The wingnuts are going to jump all over this as another reason why we should be in Iraq: they'll say our enemies are uncivilized thugs who do unspeakable things to defenseless prisoners and prior to killing them force them to make humiliating videotaped pleas and confessions.
They'll also try to throw this in our faces -- that we stand silent in the face of radical Islam's atrocities, even as we vociferously criticize all the abuses committed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo.
The rhetoric is effective, because it includes a truth: the behavior of the radical Islamists is reprehensible. Still, it totally misses the point.
The fact is, Margaret Hassan -- and all the other hostages -- might never have been placed in harm's way if it were not for President Bush.
More below the fold.
This goes beyond whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Rather, Bush's responsibility here goes right to his ineffectiveness as a leader -- both in the United States, where he has presided over the greatest degree of partisan division in memory, and globally, where he has utterly destroyed the standing of the United States in world public opinion.
Bush's direct responsibility for the torture of Margaret Hassan -- and I do believe he has direct responsibility -- rests firmly on his failure to put together a viable international coalition for the war in Iraq.
Our enemies in Iraq are bad guys who do despicable things. They do deserve to have international force applied against them -- but only if that international force has sufficient legitimacy to operate effectively. Because Bush totally botched the invasion and occupation of Iraq, we have lost the opportunity to be seen as legitimate occupiers.
Hassan's disturbing video was released after the Brits decided to move 850 troops closer to Baghdad in order to support US offensive operations in the Sunni Triangle. Her torturers are clearly trying to exploit the serious political divisions revealed in the Parliamentary debate over whether to send those troops north.
If Bush hadn't messed this up, we'd have a stronger international coalition, Tony Blair would not be in political trouble at home, and there would be no incipient division for the torturers to exploit.
Does that mean they would never kidnap and torture? No, but it means they would have less of an incentive to do it in such a public way, and it means we would have a better opportunity of defeating them. As it stands now, the thugs operate with impunity and Bush is powerless to stop them.