I have never fought in a war. I have never been under fire. I am not now, nor do I ever plan on being, enlisted as a member of the U.S. military or any militia. To those who hold that one shouldn’t have opinions regarding what one doesn’t "know anything about," I invite you here to relieve yourself of my ignorant rant.

Much ado has been made over the pictures of the U.S. rank and file abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, and with good reason. Certainly, such gross mistreatment of POWs should be prohibited by all civilized treaties of war, and by the simple humane conscience of a captor. However, as General William T. Sherman summed up nicely, "war is hell." As Sherman’s war of "brother against brother" evidenced, war is not civilized, war is not humane. All vestiges of chivalry and good faith on the battlefield, such as the ride to parley of 17th century generals atop their horses before leading a charge, has been disappeared since at least the first World War.

Yet the charade continues. Chivalric American knights ride forth to carry out a humane invasion and occupation, an oxymoron by definition. It may be said that the actions of those American soldiers in the photographs are not representative of our military men and women on the whole. Fair enough. Yet, may the treatment depicted in those photos towards "the enemy"really be called surprising? Has it not been the constant practice of factions at war, whether by conspicuous propoganda or barroom chatter, to dehumanize the enemy? Talk show host Rush Limbaugh likened the offenses to a fraternity hazing; implying that sexual and physical humiliations are often part of the practical joke. Sadly, it is no joke when thousands of Iraqis, military and civilian, and more than 700 American soldiers and counting since the occupation began, lose their lives to violence. It seems the "ultimate" price, as it’s been called, is the bottom line when playing this game of risk. Everything else is just gravy.

Last Wednesday, our lawmakers and elected representatives spent the day, and earned our tax dollars, filing through hushed chambers to get an eyeful of the hundreds of graphic pictures taken of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It is critically important that officials and the public understand these offenses, and identify and punish those responsible. But when the entire body of Congress is made to classify in minute detail all the myriad species of abuse and perversion that reared their ugly heads in the confines of that prison, it’s simply gratuitous. Isn’t one photo of a grinning American soldier giving the thumbs-up over a pile of beaten bodies enough to prompt our politicians to action? Weren’t there crucial issues of economy, education, or healthcare that may have warranted some attention in the House last Wednesday? To quote the words of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, "It’s a sad day when Congress is called in to see these photos." Senators Kennedy and Lott should be lauded for declining to take part in the rubber-necking. Many lawmakers revised their previous stances supporting the release of more photos to the media, citing the vulgar subject matter, and the prisoners’ right to privacy. It’s just as well. As it is, one can’t pick up a paper or turn on a T.V. without being exposed to one of the repulsive images already released. The over-inflated balloon of American democracy is pricked, the image of the American hero, tarnished.

With the beheading of the civilian Nicholas Berg, whose executioners—most probably terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – claim Abu Ghairb as their inspiration, we are provided with new images of horror to plaster across the old, effacing the memory of our own inhumanity with a similarly gratuitous display of our recent victims’. Now we need no longer labor under the pretense of America’s righteousness, we are free to play the game using all the cards, even to cheat a little, as long as our opponents are doing it. It is essentially the act of a 5-year-old child, pointing an accusing finger and protesting, "They started it!" We are also acquiescing to that nefariously equitable rule, one that has held sway over the Middle East for more than half a century, "an eye for an eye." The phrase is uniquely appropriate, for the visual image, provocative and powerful, is one of the most potent ammunitions of conflict. With this escalating volley of graphic violence, we risk slipping into a vicious cycle of retaliation, motivated by not by the desire to shed light on injustices, but by the desire for revenge. Who knows what next we will load into our weapons, or when we will be able to put them down again?

- Matt Novak