A reckless assertion

Almost daily, more revelations surface of alleged abuse of prisoners by American soldiers, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, four American soldiers have been charged in the drowning death of an Iraqi detainee pushed off a bridge in January, according to the Army on July 2. Investigators have concluded that the soldiers, after stopping two Iraqi men for late-night curfew violation on January 3, transported the two Iraqis to a bridge over the Tigris river in the city of Samarra and pushed them off. 

In addition, the U.S. military is investigating new claims of abuse in secretive American jails where at least four captives have died, according to officials on July 3. This after the ever-widening Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and the controversy over whether the Bush Administration did or did not sanction the use of torture against detainees in the war on terrorism. 

Reflecting on the entire phenomenon of the abuse of prisoners in American custody, the question of why invariably arises. Why would American soldiers physically and sexually abuse prisoners in their custody? Why would American soldiers push two Iraqi detainees off a bridge, killing one? Speculations abound. Officials claim that such abuse was at the hands of a "few bad apples" in the Armed Forces. Yet, what would provoke such hostility toward the Iraqi and Afghan detainees? Is it the stress of combat? The anger at having to stay longer in on active duty than initially promised? Excess fatigue? Revenge for the attacks of September 11?

This last speculation concerns me the most. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has declared that there is no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated in attacks against the United States. Although there have been contacts between Bin Laden and Iraq, the commission stated, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Furthermore, the staff statement stated, "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." The Butler Commission in the United Kingdom has made similar conclusions about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Yet, the Administration has not backed off its assertion of "long-established ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 

As recently as July 1, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertion that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" to Al Qaeda. Speaking to Republican supporters at a National D-Day Museum, Cheney insisted that Iraq had "senior-level contacts [with terrorists, including Al Qaeda,] going back a decade." He also claimed that Saddam Hussein had sent a brigadier general from the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan in the early 1990s to train Al Qaeda in bomb-making and document forgery. This revelation, as well as others, has prompted the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission two weeks ago to urge the vice president to turn over any additional information that the panel did not have. A spokesperson for the commission said on July 1 that the staff had not reviewed any new material that had let it to revise its findings. 

This is in addition to other statements made by President Bush that, while not directly saying there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, strongly hint at such a link. For instance, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, President Bush asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." In September 2003, Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." Soon after these remarks, the President denied Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11, but said: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." 

I fear that these recent and not-so-recent assertions by the Administration has helped cement the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the minds of Americans. As early as August of last year, a Washington Post poll found 69 percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on 9/11. In addition, 80 percent of Americans said it was likely that Hussein had provided assistance to Al Qaeda. More recently, a Harris poll in late April found that 49 percent believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found," and a Fox News poll conducted in June showed 56 percent of Americans believe that there was a partnership between Iraq and Al Qaeda when Saddam was in power. 

If this perception is so pervasive among the general American public, it is not unreasonable to think that this perception also exists among American soldiers. If this is in fact true, that this might help explain why American soldiers would abuse Iraqi detainees in their custody. If, in their minds, Iraq and Al Qaeda were partners in the attacks on 9/11, then the beatings, humiliations, sexual abuse, and even murder of Iraqi detainees may have been committed in revenge for the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11. 

The soldiers committing the abuse claim they were told to do so by superiors. Yet, who told the four American soldiers to push two Iraqis off a bridge? Furthermore, no one, to my knowledge, has asked the soldiers implicated in the prisoner abuse scandal whether they were also acting out in revenge for September 11. The answers to these questions may never be revealed, but it is an intriguing possibility. And if eventually confirmed to be true, another dangerous outcome of the incessant connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda that the Bush Administration has recklessly made since soon after the attacks of September 11.

Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago physician and writer. He is author of "Why I Love the Ten Commandments," published in the book Taking Back Islam: American Muslims Reclaim Their Faith (Rodale Press), winner of the prestigious Wilbur Award for 2003 Best Religion Book of the Year by the Religion Communicators Council.