ROFASix links to this post here (I'm doing this because ROFASix got confused and left his own trackback code in there - the trackback link doesn't lead to the post)

NOTR's mileage varies from mine, and his viewpoint is worthy of consideration - you should take the time to go read it.

I'm going to post my response here - the one I left in NOTR's comments.

His last para reads:

What is clear is that this whole thing strikes me as a railroad job by a system trying to atone for its own shortfalls. I would love to buy Col. Pappas a beer to hear the “rest of the story.” I suspect it would be so much different from what we read today.

This is my response:

Pappas had access to counsel, and if he thought he had a defensible case, he could have refused the Article 15 and taken it to a Courts Martial.

While the system can grind anyone down, the overwhelming reluctance of the services to put senior officers on trial (which is misplaced in my view, but that's a different issue) suggests to me that they had a solid dereliction case against Colonel Pappas, probably via documents - unlike now-Colonel Karpinski.

Pappas is senior enough, and has probably sat on enough panels himself to know that if he took it to a Court, he was going to lose.

And, unlike that whining pusillanimous weakling Karpinski, have you considered the possibility that Pappas accepts responsibility for his actions - especially given the political and military cost of Abu Ghraib?

Pappas indeed was found guilty of choosing poorly, precisely because of the cost of his decision.

Just like, when someone runs a red light inadvertently and are ticketed for same - vice running that light inadvertently and killing someone in the process. Same action, same bad choice, same level of intent - with far different consequences. So the response of the system is far different, as well.

I stand by my earlier opinion - Good.