A photograph reveals the truth, but it may not reveal everything. A documentary may well reveal the truth, but rarely will it reveal everything. The photographs of MPs and prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq set off a major controversy in America. Beginning with those pictures, Errol Morris seeks to find what is not revealed in the pictures. Standard Operating Procedure is an attempt to set a context for those pictures by speaking with many of those who were involved. The film is much like the pictures: it gives us a snapshot of history and truth, but there is far more going on than the film covers.

Morris is to be commended for trying (and to a large degree succeeding) to get beyond the photos. He speaks with five of the MPs who were court-martialed, the general who oversaw the prison system in Iraq (and was relieved of her command), a civilian interrogator who worked at Abu Ghraib, and others who were involved. It should be noted that Morris paid these people for their interviews. (Disclosing this, at the very least in the credits, would have been honorable.) While I didn't find all of those involved sympathetic, they were at least humanized. They are no longer just people in fatigues in the infamous pictures. They are people who have come back and have to live with the consequences of their actions (or inactions).

Part of what is missing from the photos is the setting they were taken in. Abu Ghraib was being shelled regularly. The soldiers there were under attack and in danger of being killed. This was war and they saw the effects off that war in other wounded soldiers—their comrades-in-arms. Such a setting can affect the moral compass of those involved. And even though the military trains well, it probably can never prepare people for what they will experience in war. The film sets the events at Abu Ghraib within that framework, not so much to offer an excuse, but that we might better understand it.

We also learn what is going on in the various photos. It often seems less menacing when we hear one of the soldiers tell what led to the photo. Sometimes it is indeed abusive, but not always. None are entirely innocent, but some make sense given the situation. The picture shows just a brief moment in time. Without knowing what led to that moment we may allow imagination to fill in the blank.

I was somewhat troubled as I listened to some of the soldiers telling about what happened at Abu Ghraib. I'd seen the photos, so I knew in general what had happened, and I had heard about some of the tactics we have used to get information. But listening to the soldiers tell their stories in such a matter of fact fashion was slightly chilling. Even those who sensed that there was something wrong with what has happening often described the events in fairly unemotional ways (except for when they have been treated badly.) The phrase that came to mind as I watched was "hardened hearts." That is perhaps a likely effect of being in war. But how can those whose hearts have been hardened be open to healing and reconciliation?

Continue: 1 2