with more leniency than enlisted personnel (wrongfully so), a very senior officer was in fact held accountable for this debacle. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who oversaw the military police at Abu Ghraib, was relieved of her command and given a written reprimand in her service record.
Although a letter of reprimand may not sound like much to someone with no military experience, such a letter effectively ends an officer's career. Once such a letter is entered into an officer's record, they will not be advanced again. It is the administrative method of ending an officer's career. Thus, it seems that the officers don't "find their careers advancing."
Photo: Courtesy of Matthew Messina, from the RMBERS' Instagram page
