Notes on the Atrocities
Like a 100-watt radio station, broadcasting to the dozens...


Thursday, May 13, 2004  

But why did they take pictures?

I spent fifteen minutes listening to a friend detail his theory on this. His explanation: they were instructed to take the photos because, knowing that they'd eventually get leaked, they'd spark the massive horror we're now seeing. The reason was either: 1) to spark a Pearl Harbor-like reaction, riling Americans up to go kick some A, or 2) to spark a Vietnam reaction so we can cut and run without political cost.

Take a ride on a wave around the blogosphere, and you'll hear others struggle with the question:

Why isn't anyone asking how Berg went from our hands to terrorist hands? I'm not a conspiracy nut but something isn't right here.


I have to say, with my tinfoil hat at the ready, it was almost strangely too perfect--the timing, the action, the 'greater atrocity than thou-ness' of it all.

At a certain point, the effort to comprehend something of this chaos and magnitude isn't whacko at all--it's the reasonable product of a logical mind. Sherlock Holmes said something like that--eliminate all possibilities and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer.

Why did they take pictures? The cannard about "a few bad seeds" has already been shot to hell. (As the conspiracist above told me--my job has greater safeguards than that. This is the US military--you're telling me a bunch of rank privates are running around snapping pics on their cell phones of naked Iraqis and the military doesn't know. Come on.) So somehow, someone decided it was okay to at least allow this photos to be taken. Why?

I don't have a pet theory, nor have I heard a particularly convincing one (no, the "rile 'em up" hypothesis did not convince). Anyone have a reasonable guess? Or an unreasonable one that fits? I'm still waiting....

posted by Jeff | 4:07 PM |
File
archives
Blogroll and Links
Commerce