The Prisoner Abuse Issue: Analysis
Thu May 6th, 2004 23:24 MSTThe Context for Analysis
The most important fact in examining this issue is that we are at war. Many of us believe, with good reason, that this war is as dangerous to our country as any war we have fought in the last 100 years. Furthermore, the key in this war is changing the minds of those who would commit terrorist acts against us or those who would employ or aid them. This is extraordinarily important. given the newly appreciated combination of two factors: the potential capability of a few terrorists to cause vast damage possible with weapons likely to be available to terrorists if we lose this war ( nuclear weapons, possibly with additives like cobalt to create much worse fallout than normal, contagious, possibly genetically engineered biological agents, and less deadly weapons such as dirty bombs, non-contagious biological weapons, and chemical agents like “nerve gas”); and, the existence of loosely coupled terrorist movements which have the intent to cause such damage and are willing to sacrifice their lives in the process.
This situation has never before existed in the history of man.
Even those who do not believe the war situation to be as dangerous or widespread as stated above should understand that many American’s lives are at daily risk in Iraq.
1) Why this scandal is an important issue.
2) The perpetration of and the punishment for those acts, including the punishment of the appropriate members of the chain of command.
3) Whether there was a cover-up for political reasons.
4) The release of the photographs and the failure to prevent that leak.
5) Damage Control in the War on Terror
6) The Need for Interrogation
Why This Scandal is Important
The primary importance of this issue is the damage to the War on Terror from the release of the photographs. Because the Middle Eastern Islamic world counts on rumors (and hostile satellite TV) for information due to the suppression of news by its non-democratic regime, these pictures will validate any rumors of
American abuse of Arabs (or Persians or other Muslims) of bad intentions of Americans towards Iraq, of lack of American respect for Arabs. This will validate those who spread those rumors, granting additional weight to other rumors (we are there only to steal their oil, the Jews are behind this and want to wipe out Islam or drink Islamic blood, etc – the standard anti-Semitic and anti-American libels), our women are disrespectful (which, of course, they are by Islamic standards, but that one picture of the female guard pointing and mocking a male prisoner’s genitals hits right at the heart of this issue in a way very damaging to us).
In the absence of the pictures, this is not an important issue. It is a case of what happens in war – rare instances of serious misbehavior by soldiers, usually properly punished, as is in process now. It is rare because the American Armed Forces are normally very professional, but is impossible to prevent completely. Ironically, the very rarity of this action in Vietnam is one reason that Vietnam Veterans harbor much ill will towards John Kerry, because he claimed that we did far worse acts, and that they were normal, daily, and approved by many levels of command. Already, Kerry partisans are using this event to justify his 1971 statements.
Military Justice System
As far as I know, the military justice system was and is working. I don’t know the details, but those who are analyzing it need to do so without the hindsight bias of knowing that the photographs were released (since at the time of the investigation they were not). Furthermore, we must recognize that the military justice system does offer protections to soldiers (not as many as the civilian system), and regardless of their actions, those soldiers have to be afforded due process. Given the circumstances, the process needs to be reasonably transparent (consistent with our objectives in the War on Terror). Whether it should be fully transparent should depend on the impact that would have on the war, not the desires of the press or politicians either defending or opposing the administration.
Cover-up for Political Reasons
There does not appear to be a political cover-up, although I suspect some levels of cover-ups will be found in the Pentagon. The investigations were announced long ago. If the announcements did not include details, that is appropriate for two reasons: the right of even those sadistic guards to justice, and more importantly in this case, the damage the details would cause to the war effort by their impact on the Middle Eastern population.
Release of the Photographs
This entire investigation should have been classified at the top-secret level, because the resulting damage is at a level corresponding to the release of top-secret information. Furthermore, it would have allowed the proper punishment of whoever gave this to the press, which is severe for that class of information (although whistle-blower laws might have prevented the prosecution). Much of the judgment of whether classification was appropriate depends on who knew about the existence and amount of dissemination of the photographs.
However, given the irresponsible and gotcha nature of our press, this classification, had the details leaked out, would of course been criticized as a political cover-up and would have created even a larger scandal. Given the irresponsible nature of the Democrats and Kerry, much damage to our war effort would have been made from this “scandal.” Kerry is already capitalizing on this event.
Whoever released those photographs to the press caused the nation enormous damage. It is important that the individual and any in the chain who passed the information rather than reporting it to appropriate authorities be tracked down and punished (and that includes any authorities who were notified and failed to take appropriate action). Those individuals, probably without realizing it, caused the nation as much damage as the original perpetrators. They should be suitably punished. Furthermore, anyone in the command structure who knew, or should have known, of the existence and characteristics of those photographs is guilty of negligence if they failed to take appropriate action to ensure the secrecy of the photographs – including notifying their superiors and properly controlling their subordinates.
The way those photos traveled through the press needs to be reported, although I don’t know if it will. Those who chose to publish the pictures first are deserving of the condemnation of the American people, as they contributed immense damage to the war effort. The press’ job should not be to report everything, but to act responsibly. Somebody did not. Whether that somebody was American press or not is of course important, in any case.
Sixty Minutes is apparently the first source in the media. Americans who understand that we are at war should now understand that Sixty Minutes is
irresponsible and has gravely damaged the nation. I would argue that they and their sponsors should be boycotted
Of course, Sixty Minutes has the First Amendment right to produce programming which results in the deaths of Americans, but we have the right, as citizens whose lives and those of our loved ones are now at increased risk to hold them accountable for their incredible irresponsibility.. Sixty Minutes did not have a duty to publicize those pictures and should not have done so. The arrogance of many in modern media is shown by their Code of Ethics and how they actually behave regarding it.
The press’ job should not be to report everything, but to act responsibly.
The only excuse for the actions of Sixty Minutes would be an absolutely certain knowledge that the pictures would be released anyway. Even then, they had a duty, as American citizens, to notify the Administration of what was coming, in order to allow the United States to minimize the damage to our war effort. Political issues should not come into this. They should have treated this revelation the same as if they had discovered a bomb about to go
off in a military installation, except in this case, it would be a very, very big bomb.
This leads to Rumsfeld. There is no question in my mind that Rumsfeld owes America an apology. That he failed to do so in yesterday’s press conference was
wrong and worrisome. The failure to apologize was only justifiable if the apology would have damaged our war effort (which I doubt). Rumsfeld is ex-military and knows the principle that he is responsible for the failures of his subordinates. He should show it.
Rumsfeld knew that photographs existed. If he knew the nature of them and failed to take measures to assure they wouldn’t be released, he should be fired or if he is really that critical to the war error, a watchdog should metaphorically be strapped to his ankle to compensate for his obvious lack of judgment in the areas of information warfare and politics.
Bush has chosen to publicly punish Rumsfeld by reprimand. That may be sufficient. It is, for an administration that normally does not go public against its
members, a severe punishment. You don’t replace wartime leaders if you don’t have to, but let’s see the facts – to use a trite but useful phrase: “what did
he know and when did he know it,” and what did he do about it.
A careful reading of Bush’s comments today shows that he plans to have Rumsfeld remain on his cabinet, but he did not say he would remain defense secretary.
Damage Control in the War on Terror
President Bush did the right thing by appearing on Arabic television - assuming that what was actually broadcast was his entire appearance and it was properly translated. Whether he should have directly apologized or not I would leave to those who understand the various Arab cultures. I would not, by the way, listen to the Middle Eastern “experts” at most universities, as that field has been taken over by a single ideology which is anti-American.
As an aside, and as I have suggested before, diplomatic or covert action needs to be taken against media outlets in the middle east which are consistently anti-American and which lie about us. We should not do this to Iraqi media, as that would be counterproductive to the creation of democracy, unless those media directly incite violence, as Sadr’s did. But the opinions of individuals in the region are critical to the war effort. The stations which intentionally inflame our enemies with what they know to be lies, and whose reporters are conveniently present at ambushes where our soldiers are killed, are objectively agents of the enemy, are very harmful to us, and appropriate action needs to be taken against them.
If the administration is not actively working to reduce the damage from Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Iranian stations broadcasting in Arabic, then it is failing in an important theatre of this multi-theater war.
The Need for Interrogation
In a guerilla war and counter-terrorism operations, intelligence is extremely important and hard to get. On the one side, we need to encourage people to come forth, and that is done by winning trust and providing rewards and safety. Read the old Chief Wiggles blog from the time he was working in the Green Zone as an intelligence officer to get a good perspective on this.
At the same time, captured hostiles need to be interrogated. A few of the actions shown in those photographs may have been appropriate measures, if done in the right circumstances, for the right reason, under the control of well trained interrogation experts.. Every indication is that this was not the case. Furthermore, most of the actions are not permissible or, for that matter, effective. Although intelligence personnel may have been involved, they didn’t provide proper supervision or were themselves out of control.
We need to make sure that our ability to carry out hostile interrogations using powerful techniques is not lost due to this event. That would greatly increase the strategic damage to our cause, and would be the sort of improper political restrictions that hurt us during the Cold War.
Every time I think about the hypocrisy of liberalism I get so angry! We’re in a fight for our very survival and what are these imbeciles doing? Playing hard politics while our men and women are in a DESERT fighting so that can remain free to be the idiot nation that we are!
I ranted this morning in a post and I’m still feeling the residual effects.
Dear La Shawn:
Lots of us know how you feel. The residual effects get reinforced every day when more of this nonsense pours out. We’ll get through this, and so will our men and women over there. The more these idiots expose themselves, the better.
I think the fact that you’ve written such a long essay here and called for Rumsfeld’s firing, without regard to the fact he is the best Sec Def the U.S. has ever had, is a sign that we have absolutely no hope of winning this war. We are going to suck up to Arab dictators and princelings, trying to prove how noble and kind we are, until we are all dead.
I agree with your excellent post here. Reading of the lack of discipline in these troops brings to mind that they are reservists. Could it be that living primarily a civilian lifestyle impacts ones ability to switch to a full military mindset on an irregular basis.
I would agree that revealing the photos was a critical mistake by some foolish individual who probably has no concept of what America is facing in the days to come.
I would say that it could be considered even treasonous except for the fact that it doesn’t help the enemy abroad so much as the enemy within. The home grown Leftists, media elites, and anti-war sympathizers have been given a huge momentum boost to attack American means and intentions in the WoT (a la Vietman). I don’t think it affects the currently held position of disdain by most of the Arab and Muslim (and EU) world. I think Bush’s appearance on Arab TV was more than enough to put it behind us and get on with business. Here in the U.S., it won’t go away for quite some time.
One needs the value system of The West to find these images disturbing, and the imbedded non-value system of The Left to find them profitable.Kennedy and his scavenging pilot fish will chew as much as they can from this, to little effect except additional sanctimonious bloat. The system will work and the offenders will be punished to the extent they can be. And we will move on. Shall I say, our enemies will move on.
The Arab World is so habituated to this sort of thing (and much worse), that the photos will be politically useful for a while…until other events intrude. The region, is already at saturation with hatred for The West. So what? Do you think the powers-that-be in Jordan give a damn about this as they sit in the shadow of a plot to kill 80,000 people? Or Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran with restive populations or the nascent rationalism developing among the Palestinians? Or that boob Mubarak? We do see through a glass darkly in this region. Let them gloat.
There is a cognitive disturbance in The West about many things home and abroad. We are inured to the awful institutional and customary abuse of people (and corpses), in the Middle East, but “shocked” when we see the harrassment (not torture) of prisoners seized in Iraq.
There is no excuse for it, but as in all things which energize the nihilism of The Left, we have the usual spectacle of the rancid corpse of liberalism twitching once again over issues it took seriously in life. The vivid idea of Civil Rights is as dead as Ted Kennedy’s frontal lobes, but it will be dragged out for political reasons only. And that won’t fly. I am convinced that Americans are in no mood for it, and the polls show that Americans want us to be TOUGHER in Iraq.
If there was a cover-up, and Rumsfeld was a part of it, I will be first surprised, and then terribly disappointed because I like him. That’s another “so what”. No cover-up, no prisoner harrassment, no bloviating crap from The Left is going to alter the facts of history. We are at war. A War to The Death with Islamism and Islamofascism (not always the same) and that’s a fact.
My response, as the author of the above analysis
Joshua Chamberlain
I’m sorry you misunderstood my essay. My analysis called for Rumsfeld to apologize unless it would damage the war effort, and the only condition under which he should be fired is if he was negligent in allowing this information to become public - the reason being that the publication of this information was a strategically damaging event.
I now know that the information was classified (which is the best way to keep it from getting out) and I believe, although I haven’t look at everything, that Rumsfeld was not in fact negligent.
I don’t know if Rumsfeld is the best Sec Def or not. I was a soldier under MacNamara, whom a lot of people thought was brilliant, and he was a disaster. In fact, he has been a disaster in everything he has touched since.
Rummy is very smart. Rummy is doing the right thing in shaking up the military. He may have made some critical mistakes - for example, refusing to increase the size of the military, which I think should have been started before the end of 2001.
I suspect Rummy is a very good SecDef. I don’t, however, know that for a fact.
My article is an analysis with a number of “if’s” in it because of information I didn’t have when it was written or still may not have. Please go back and read it again. The only issue that I consider to be important in this whole affair is how much it damaged our war effort, who failed in their duty to stop that damage, and how to prevent it in the future. If the pictures had not gotten out, this would not be an important issue. This is not to minimize the bad behavior of the soldier involved, but to point out that it would be an instance of a rare, but never completely preventable failure of military discipline and plain humanity, and the military already has the mechanisms in place to deal with these issues.
We are now in a world where information can spread much more easily. The Pentagon has much to learn about how to operate in this environment. This is an example of how they failed to anticipate (or prevent) one consequence - one which is strikingly damaging.
Now that I know the information was classified, I advocate that an immediate investigation be launched into how the information got out If that involves subpoenaing 60 minutes and other new media personnel, so be it. If they refuse to answer, they should be jailed. To head off the usual First Amendment jacks-in-the-box, I should point out that the First Amendment prevents prior restraint but it does not protect news sources, as has been established with plenty of precedent. Frankly, if those reporters go to jail rather than behave as citizens of this country rather than free riders, I won’t shed a tear. Their action was damaging to the nation in a time of war. Obviously whoever released that classified information should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law (if it was a civilian) or the UCMJ if military.
Sammy Small
You raise an interesting question. I was a reservist for a while. It is more casual - or at least was in my Naval Air units. However, it is my understanding that when reservists and guardists are called up, they are put through indoctrination before being sent out. Furthermore, because of this tendency, military discipline in those units, once in the field, should be strongly maintained. As I put it to a former bosun’s mate (swift boats, very anti-Kerry, btw), if the soldier’s are not complaining about “chickenshit” requirements, the discipline is lacking. In other words, they should have daily musters, with uniform inspections. They should strictly obey all military courtesies (saluting, etc). They should have barracks inspections. They should even have marching drill if there are discipline issues. These processes are used simply to enforce the idea that they are no longer civilians. Uniform inspections, for example, have no military value except discipline. They are a pain in the butt that reminds you who you are. I say this as a former relatively low ranking enlisted man (ATN3) .
One of the other issues that you and Rhod bring up is the issue of the home grown left. Their actions are extremely unhelpful. I have already received word of a “recall Rummy” blogger initiative. When I find out more, I will oppose it unless I hear something a lot more damaging than what I heard today (which left me with a better impression than when I wrote my worst case “ifs” in the analysis. The left either doesn’t realize that we are in the most dangerous war in our history. Or they imagine somehow that the Democratic Party is more competent than the Republican Party, when the Democrats have been in the control of blame-America-first people who are naifs and fools in the world of war and international diplomacy, who are quite likely to put European values ahead of ours, and in their gut they know we are wrong. They have desperately put their hopes on John Kerry, whom of every American in the country I consider to be the second least qualified (the first is Jane Fonda). John Kerry is a veteran of 4 months of combat, and many years of Senate activities fighting against our ability to defend ourselves and having a remarkably non-distinguished career (see how many bills have his name on them). John Kerry turned strongly against his country (not just its policies) in his activities with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, meeting with the enemy and then spreading their propaganda (almost totally lies) as far and wide as he could, including his .notorious 1971 Senate speech, where he actively gave aid and comfort to the enemy,
Rhod
I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of these pictures. There is one photo in particular that is particularly damaging by the value system of many middle eastern peoples: the one showing the female MP laughing while pointing at the genitals of a prisoner.
People in general are very sensitive to humiliation. Middle eastern “shame” cultures are especially sensitive. Furthermore, even showing a woman in a position of power over a male is extremely offensive to many there - these are people whose culture often results in father’s killing their own daughters as result of that daughter bringing shame. In colloquial terms, they have a serious sexual hangup. In practical terms, showing that one picture to a young Arab or Persian is likely to cause him personal feelings of humiliation, which is easily replaced with rage and hatred. It is the best recruiting poster the terrorists could have asked for.
All
I personally admire Rumsfeld. I sometimes worry that he is too overconfident (like MacNamara was). But his initiatives make a lot of sense, and his memo he sent out (that was leaked) showed a true leader - asking his subordinates to tell him if he is wrong in his thinking, to think “outside the box,” etc.
I hope that what I have seen today is correct. I hope that he has not misjudged the number of troops required. I hope he sticks around.
I am chilled by the implications that these photos were classified ie official photographs. Are we supposed to be the good guys?
The Prime minister of Australia had annouced that we were to increase the number of troops from our token of 800. This may make it very difficult for him. Tony Blair may be booted out as a result. The next prime minister of Britain might pull the troops home.
We have to be the people in white hats even if it means taking losses.
As to whether there are enough troops, New York City has force of police and support of 48000. They don’t need special logistics to feed and house them. New York might have problems but only the police have RPG’s there and not every male over 12 years posesses a AK. Shinseki reccomended 250000. Where are the troops going to come from? How is the war going to be paid for?
ed
There were not official photographs. They were classified as part of the investigation. How could you possibly imagine that that sort of behavior would be official?
We are the good guys. But we aren’t perfect.
Get over it.
As to the rest of it…
You have not grasped that we are at war. In a war, yo udon’t ask how are your going to pay for it. You ask what sacrifice is necessary to get it done. It’s that simple.
Iraq is one theater in the war. There are difficulties there. We could easily compensate for our lack of forces by being less careful about collateral damage.
When we get hit again by Al Qaeda, then you will understand that we are at war. When you see 100,000 Americans die of poisoning, or a city disappear in a nuclear flash, then more Americans will get a clue. We are in that war now. The enemy has much worse intentions than what I just described and has the capability to kill us in large numbers right now.
After the next hit, people won’t worry about Abu Ghraib because they will be out on the street with their personal weapons hunting down any poor soul who looks muslim, with the national guard herding the muslims as fast as possible into concentration camps, both for their safety and so they cannot hurt us.
After the next hit, one question that a few people will ask but not many will care about is how much impact the increase in global radioactive fallout will have.
After the next hit, nobody is going to worry about this crap. The military will be the only ones who treat prisoners well, on the days they don’t just shoot them rather than take them prisoner.
After the next hit, we won’t have urban combat. If bad guys are in a city, we will simply destroy as much of that city is necessary. We won’t have troops in there, except to pick up the pieces and pull blood stained intelligence documents from the wreckage.
In World War II, we gave people medals for burning to death over 100,000 people in Dresden. Whether we took POWs or just shot them was somewhat dependent on the mood of the troops. The only anger and disgust that was heard was when the enemy did something bad.
We have had 50 years of relative peace where we lived in a phoney peace caused by nuclear deterrence (except for those of us who went to the “little” wars like Vietnam). We had time for our leftists to polish their “consciences” to a fine sheen, except you could only find the color red in there. We had time to believe that we were better than we used to be. we had time to develop a philosophy that we were the bad guys.
The next big attack and anyone who dares say that will discover cause a revival of the old practice of tar and feathering. A news outlet that does something as irresponsible as publishing the Abu Ghraib pictures will find itself with no customers at all. That’s if they are lucky.
Just because all our lives we have lived in this happy land does not mean it will last. Just because we were able to keep people from attacking us at home, doesn’t mean that terrorist attacks in our shopping centers and office buildings won’t become daily events. 9-11 should have taught us something - hell, the first WTC attack should have taught us something.
Hi John:
I understand the nature of a shame culture. I also understand that guilt cultures are superior to shame cultures. Shame societies are propelled by so many marginal and ineffable urges that it is impossible to predict them, control them, prepare for them or rationalize them. They are also inherently dangerous and in permanent competition with The West. The Judaeo-Christian pathway has led to a hesitant conscience, which forestalls action, where shame-driven populations are capable of anything as long as the action isn’t made public. In this world your neighbor will steal your lawnmower, eat your dog, peak at your wife in the shower and then be crushed only if you catch him at it.
The Arab World didn’t bat an eye when four American corpses, with burned body parts dangling from them, were hung from bridge cross-members. If they coalesce, bat an eye and fight harder because of photoes of a female mocking a male Arab, then this is a bizarre manifestation of a culture that needs to have its collective ass kicked anyway. The Japanese found this out, too.
Part of this war is to Westernize these cultures whether they like it or not. I know that will set Leftist hearts ablaze with indignance, but there are layers upon layers of resistance required from The West now. In strict evolutionary terms, WE are the ascendant culture. They are the inferior and retrograde culture, the pestilence spreading throughout the civilized world.
We neither have the luxury or ability to control the ground we fight on or the reasons we fight there. Consider the type of anti-semitism abroad in the Middle East, and the German kind looks gentle and sane by comparison. Among the twisted and knotted mental quirks of Arab culture is this masculine-feminine thing. Too bad. Images like these are so easily faked that if they encouraged recruiting, the enemy would be doing it now.
Personally I wouldn’t care if they expressed it locally and it ended there. But it is a piece of why they hate us…our “gender” attitudes and they have internationalized this prejudice anyway. If they need to get angrier, they just have to read Cosmo.
I just put a post on Roger Simon’s blog, and now coming here, I find that I’m compelled to post a similar one here.
One man there, Rick Ballard, made the point that you will not find any middle east countries allowing their shortcomings and failures to be publicly displayed by their own media, nor will they apologise for anything. I have for days been thinking along similar lines on something that is absolutely missing in all the coverage that the prison scandal is receiving.
First, when this story first broke, there was very little play given it in the media of Islamic nations, in spite of their animosity toward us. And that cannot be discounted! This is because what was coming out was practically nothing, in comparison to how the prisoners of their own prison systems are treated. And, of course, they don’t want any focus on their own mistreatment of prisoners. This is not to minimize the actions of our own prison guards there, but simply by way of giving it some perspective.
Second, what we are seeing here is not simply the left wing press and politicians leaping on a subject with glee in hopes of gaining political leverage here in the politics of our own country, though that absolutely is a large part of it. But rather, what we are seeing now is actually one of our most shining examples of American Idealism! We are a country founded on great hopes and ideals, and I thank God that the hope and dream of attaining to those hopes and ideals still carries through to the present day!
Over and over we have amazed the world through our propensity to display our greatest failures for all the world to see; to replay them over and over in our books, television, newspapers, and governmental hearings. Just look at the scandals played out for all to see of the past three decades alone: Watergate; the Pentagon Papers; the Gulf of Tonkin incident; The Iran/Contra affair; (I still think Oliver North, who I admire, should have suffered some form of punishment for selling arms to the enemy;) the sexual scandals of Clinton, and now this.
You don’t find any such equivalent tendency in the Arab world, or any Islamic nation. You never saw any such thing in the old Soviet Union, and you certainly don’t find it in any of the remaining communist nations.
There were hopes and ideals built into our national psyche far above what is generally found in the population at large, right from our beginnings. They were layed out by our founding fathers, and by our founding mothers too through their influence on the men whose names gained prominence in our struggle for freedom. They were spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, and in the debates in the public meetings and the press beforehand; and they are spelled out in our Constitution, drafted a decade or so after our independence was achieved.
These hopes and ideals have always been higher than our own actions, not expressed as a means of covering our shortcomings, but set forth as goals to strive to realize. That is what made America the pinnacle of the world’s hopes and dreams so that citizenship here is the most sought after in all the world by those who seek freedom, security and a place in which one’s family can strive to make of their lives all that they are able.
Warts and all, America is still America. This scandal must play out. But it is up to Americans who realize what America truly is meant to be to insure that our focus on the bad doesn’t bring us down. We have to go on, striving to insure as the Preamble to our Constitution says, that we “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.”
Let’s keep our ideals firmly in mind, even while knowing that they are ideals and as such are still largely unattained to their full degree. Let’s strive to insure that those who are in power and/or who are in a position to influence those in power also keep them in mind, even while keeping in check those who strive to make political hay out of it to further their own selfish political agendas. And let’s persevere, too, in continuing to strive to bring those same ideals to the Iraqi people as well, and through them, to all the Islamic people of the world.
Henry
Henry Rhea
I must respectfully disagree.
Your ideals are noble. Our enemy’s are not.
This probably should not have been a scandal, unless there is a general pattern of breakdown of discipline in the treatment of prisoners. Americans have great ideals, but we are not perfect.
This kind of scandal is a political process where various players leak and publish information over a period of time with the intent of damaging a particular individual or party. We have a sad history of those. These scandals almost never improve our nation.
But when we are at war, they can be vastly more deadly to us.
You are analyzing this solely within the context of its impact on our society. Your analysis is mostly correct, but with the wrong context, is unfortunately irrelevant. If it were not for the impact on the war on terrorism, I would consider it just one more unfair election year attack by the democrats and their lapdog press on republicans and the military.
As a practical manner, I don’t think it should have had any impact on our society, because there is nothing surprising in it, nothing we could change to prevent it (although we will try) and nothing close to the scandal of homosexual rape in our own prisons. The only thing that makes this special is that someone leaked classified photographs to an irresponsible media.
We are in a war to the death, not a debating contest, an encounter group or a civics class. I really don’t care that much about it’s impact on the American people. I care very much about it’s impact on Muslims.
One can attempt to deny the damage that this has done, but it has done damage. Just read the article on this subject in Healing Iraq to see it’s impact on an educated, well intentioned, modernized and formerly friendly Iraqi dentist. Zeyad is a modern young man. He is not an Islamist. He wanted to be friends with us and cheered on our efforts, even though his cousin was apparently murdered by our soldiers (in an unfortunate harrassment incidient where death was not the intent, an incident which has been verified, although the death has not been verified to the satisfaction of our investigators - last time I heard about it). In spite of that event, he recognized that it was a fluke. Read what he says now.
Finally, your analysis is well written, well reasoned, and in general a fine piece of work. I just think that it misses the critical issues.
Rhod
I agree with your analyses of the culture, although I am not convinced that we are in the ascendancy, given the deterioration of our own society. But that aside, you don’t westernize somebody by humiliating him horribly. You don’t provide ammunition that skilled agents of the enemy will use to influence young men to attack us.
I think we have two choices:
1) Our current approach, which is to first democratize, and then let the nature of Democracy lead to the westernization. The Baath parties actually succeeded in that to some degree, which is one reason a lot of the professional class from Baghdad have more sophisticated attitudes and less of the “blame culture” hangups. They still have the culture in their heart, but their brains have largely overriden that. This is one reason that Zeyad’s reaction is worrisome. Hopefully he will reconsider.
2) If the first approach does not work, the only alternative I can see is forced “de-Islamization” of the entire world. We do not have anywhere close to the political will to do that, and will only achieve that will if we are hit with more and deadlier terrorism in our own country.
But the second approach has a number of terrible implications. It means mobilizing as much as we did in World War II, because we will have to conquer and control much of the world. It means nuclear war against our enemies (and if we don’t do something soon, they will have the means to retaliate against our cities). It means we will have to kill hundreds of millions of people. And it means that there will still be terrorism for at least a hundred years after that as a result.
If you can provide an intermediate scenario, I’d like to know what it is.
Henry:
Your post was very moving, and I have no qualifiers for it, no exceptions, because I think what you describe is simply true. But I am not so sure it is as widespread as you believe it is. John’s previous post, mentioned another potentiality for us, too. A no-holds-barred war, where the things you describe will be episodic and not the norm because we will cry havoc. I’ve seen both sides, as John did, in Vietnam. I think our experience there colors our thinking now.
In contrast to your view, John mentioned the 50 years of “peace” assured by MAD, and the simultaneous and puzzling development of a counter-intuitive philosophy on The Left which held that WE were the bad guys. Why, besides the bizarre ways that decadence expresses itself would ANYONE in The West believe this?
I concluded years ago that the dazzling stupidity, complacency, and complicity of The Left (its infatuation with Marxism, for example), where it wasn’t simple cowardice, it provided the same kick that smoking behind the barn did for an earlier generation. For people gentetically lacking in the courage to test themselves in real danger, vicarious thrills are the only thing available. The educated classes found more sophisticated and spurious ways to smoke behind the barn, and had the company of other misfits like themselves, making mate selection easier. Leftism is an evolutionary mechanism enabling the weak to perpetutate themselves. I mean that. There is less of it today simply because of the pseudo-risks available in extreme sports.
Late post-industrial society has created a whole LOT of these weak and blinkered “thinkers”, who believe none of the things Henry said, except where a little pretense is expected. These people will never fight, but frightened enough by events, they will accede to a brutal war fought by others. Instead of proxy wars we will have proxy warriors.
I love your blog and I understand where you are coming from.
Every war has to be paid for, both in blood and money. (The rest of the world is trying to figure out how any advanced culture could cut taxes and go to war at the same time.) Some of the economic issues that trouble the USA today stem from the costs of the Vietnam war.
Currently in Arizona the tax on gasoline is estimated to be 37c per gallon. Would you be prepared to pay the Australian level of tax of $1.40 per gallon to pay for this war? Are you prepared to send any or all of your children overseas for two years to fight this war? (Both you and I are over 40). For those who read this under 40 years of age are you prepared to go overseas and not be a remf? Are you prepared to act in fashion that is not in accordance with your religious beliefs to prosecute this war? Are you prepared to accept that your government may hold a large amount of information about you including who you associate with?
John has argued correctly that cost of failure would enormous if the wrong sort have got hold of a working nuclear weapon. All I have tried to do is to give you some idea of what I think will be required. My major criticism is that this war is being fought in military terms when it is largely political and economic. To win you have fight smart not just strong.
ed
Thanks for your comment. Remember that under Reagan we fought a much more expensive war (the dramatic buildup of our military along with lots of expensive R&D) after cutting taxes. Our country prospered.
Supply side economics, within appropriate limits, works fine. The tax reductions still leave us with higher taxes as a percent of GDP than our historical average - 14% higher. As our GDP grows we will greatly reduce the deficit.
We really don’t have economic problems stemming from the Vietnam War. In fact, our economy is doing very well right now, and expanding rapidly.
Government debt is very different economically from personal debt, but the best measure is the debt as a percentage of GDP. We are in good shape there.
Would I be willing to pay the tax to pay for this war? Yes, if I thought it was the right way to finance it, which it isn’t.
Wuld I be prepared to send my children overseas to fight it? If I had a child of that age, I would , with great worry, do so, although it would be especially hard since I only have one child. I believed in and volunteered to fight in the Vietnam War myself. As it turned out, I ended up an REMF Vietnam Veteran. I had a combat specialty that I worked hard to earn (P-3 Orion radio operator/ on-board technician / on-board instructor ) - I trained some of you blokes) but didn’t actually end up in a combat assignment. This war is far more important.
If I didn’t have a family, I would be in Iraq right now helping the Marines build their TV stations, or some other job that my engineering, technical and programming talents make me eligible for. That isn’t an idle statement. My wife sensed the desire in me without me even saying anything.
I don’t discuss my religious beliefs or lack thereof with anyone.
I am perfectly happy to let my government hold a large amount of information on me and who I associate with. They have certainly had it in the past, when I had security clearances or because of security clearances of others I was very close to. Furthermore, much of that information is available to commercial organizations, so why not the government. In fact, you may find interesting the fact that I advocate a surveillance society - see this and this.
I would disagree with your final assertion. This war is essentially a psychological war. It is an attempt to plant a viral democracy in the middle east in the hope that it will spread and remove some of the root causes of terrorism. This means we have that among other things, the attack on Iraq was necessary in order to show adversaries that not only are we powerful, but that we are so serious about our defense that we are willing to ignore the United Nations (a corrupt organization that we now know would never have approved war due to the conflicts of interest of France and Russia).
Libya got the message. Apparently so did Sudan.
On other fronts, we use other techniques. For example, we have advised the Chinese that if they cannot keep North Korea from being a nuclear state and weapons proliferator, we cannot keep Japan and Taiwan from becoming nuclear armed. It may not have been an accident that a huge train full of explosives, near the Chinese border, blew up around the time Kim Jong Il was supposed to be traveling through, a fact known to the Chinese since he was returning form Taiwan.
I am curious why you ask all those questions. What does sending my child overseas have to do with political and economic war?
By the way, nuclear weapons are not the most dangerous threat. Genetically engineered biological weapons are potentially far more dangerous. For example, smallpox (which North Korea has), with the ILK4 gene added, would probably kill most of the people on earth. In mouse experiments with a different orthopox virus, even most vaccinated mice died when ILK4 was added.
Since our enemies are willing to go back to the dark ages, and are willing to die for the cause, the release of such a weapon is not illogical as it would be with a normal state actor.
One more thing. Before I payed the gasoline tax I would remove a number of very expensive subsidies for big business - especially farm supports. I would reduce welfare benefits. Right now, out defense budget is only about 3% of our GDP. In World War II it was over 30%. We have a huge margin if this war goes to the hard-war scenario.
Now, since you are also at risk in this war, and your country has been a target and will be again (your good works in East Timor are enough to set off these crazies), please answer your own questions.
Furthermore, I do not believe that we are “too military” in this war.
We had no choice but to destroy the Taliban. The fundamental principles of geopolitics require retribution for an attack like 9-11. Furthermore, only the physical occupation of Afghanistan would disrupt Al Qaeda.
We also had very strong reasons to take down Iraq. As I mentioned, one of them was demonstrating our willingness to do so. Throughout the Clinton years, I argued that if we did not put troops on the ground, in mortal danger, and defeat some Islamists or others, we would be viewed as weak and terrorism would escalate.
On 9-11, I was not surprised that we were attacked in our homeland and I was not surprised at the number of dead. I was only surprised about what day it was, and the method of attack. The 1993 attack on the world trade center showed that the Islamists were willing to break the consensus terrorist paradigm (high publicity low casualty attaccks) and kill as many as they could. That attack was intended to kill 100,000 people. It was a declaration of all-out war that the administration in power failed to recognize.
We had a number of other good reasons to take down Iraq. The most important was the possibility of them providing either WMDs or WMD training or both to Al Qaeda. We knew they didn’t have nukes, but they had a long history of chemical weapons and biological weapons, including Anthrax. We were attacked with Anthrax also ihn 1991, which had been partially weaponized in a way we did not know how to do. We still don’t know the sources.
In addition, Iraq was engaged in daily acts of war against us, attempting to shoot down our aircraft. The no-fly-zone operation was very expensive and likely to generate a sudden crisis when a plane went down either to hostile file or accident. Furthermore, Saddam being able to shoot as us every day added to the negative side in psychological war - it allowed us to be painted as cowards.
I could list more reasons, but if you look around at this blog,you will find them.
So what are we doing that is too much in military terms, and what give you the idea that we are not operating in the other domains? You might imagine what Ghadaffi might say if you asked him about our strategy. Watch the Sudan closely also - things are happening there that are in our favor. It is not a coincidence given that we have forces very close to them, including offshore, we have humanitarian reasons to overthrow their regime, and they have a past history of working with Al Qaeda but also a past history of trying to sell out Al Qaeda.
We aren’t perfect, and I think we are not putting enough effort into the psychological warfare front (I would have covert operations working to defeat the effectiveness of hostile propaganda, including Al Jazeera, by coopting them or causing them to disappear from the airwaves).
John:
You asked me for my idea of an “intermediate scenario” arising from, I think, a mixture of the problem of the “atrocities” combined with the full problem of this culture collision in the Middle East.
I think all of us start with impressions and reason back to logical constructions to uphold what we already concluded intuitively (or emotionally). I didn’t believe from the beginning that there would be a Pavlovian response in the Middle East to the apparent humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. Why? I’m not sure, except that every human being and every human setting is so complicated that anything you say about it is both true and false. Sure, the issue will be used by opportunists but I see more of that in The West than in Iraq.
I also don’t give a damn what individuals or groups in the Middle East think of this matter. And if they are galvanized to fight because of this event alone, then the complexity of war would have offered something else to them along the way anyway. We can posture about our moral and political superiority as a Tactical matter, but our Strategy is to win, and this is just a bump in the road. We aren’t the good guys. We have an evolutionary goal, not exactly Social Darwinism but close enough, which is to continue as the ascendant culture. More on that in a minute.
Mark Steyn’s observation is that Osama and his type have a bet with The West. That we will run away. Most of us on this site have dismissed that possibility and claimed that we will fight to the death…UNTIL something like this casts us as the guys in the black hats. Seems like we will only fight to the death as long as we are the good guys. When we aren’t, we descend in a trough of despair about our motives, our capabilities and our self-advertisement. We’ll gaze at our navels until a bullet passes through from behind. Screw that and screw the Iraqi prisoners. We bombed Dresden because we were, at least temporarily, convinced that destruction anywhere, in any degree, was a step toward victory. We need at least some of that thinking now.
You asked me about ascendance. Are we the ascendant culture? I agree that the rot in The West goes pretty deep. But as someone else said (I wish I had) that the Middle East can produce people who fly planes into buildings but they can’t build a plane. They can make car bombs but not cars. Islamism is coincident with poverty and despair or the other way around. It doesn’t matter. We are still ascendant in every category that matters, in Art (even there) technology, science, medicine, you name it. Without the complexity of Western Culture, there would also be no Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else that relies on everything from aspirin to sewing machines produced in The West. “We” are everywhere. The Middle East isn’t non-Western, it is anti-modern, which is different.
I also don’t care about Democracy in Iraq. Democracy is a side effect of regulated pluralism and a system of law which balances competing interests. Without this nothing else can happen, especially a system for putting people to work, which is the worst problem among Middle Eastern populations. Unemployment.
Finally, I think the great unexamined systems issue here is that every pseudo-modern country in the Middle East is held together by WESTERN money, technology, ideas and influence but governed by corrupt and cynical cabals. Without The West they would again be covered in sand. We don’t understand how deeply we have penetrated these societies already, or how false or durable political conditions are in the Middle East. We can pay attention to the Zeyads of Iraq out of courtesy, but the game is being played out on the battlefield. IX was right to this extent. Until they are subdued militarily, nothing else of importance can happen.
John:
I think my last post satisfied me, but didn’t answer your question. And I’m sure I don’t have the answer because no one does.
I didn’t know that you believed that a failure to democratize Iraq would leave only the alternative of de-islamization of the entire world. I have never thought that far along as a possibility. I am more inclined to the view that the agonies of the Islamic world are anomalies.
I think the book entitled “The New Map” or similar title, develops the theory that the problems in the Middle East arise from resistance to globalization. The author calls these trouble spots “The Gap”, cultures resistant to modernization rather than Westernization in general. Globalization has provided them the technical and strategic ability to reach into our cultures with violence, and our response must be to reach into theirs with the same thing.
Along with this argument is the view that these cultures are already moving in our direction, and the resistant factions are on a road to nowhere. I’m tempted to accept a Containment Theory here, but that only works if they aren’t blowing up your cities.
Rhod
I may not have stated it clearly, but the only option that I see other than a full scale war of cultures (with hundreds of millions dead) is psychological warfare, waged well. In that scenario, military operations (other than those necessary to remove significant threats) become a tool in that overall approach, rather than a sufficient by itself approach.
I believe that democratization, if it works, is the most effective way to do that, because it taps into a deep human desire for freedom, a desire that exists in many Muslims, especially in Iran, which coincidentally is one of the greatest dangers to us.
Democratization is “viral” in the sense that it spreads itself. So is radical Islam. Think of democratization as a phage which destroys the Islamist bacteria.
While I have a strong desire to see many Iraqis achieve freedom and prosperity, I don’t let that cloud my vision. We are in a war to the death with radical Islam. We may in fact be in a war to the death with Islam, itself. We may not - it is always hard to judge the power of some of these ideas.
Combined with the incredible danger of relatively easy to transport WMDs, and the many potential ways that terrorists can get hold of them, we must succeed in removing the motivation of the terrorists. If we do not succeed in that which creates terrorists (and that motivation is complex, but ultimately involes radical Islam, critical because it provides the feeling of righteousness and the “courage” to commit suicidal attacks), we will be unable to stop megaTerror attacks in our homeland.
It won’t take more than one or two more mega-terror attacks before the leftists and anti-war types are completely marginalized. People will not only want safety, they will want retribution. And they will support, and probably demand nuclear war. The signs in the street marches will say “nuke ‘em.”
This is why I am so concerned with staying the course (with appropriate steering corrections) in Iraq, even if it costs 10,000 American lives. I fear, however, that we don’t have the national will to do so.
Rhod:
Thanks for your thoughts pertaining to my post. You and John both seem to have similar beliefs in the ideals of America that I hold, but if I’m reading you correctly, seem to incline toward the view that those ideals are now irrelevant in the face of the practical measures necessary to prevail. If I am correct in this, and YOU are correct in your assessment, then it would appear to me to follow that America has already proven to be a failed experiment in the ideals of our country’s founders. But I refuse to accept that.
I understand fully what you each have said concerning the degeneracy of our society, and in large measure have to agree. But I cannot accept that we who still hold to the original ideals must abandon them now for expediency’s sake in order to survive. Of what possible use or good are ideals if one has to abandon them in order to win?
One of you mentioned psychological warfare and its importance in this war on terrorism. I believe that that is precisely what the debates, the speeches, the pamphlets such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” were, leading up to our Delaration of Independence. To truly win the hearts and minds of others, they must become convinced that your ideals are superior to the ideals that they and/or their leaders have held. We have no better weapon available to us than the noblest ideals that led to our nations birth.
If we are in the minority today in our own country, well, so were Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Gouvernor Morris, Thomas Jefferson et al. If the post industrial left has captured the minds of our youth so that the original ideals of America exist only among a few dinosaurs such as ourselves, then we simply have to win them back! We have to fight a two front war, not only for the hearts and minds of Islamics, but for the hearts and minds of our own countrymen as well! In that, we are little different from those who grasped the vision of America as an ideal of human liberty and self governance back then, for they too had to fight a two front war. They had to fight a psychological battle of ideas to win the hearts and minds of their countrymen in order to plant the seeds of liberty in their minds, and they had to fight the armed might of the strongest nation on the earth at the time.
Ideas are our only means of true victory, for victory through coercion will only lead to settling for an existence of uneasy relative peace and continued acts of terrorism. And the cost of that may well be in the hundreds off millions of lives that John speaks of, in the nuclear holocast of everybody’s greatest fears.
This doesn’t mean that I am for abandoning our military efforts, by any means. It means that the military efforts of the America I want to see emerge would be as a supplement only to our greatest weapon, our ideals. Today, those ideals have given way to expediency, and too many who have in the past and who do today hold the power have a greater belief in what they call practicality than they do in the ideals to which they give lip service. And this is what our enemies and even our friends have been saying for more than 50 years.
Ho Chi Minh used to like to ask Americans with whom he came in contact, “Is the Statue of Liberty still standing? Sometimes I think that she must be standing on her head.” In his early manhood, he first approached America for aid in freeing his country from the colonial grasp of France, but France was our ally and he was given short shrift. It was then that he turned to the communists who were only too glad to embrace him and give him aid.
Expediency had already won out over ideals in the hearts and minds of our leaders and men in power even then. And you see where that led. Eventually we won the Cold War, and as I have expressed here before, that was in large measure due to our efforts in Viet Nam. The Soviet Empire collapsed; the communists lost their grasp over Russia and her sattelite nations. But Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Nam remains communist to this day. Expediency and practicality sent Ho packing when he came to call, seeing in the ideals of the American Revolution a hope for freedom for his land and people. Can anyone calculate the cost?
Think about that! And while you do, think also about this: What do Muslims believe? What are their ideals? What does their religion give them? How do their ideals match up against ours?
When I was in the Army, virtually every post had billboards on it, and every unit had posters saying “Know your enemy!” I bought a Koran after 9/11, and while I haven’t read the whole thing by any means, what I have read in that book, plus some more on their history, has given me a much better understanding of how hijackers steeped in Islamic idealism could seize a commercial airliner and slam it into the World Trade Center, dieing willingly and even eagerly for their cause. I can understand far better how a West Bank Palestinian can strap a bomb to himself and explode it in a crowded Israeli restaurant, or on a bus, or alongside an israeli checkpoint. And I will take our ideals over theirs any day! I am willing to put our ideals up against theirs any day, in a debate of ideals to live by and for! And I would do that even now when so much seems on the verge of collapse because of recent events in Iraq. And as to that, I have to ask, isn’t it because Americans chose expediency over ideals that we are in the mess that we are, both in Iraq and at home?
We have something of extraordinary value to offer humanity. We dare not sacrifice that for expediency’s sake, and expect to emerge as the Americans of our founding fathers vision.
Henry
HENRY:
What a terrific American you are. Hope springs eternal in me when I am lifted above my concerns and cynicism to read words like yours. I never despair, but middle-age is a damnable state sometimes. It consists chiefly of wanting things to be again what they actually never were and blaming everybody else for it. I don’t believe for a moment that the things you describe are irrelevant.
Your first paragraph even posed the rhetorical question that America might be a failed experiment. James Madison in one of the Federalist Papers (Number 10, I think) ruminated that the type of system he was proposing had always failed, and if it fails again, the idea ought to be abandoned entirely.
But we are here today because of the things you’ve defended and described so eloquently. I think most of us are so inculcated with these values we can’t objectify them. It is simply who we are; I want to go off and join my sons in this mess too, in part because I want to get in on the fight, but also because of my fury at the nature of the enemy. All I can do at my age is bitch about it, at great and tedious length too.
JOHN:
I was unfair in my response to your post. You have written so many words on this topic, I already knew what you meant. Your command of this subject is expert, complete and unflinching in your suspicions about the future.
I agree with you on the potentialities also.
I see nothing to convince me that Islam is a religion of peace, and its claimed similarity to the more strident features of Christianity is specious and expedient. Christianity and Judaism have made their peace with modernism, and still adhere to their codes. They have accepted the political, philosophical and theological fact of free will without compromising the faith itself. Islam will have the make the same accomodation. It’s inevitable.
Henry
Great post, but a bit of disagreement:
I don’t advocate expedience in losing our values. I do advocate not doing unnecessary damage to our country. I think that this affair could have been done without releasing those photos. In fact, ironically, those photos will make it less likely that the perpetrators are properly punished.
The best information I have (which may be incorrect) is that a father of one of those involved involved retired Col. David Hackworth who may have given them to the media. If this is true, my already low opinion of Hack (as he likes to be called) will drop to almost the level I have for Kerry, which is higher than only one other person in the U.S. - Jane Fonda.
If it is false, then hopefully we will know pretty soon.
Rhod, my apologies. I see now that my last post should have been addressed to John, rather than to you. I was reading his, beginning “I must respectfully disagree….” and coming to your name, in large letters standing by itself, thought that that was you signing your name to what preceded. I now see that it was simply a continuation of his which had begun by being addressed to me, with your name being not a sign off, but to mark which part of the letter was addressed to you, as my name at the beginning had designated the part addressed to me. And yours below that actually is in agreement with what I said! (John may be as well, now, I hope:-) )
Anyway, thanks to you both, Rhod and John, for your thoughts.
Henry
Given John’s predictions, how do we deliver our message to the 4-5 million Muslims in the U.S.? That is: “Hey folks, standing on the sidelines has not been rational and isn’t going to be healthy for you, after the next terrorist strike!”
“We have no way, at present, to discern which of you Muslims is the enemy; i.e., acting neutral/pacifist in the face of this conflict, could very well be your death sentence.”
geoffg
I hope my predictions are too strong. We should all hope so. I have two friends from Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran). Both are American citizens.
I would hate for them to be caught up in the middle of this.
That is one reason it is so important to fight this war effectively - especially the PsyWar.
John
Aren´t we all nice now? Aren´t we the greatest?
My God get a grip. Everything is done to forget about the real big problems in our own country. Now Bush needs an other terror-warning to make people forget about these pictures.
Everything is a fake over here. It´s time to realize we are performing poor. Very poor.
Bill:
Your only problem is you’re caught up in a time-warp and can’t get out of it.
online-poker
You can also visit the pages about online-poker texas-hold`em texas-holdem
empire poker
poker hands poker games empire poker pacific poker
texas holdem poker
Please check: free poker poker texas holdem poker.
3 card poker
You may find it interesting to check some relevant pages in the field of 3 card poker antique poker chips
mortgage
In your free time, check some helpful info in the field of auto loan cash loan college loan
free texas hold em
Please check: free texas hold em free texas holdem.
free poker online
Please check: empire poker free poker online.
texas hold em
You are invited to check the pages dedicated to texas hold em party poker texas hold em