PunkAssBlog.com

I already referenced the Guardian article on the alleged US abuse and murder of Iraqi civilians. The killings are awful, but the cover-ups, if they occurred, are also unforgivable.

It points to a larger issue:

Mejia believes the problem is a systemic one. He points out that both the Abu Ghraib scandal and the Haditha massacre have only come to light because either locals or US soldiers took photographs of the crimes or their aftermath. If left to the army alone, they would never have been uncovered.

‘These things are just the ones we know about. Just think about how much else has gone that we don’t know about. Civilians are dying there almost every day,’ he said.

The Catholic Church has been mercilessly derided for covering up the abuse of children by its priests. Should undeniable evidence come to light that our military repeatedly covered for soldiers harming or killing Iraqi civilians, I hope they receive an even greater public shellacking. Unfortunately, even if we see those responsible for hiding the truth punished or fired, it’ll be a slap on the wrist when compared against the destruction their actions facilitated. Covering up these brutalities directly reinforces the institutionalization of the getting-away-with-it culture that has almost certainly enabled many of these crimes to take place.

Then again, that culture is exactly what one would expect from the military, isn’t it? Every boys-only club, or those dominated by men or a macho culture, seem to live by the same code. Cops, priests, soldiers, frat boys, male athletic teammates — all appear to share in the belief that solidarity amongst members comes before any other rule or value. This, friends, is the patriarchy in action.

“I got your back” is always packaged as the glue that binds a man to his compatriots. Without loyalty, without trust, no one can be expected to count on his partner when he needs him most. Even if he committed some terrible atrocity, the guy next to you would die for you (though in the case of sports teams and frats, this is merely theoretical). This dedication to one another is supposed to supercede any judgment of another’s actions.

Also, members of these clubs often claim outsiders don’t know what it’s like to be on the inside, and thus can’t be expected to grasp their choices, decisions, or stresses. And while something might appear monstrous to such an uninformed civilian, other members of the group are expected to understand where he’s coming from and cut him full slack.

The bottom line is that you can’t betray one of the guys or the whole system falls apart.

That’s exactly what scares them.

Really, this isn’t about loyalty or being good to everyone in your little clan. When a priest abuses a little boy, he betrays his fellow priests by associating them with such a crime. The same thing occurs to other soliders or cops when one of their own kills a civilian; they all look bad. When a frat guy date-rapes a woman, he risks his entire organization by creating the threat of getting caught and seeing his frat banned as a result.

If these groups were actually worried about creating a selfless culture of honorable loyalty, they would have a zero tolerance policy for these sorts of actions. Why should you let someone get away with risking everything for which the rest of you work so hard? Instead, other members would immediately cast out an offender and subject him to the legal system. Forcing insiders to comply with a strict code would be easy; membership often means everything to those who possess it, and if an action would legitimately threaten it, you can bet you would see almost none of it.

No, these boys like to be able to break the rules and get away with it. That’s what this silent loyalty buys them. The get-out-of-jail-free card that comes with membership must make a guy feel mighty powerful. Certainly it allows him to exert a measure of domination over the rest of us, whether we be an unruly civilian or his object of lust.

The patriarchy also worries that if it admitted fallibility within its ranks, it would lose moral authority. This isn’t true, of course; if priests and cops and soldiers and frats rigorously policed themselves, we’d respect and trust those in good standing much more than we do now. Sadly, though, these men are all so petrified of losing control (or worse, having to justify why they have so much of it) they can’t bear to admit one of their own erred.

Of course, if someone outside the group proves one of the insiders committed a no-no, the group has no choice but to sacrifice the offending member to the public. This is only done after every effort is exhausted to get away with it and/or deny-deny-deny, though. I’m sure the groups see this as a way to look good and gain that respect and trust from the rest of us, but the initial cover-up exposes their slimy underbelly all too clearly.

There are soldiers who would and have ratted on other soliders. There are cops inside and outside of Internal Affairs who demand their colleagues obey the law. I’m sure some frat guys don’t suck and some athletes don’t cheat on their wives. This isn’t an indictment of 100% of the members of these groups. Rather, it’s an indictment of the system in which they operate, one in which a strict code of silence forces us to judge them all by the actions of the few.

That silence aids and abets many a fugitive, and all who keep quiet bear a measure of culpability. Futhermore, the only thing a guy gets in return for shutting up is the chance to act above the law himself down the road. I don’t know about you, but anyone who wants that kind of protection is no friend of mine.