From 1989 to 1992 I commanded the 372nd MP Company, the Army Reserve unit from Cumberland, Md., that is at the center of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In the years since then, I've had an enduring affection for the unit and those who serve in it. Today what I feel is a sort of sickness, and shame at having been affiliated with the 372nd.

... Various people, including the families of some of the soldiers in question, have said that the soldiers were not given appropriate training to run a detention facility and had inadequate support to do their jobs. While these statements may be true, in what Army field manual can one locate the section about stacking naked prisoners like cordwood, or affixing collars to their necks? Is special training needed to show a soldier that this sort of thing is contemptible and contrary to any standards of decency?

Further, it is no defense for MPs to claim that they were only following orders, that they were instructed to "soften up" prisoners to enhance subsequent interrogations. While battlefield intelligence gleaned from interrogations may prove invaluable and can save American lives, no officer, no sergeant, has the authority to direct a soldier to commit an atrocity or to violate the Geneva Conventions. While soldiers in a combat environment may face split-second decisions involving difficult moral choices, such was not the case here. We are confronted with picture after picture, story upon story, detailing systematic abuse and degradation by American MPs. We have a right to expect more from our military.

Those serving in Iraq, including the many reservists and National Guardsmen, deserve our respect and admiration. The men and women of our military who are serving in Iraq do so under terrible circumstances. They live each day with fear and danger, far from their families, deprived of the basic comforts of life. Their families suffer for their absence every day and each milestone missed -- a child's graduation, an anniversary, a loved one's birthday -- can never be reclaimed.

To minimize the egregious conduct of some members of the 372nd (and their superiors) dishonors those men and women who honorably serve their country. We must not, as some commentators have said, deem this to be soldiers "blowing off steam" and equate it to a fraternity initiation. To me, that sort of response dishonors those who strive each day to serve their fellow soldiers and complete their missions -- and who risk their lives to do so. A failure to condemn what is wrong is also a failure to recognize what is right -- and what our committed military men and women do around the world each day. Further, minimizing the conduct of these MPs by comparing it to the reckless and violent acts of the Iraqi insurgents is wholly beside the point. We must compare our actions to those of the men and women who have honorably served this country as soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. We must look to them, and to our own standards of conduct, and not to people who would wantonly kill and terrorize innocents. If our claim is merely that we are better than the terrorists, we leave a tenuous legacy for a budding democracy in Iraq.

The story changes so fast you can't keep up with it.

They first learned about this when the "courageous" soldier took the pictures to his superiors. And the pictures were all "personal."

But then stories came out that the pictures were ordered by MI for "intimidation" purposes.

And the ICRC reported it had told the Admin. about these problems months ago.

And it was limited to a handful of "bad apples." Except the same thing happened in Afghanistan.

And the photos were staged, not "snapshots."

And they knew something was up in November, but they fixed it. But they were surprised by the allegations in January.

But no one knew about it. But everyone knew about it, because there was a breakdown in command.

But there was no breakdown. And the Geneva Convention has always applied.

Except when it hasn't.

And we've always followed it. Except when we didn't.

And we don't abuse prisoners. Except when we do. It's not "American." Except it is expressly sanctioned by military regulations. Except it can only be sanctioned by the DoD, because Rumsfeld keeps tight rein on everything.

Except he doesn't. Because this was authorized in Iraq, not in Washington. Except it couldn't have been, because Rummy runs a tight ship.

Except he didn't know. But don't call it "plausible deniability." Because there's a chain of command.

Except Rumsfeld doesn't know what it is. He only knows about the PR campaign he's been conducting since these photos went public.

But he isn't lying. He just doesn't know anything.

But it's okay. Because he's doing a great job.

Even though everything is a shambles.

When asked by Sen. John Warner whether the ICRC's concerns had made their way to the Secretary's level, Stephen Cambone replied: "No, sir, they did not. Those reports -- those working papers, again, as far as I understand it, were delivered at the command level. They are designed -- the process is designed so that the ICRC can engage with the local commanders and make those kinds of improvements that are necessary in a more collaborative environment than in an adversarial one."

I've been hearing for days that the State Department at the highest levels (i.e., not a few lefty FSOs in the bureaucracy, but authorized at the highest levels) has been leaking like crazy against the civilian leadership of the Pentagon on this story.

And here we have it right out in the open. Powell isn't exactly saying the White House or the president is lying. What he's doing might fairly be described as walking up to the black board, writing out "2+2=" and then letting us draw our own conclusions.