Responsibility Gap - The failure of BG Janis Karpinski

Dominick

Responsibility, I've been told, should not be taken lightly. That sounds about right, but it leaves me wondering - what happens when societal norms have deteriorated to a point where responsibility is never taken at all? One can hardly read the headlines anymore without encountering an example of a public or authoritative figure refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. As Specialist Lyndie England, the infamous female poser in the Abu Ghraib prison photos, undergoes a preliminary hearing for her actions, I am cognizant of another soldier involved in the scandal. This soldier held a much higher rank than England, and although her actions were not physically abusive, they remain just as deplorable.

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was the commander of the Abu Ghraib prison. The word "commander" has a very serious tone about it and for good reason. In the Army, being in command of a unit at any level is a somewhat sacred existence. Able commanders understand that they are responsible for the actions of their troops, good and bad. They accept this responsibility with the knowledge that they alone will be held accountable for the well-being and discipline of their unit. To date, Brig. Gen. Karpinski has done nothing to demonstrate that she was worthy of holding this title.

Throughout the scandal, Karpinski has continually denied any knowledge of prisoner abuse and has claimed the proverbial role of the scapegoat. The trouble is, by virtue of her position as commander, Karpinski was directly responsible for the actions of her subordinates. To consider herself a commander and a scapegoat at the same time is an inherent contradiction. Karpinski should either admit that she did not have positive command of the prison, thereby subjecting herself to dereliction of duty charges, or drop the scapegoat claim and take responsibility for the situation. She'll likely do neither and continue her effort to have it both ways - all the privileges of command with none of its responsibilities.

So far, Karpinski has nailed the role of the detached, ignorant, and unaccountable leader. As the England hearing began, Karpinski issued additional statements, effectively adding to her streak of unabashed denial. In an interview with BBC radio, she stated that "specific measures were taken to ensure I would not have access to those facilities, that information or any of the details of interrogations at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else." Karpinski further asserted allegations that a conspiracy may have existed to keep her in the dark regarding interrogation techniques, and that senior officials in the White House and Pentagon may have been involved.

So this begs the question, why Brig. Gen. Karpinski? What reason would the Pentagon have to take part in a conspiracy against an officer legally appointed to command the prison? Karpinski seems to be making an argument that she was the potential whistle-blower in the situation, purposely kept out of the mix by her superiors for fear that she would expose the truth. As unlikely as this theory is, let's pretend that it may be true. Still, in order to ensure her complete ignorance, it would have been necessary to physically restrain Karpinski from visiting the prison during the instances of abuse. So, was Donald Rumsfeld or some other superior officer on the ground at Abu Ghraib physically preventing Karpinski from entering areas where the abuse occurred? No. In fact, Karpinski is on record as saying that "security reasons" prevented her from visiting the prison during times of abuse. Essentially, this claim outlines the central issue of Karpinski's case. And for some reason, I just don't buy it.

Let's get something straight. I've done some time in the Army and I've seen a few one-star generals. One thing I've never seen is a one-star general, command or no command, restricted from doing anything he/she wanted to do. I cannot fathom a security situation, especially in the controlled environment of a prison, which would have continually prevented Karpinski from going anywhere she pleased at any time. For me, the war in Iraq conjures up newsreel images of Colonel Perkins and Major General Blount of the 3rd Infantry Division. At least on TV, these leaders seemed to be at the front lines with their troops during some of the heaviest fighting. Contrast that with Karpinski's attempt to convince us of her inability to visit her command in a prison because of security concerns. It doesn't add up.

Karpinski's real problem has nothing to do with conspiracies or security. She lacks the integrity to take responsibility for her leadership failures. I actually believe that she was unaware of the prisoner abuse. She should be held to account for her ignorance because she didn't take an interest in the day-to-day operations of her command. Sounds a lot like some of the CEO's I've seen in the news recently. Karpinski had no idea of what was going on in the prison because she never really bothered to check. It's that simple. Her inability to admit that her detachment was a product of her incompetence is both shameful and regrettable.

The Army has a system in place to hold soldiers accountable for their actions. As Specialist England rightfully goes on trial for her participation in the abuse, the jury is still out on whether Karpinski will be called to the carpet. Amidst this uncertainty, one thing is for sure. Karpinski has yet another leadership decision to make. She can choose to take responsibility for her actions or continue on her present course. Either way, her conduct in this matter will set an example for this country. And as our society continues to reflect lower standards of personal responsibility, we need all the good examples we can get.