A question of morals

Ever since the release of the Iraq prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib prisoner (where US soldiers perpetuate the same horrific tortureous practices of Saddam Hussein), there have been two kinds of outcries. One is especially prominent and common, which has been the questioning of the motives of the "Coalition of the Willing". This ubitiqious denouncement is one of aghast, at how US soliders could be just as dehumanized as the very same villians they were trying to dispose of. The other kind of outcry, while not predominantly stricken with moral insinulations, is that such abuses are only "rotten apples" and that the quest still continues for the liberation of Iraq.

The details of such criticism and discussion is enveloping in many media channels, this anyone is left to his/her own discretion to read and dissect. However, this issue of morals, who is justifiably right or wrong, who deserves to wield such use, as is evident in the excuse of "routine practices for interrogation", and lastly, are morals really unsound and indiscriminated here? This isn't so much of a moral dilemma, anyone knows full well that any civilized society wouldn't condone such behaviour, rather this is a calamity of emotions, at seeing for once, how individuals very similar to us (or perhaps not), at how the social conditions of war (and a highly contestable one) are irrefragible contingent and powerful to tranform what seems "our trusted comrade" into the beast we thought we vanquished.

In my perspective, anyone who is half-witted enough shouldn't expect any better, in fact nobody should be surprised. War is as such, just as in a time of occupation, nothing extraordinarily different should be expected, The impetus is on us, and our interpretation of the consequences in this current fiasco.

Note: My next entry will coincide with my previously mentioned subject in the first entry.