Lynndie England is NOT a victim.

I should not be blogging right now. I should be showering or sleeping right now. Had LJ not brought his 7-yr-old nephew over to stay til after 8:00 PM, had I gotten to do things in the timeframe I normally do them, I probably would be sleeping. But he did, and I didn't, and I ate dinner after 9:00 PM and now my sense of time is all befucked, and what's worse is, I'm a night person to begin with and I'm not tired. TOMORROW I will be tired. Tomorrow I will be EXHAUSTED, actually. But since Amy is out of the office for a whole week (shout Hallelujiah, come on get happy) I stand a chance of being able to have a reasonable day tomorrow, if the server would just quit fucking CRASHING.



But I digress.



RE: all the torture-in-Iraq stories: Aside from making me think But what the hell did everyone THINK was happening in those prisons? Intramural basketball and crafts classes? This is the MILITARY, for god's sake, and if you hold illusions about the sanctity, honor, and humaneness of the average member of the armed forces, then I urge you to catch the next screening of Waco--The Rules Of Engagement , which should disabuse you of that notion. No matter what you think/thought about David Koresh and his followers, the fact of the matter is that the military personnel on site during that siege made total asses of themselves--mooning the windows, playing Nancy Sinatra and "Achy Breaky Heart" at the people inside, and just generally being a pack of fools. When I see the Iraq prison pix, to me it seems all of a piece....



But aside from that knee-jerk reaction, here's what I think: In many of the most-publicized pictures, we see that same pixie-cut hairdo, that same grin, that same girl's face. She wasn't in just ONE shot, or even just a handful; she was all over those pictures. Now, in all the articles where they quote her family, or people who "know" her, they all say the same thing: paraphrased--"Oh, Lynndie isn't like that. She would NEVER do such a thing on her own. She was coerced. She was framed. She wouldn't have been in those pictures if it wasn't for that man"--the superior officer whose child she's apparently now carrying.



But here's the thing, see: First off, the look on her face is not a look of reluctant participation. That girl is ENJOYING herself. Believe me. I've seen a lot of pictures people whose heart wasn't in whatever activity they were being photographed in; even if the mouth is grinning, there's a look in the eyes that says "Get me outta here, please!" That look is conspicuously absent on Lynndie England's face. Whether she's pointing at the crotch of a hooded prisoner as he simulates jacking off, or holding the leash of another naked man, or posed with her buddies behind a pyramid of Iraqi backsides--that girl looks like she's having the time of her fucking life.



Then they try to play it off as "Oh, she was victimized by her superior officer." Well, unless I've missed a whole lot of news briefs, no one has alleged that there was any force or threat involved in the establishment of this relationship. No one has said "She felt like she had to screw him or there would be consequences." No one has shouted "Rape". So the implication here is, this woman had the requisite free will to choose to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with her superior officer--and to continue this relationship to the point that she became pregnant (despite the potential consequences to her military career!) No one, so far, has said that Lynndie England was forced to continue the relationship, or that she was prohibited from breaking it off, or that she was forced to conceive and carry this officer's child. She had the wherewithal to make those decisions on her own. So how the hell are we then supposed to believe that she wouldn't have the backbone to say, if she so chose, "No, I will not pose for your pictures"? Or "No, I will not participate in the humiliation and dehumanization of these men, even if I disagree with their way of life"?



Now, I'm sure her poor judgement, as illustrated by her relationship with her superior officer, could be seen as an indication that she would probably show similarly-poor judgement faced with the issue of how prisoners should be treated--but that's not the point I'm making here. The point here is, her supporters paint the portrait of a girl who was accustomed to speaking her mind and exercising her free will in decisionmaking. She's clearly no shrinking violet; there's every indication that she COULD have stood up, in both situations, and yet it seems she CHOSE not to. THAT's my point here.



Which brings me to the issue that most gets my goat: The image that's being spun by Lynndie England's supporters is "sweet little girl led astray by baaaaaad man". And that fits seamlessly into the Bush view of women: we're all brainless lumps of protoplasm, devoid of our own volition or moral reasoning. If we encounter good men, then we're safe (because, after all, good men will only tell/allow us to do good things); however, woe to the girl who encounters a BAAAAAD man. Since we have no good sense or intelligence to guide us, if we encounter one of these bad men, we're doomed to carry out whatever evil, twisted, unAmerican orders he gives us. According to this myth, Lynndie England just met a bad man, that's all. And he just twisted up her poor little head soooooo bad that she THOUGHT she was having fun torturing prisoners, and could smile that way in those pictures. She was really SUFFERING, though--because Lynndie was a GOOD girl.



Bull-everlovin'-crap, if you ask me. Lynndie England is not a victim; she is, however, one hell of a Bush-era Amurr'can. (After all, they're just Ay-rabs, right? Just "Sodom" Hussein's little minions, all of 'em, right?? Just "the Axis of Evil"--and scratch an Iraqi, you're just BOUND to find an al-Qaeda sympathizer. Because, as we all know, al-Qaeda was based out of IRAQ, right? and supported by "Sodom" Hussein. The House of Saud? Um....This press-conference is now over.)