No proof Abu Ghraib photos led to military deaths

[AlexanderProgressive]

CQ reports today:

"Defense Department data and independent experts confirm there is no
clear link between the Abu Ghraib scandal and violence in Iraq. To the
contrary, U.S. troop deaths were cut approximately in half in the month
after the abuse photos broke in the last week of April 2004. Attacks
on coalition forces were higher in the first weeks of April than they were
in the 14 weeks after the scandal broke"...

...

"Drawing a connection between the Abu Ghraib photos and the lethal violence that occurred afterward in Iraq “is opinion, not analysis,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003143986&cpage=1

In response to this piece, Glen Greenwald has a message for those who defend the President's decision to maintain separate abuse photos secret::

"People who blindly accept the assertions of whoever their favored
political leaders are don't need evidence or proof. Trust and faith
suffice -- no matter how many times that mentality is proven to be
destructive."

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I have such mixed feelings on this whole thing--

Yes, the exposure of what we were doing in Abu Ghraib could very well make a lot of people in the Middle East very angry. Deservedly so, I would add. And some of those people might decide to take out their rage on innocent Americans or westerners in general. That would be a tragedy. But should fear of retaliation be an adequate rationale for a coverup? The best defense would have been not to do the crimes in the first place, and the second best would have been to deliver swift justice to those who ordered, condoned, and committed the atrocities.

[stray cat]

2. increasing peoples hatred of you and revenge are hard to prove in war

but would it really surprise anyone that torturing or treating people like less than dirt would increase a desire for retaliation by loved ones.

[Captain Hilts]

3. How could it be proven? nt