Tortured Language -- Tortured Policies -- Policy of Torture
For only the 14th time since he took office four years ago, President Bush opened up to a full press conference today"”that's the fewest for an American President in 50 years.
Why do you think that might be?
Maybe because it's a minor miracle that Bush can get through a single one of these confrontations with people who sometimes ask a real question or two.
It really is a painful exercise to watch Bush fumble his way through. It's not just the tortured syntax. It's also about the twisted logic of "policy." If you have a lot of patience, I suppose you can read the whole transcript here. For those with less than unconditional love for Dubya, I recommend you limit yourself to reading Sam Rosenfield's tart summary of the Presidential mumblings over at Tapped.
For moi, the highlight was the President's ardent defense of the poor misunderstood Dr. Strangelove Don Rumsfeld. Bush reminded us that lodged somewhere inside that growling a-hole there's a warm and squishy Rummy ready to ooze out:
"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I know how much he cares for the troops"¦ And he is -- he's a good, decent man. He's a caring fellow. Sometimes perhaps is demeanor is rough and gruff, but beneath that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military, and deeply about the grief that war causes."
You mean the grief Rummy — and the President-- cause. Not only for those detained by Rummy's troops"”but also for our moral standing as a nation. The L.A Times carries a deeply disturbing story on the "disgust" experienced by FBI agents as they watched American military personnel torture prisoners in Guantanamo and Iraq:
"FBI agents are increasingly complaining about what they consider abusive physical and mental torture by military officials against prisoners held in Iraq and Cuba, including lighted cigarettes stuck in detainees' ears and Arab captives being humiliated with Israeli flags wrapped around them, according to new documents released today. ...In addition, the FBI complained that military interrogators have gone far beyond the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture and have followed an apparently new executive order from President Bush that permits the use of dogs and other techniques to harass prisoners.
"¦In many of the records released today, FBI officials expressed disgust upon learning that military interrogators posed as FBI agents in their interviews with prisoners.They said they had learned that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had approved the "ruse," and that it actually had an adverse effect, getting little "cooperation" from prisoners.In one instance, an FBI official told his superiors in a December, 2003 e-mail that impersonation "tactics have produced no intelligence."
Minor detail, I suppose. Someone should tell those pinko-homo-latte-sippin' G-Men that once America goes to war, we go all the way — with our without intelligence. And if Rummy's running the show, you can more or less be sure it is the latter.
I want to repeat for the umpteenth time that torture -- especially institutionalized torture"”leaves behind physical and psychological trauma that lingers for decades. Anyone who believes for a moment that this sort of abusive behavior green-lighted by Rumsfeld and Bush won't come back to haunt us is living in a true fool's paradise. Payback -- with compounded interest-- is certain.
I am pleased to see some Republicans — no longer lashed to Bush's presidential campaign -- speaking out against Rumsfeld. Now it's time for some conservatives and Republicans with integrity to step boldly forward and lead a high-profile, bi-partisan drive to halt the torture.
December 20th, 2004 at 11:49 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was someone (lets say, a Senator) who decided to pursue a line of inquiry at the confirmation hearing of Alberto Gonzalez on the subject of torture? I know it sounds crazy, but it could be done pursuant to the “advise and consent” role the Senate has on Presidential appointments. And if his answers aren’t satisfactory, maybe even some of the Senators could vote against him, or even attempt a filibuster.
I know, I’m dreamin’….
December 21st, 2004 at 3:17 am
I’m sorry Marc. Murderers just dragged Iraqis out of their car, and shot them on the street.
US torture is bad, right there about 98 on my list of 100 bad things happening in the world in 2004. The US torture seems a lot less than Islamofascist beheadings, and their torture before their murders.
I think Sudan, Iran, No. Korea, Congo, even Cuba are all deserving of more attention.
But after the Iraqi elections, I suspect the US will send more prisoners to be detained by Iraqis, and the more usual Arab treatment of prisoners — and that you and Steve will complain then, too; and I might even mention that more humans are actually dying in Sudan, No. Korea, etc…
America’s not perfect. How much imperfection do I accept, when. More, now, than you. Because the realistic / likely alternatives I see are worse.
Likewise I think the USA should have stayed in Vietnam, rather than leave and accept the Killing Field genocides.
December 21st, 2004 at 6:21 am
Steve Smith,
Leahy might do it. I’m sending Schumer an angry letter, but I have less faith in him.
December 21st, 2004 at 7:05 am
“Likewise I think the USA should have stayed in Vietnam, rather than leave and accept the Killing Field genocides.”
Then ya woulda had to occupy Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos,…for a long time. Pretty hard to compete economically when you’re occupying small countries and fighting endless guerilla battles for decades.
Maybe a little preventive medicine woulda worked, like not bombing the holy moses outta Cambodia? I recall Sid Schanberg and Bill Shawcross both thought that was no small factor in pushing Cambodia to where it went. Of course the combined support for the KR from the Reagan administration and Jackson Democrats only made things even worse.
If you wanna prevent a killing field in Iraq, take the main force that is responsible for creating the conditions of violence in Iraq today…the US military.
December 21st, 2004 at 7:17 am
Tom, I think it’s clear you’re totally missing the point…this just isn’t a case of `the bad guys are evil, so it’s okay for us to be a little evil to them’ kind of argument. Do you really not recognize the sheer propaganda value this gives to terrorist organizations, not only for recruitment purposes, but also in how it gives cause to disparate orginizations to ally against us?
To blithley dismiss this issue by labeling it as an `imperfection’ is just plain ludicrous. I might be more correct to call it `aiding and abetting the enemy’.
December 21st, 2004 at 7:23 am
As a long-time fan of Stanley Kubrick, and of _Dr. Strangelove_ in particular, I must take issue with your comparison between Strangelove and Donald Rumsfeld.
No, really. I’m serious. No, I’m not going to say something “clever” like, “Strangelove didn’t create a war on fake intelligence,” or even cite Hermann Kahn’s line that Strangelove was ‘too creative.’ Not gonna do that. It doesn’t work, analogically speaking.
Fact is, Rumsfeld really is Robert McNamara come again. This is someone used to a corporate structure, with a _lot_ of support to keep him afloat and a lot of insulation from the consequences of his decisions. It’s the kind of confidence one sees in the reasoning, “I must be extremely competent, because I keep getting rewarded.”
This is, BTW, the one archetype of Cold War government that Kubrick and Southern missed in their film. Happily, Joseph Heller caught it _perfectly_ in _Catch-22_.
December 21st, 2004 at 8:51 am
If, for you, the ends justify the means then skip right on by this comment.
The critical point is not the relativisitc argument that “our methods might be bad but they aren’t as bad as theirs”; instead it is as Marc says and as jim hitchcock amplifies: our principles demand that we hold ourselves to a significantly higher standard than our (evil?) opponent.
Cruising around the other day I came across a review of a book by David Hackett Fischer called “Washington’s Crossing”. This review is posted at http://vernondent.blogspot.com/, scroll down to the post of Sunday, December 19, 2004 for the whole thing.
Here are the relevant excerpts:
“In 1776, American leaders believed that it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements in the winter campaign of 1776-77 was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution. … In Congress and the army, American leaders resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights, even of the enemy. This idea grew stronger during the campaign of 1776-77, not weaker as is commonly the case in war.”
. . .
“It had been a year of disasters. The British routed the Continental army from Long Island, then captured New York City along with many prisoners. The redcoats next pushed George Washington back through New Jersey, waging an increasingly savage campaign not just against the Continental army but against the whole “Levelling, underbred, Artfull, Race of people” they found in America.
Yet early in 1777, John Adams wrote to his wife, “I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”
I don’t write this in an attempt to equate the Iraqi insurgents with America’s founders - they couldn’t be more different. My point is that it is good to have, and practical to follow, principles and ideals. If we don’t follow our principles then we risk devolving to the level of our barbarous insurgent friends.
December 21st, 2004 at 8:52 am
I would like to know from Tom Grey what his image of the US is. I probably have a different perspective than he does based on our history both foreign and domestic. But if the US doesn’t stand up, in Tom’s mind, for justice and decency, then what’s left for him to defend? Is it purely self-interest? If I were a principled supporter of this country’s policies I would be even more outraged than I am.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:18 am
Is wrapping an man in an Israeli flag and subjecting him to loud music torture? Is allowing a man to sit in his own shit for a day torture? It may be ineffective, tasteless, pointless, stupid but humiliation is not torture.
I question the timing of these interviews and memos. At a very, very quick glance, they appear to date shortly after the Abu Ghraib prison story broke. It seems me, FBI agents who were taking heat for their inept intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 were 1) getting even, 2) distracting (hey look, we’re not the only fuck-ups) and 2)covering their asses.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:36 am
You seem to think that all torture is physical, frigid; would you consider the effectiveness of the Chinese water torture to be strictly due to the physical, rather than the psychological aspects?
December 21st, 2004 at 11:30 am
Tom.. did u see the FBI reports saying that the torture techniques interrupted and short circuited the FBI interrogations and, further, producded no intelligence? So if you want to set the moral issue aside, at least tellus what you think the PURPOSE of the torture is? To exact revenge? Or that it in the fog or chaos of war it just really doesnt matter?
Over the last couple of thousand of years, humanity has dragged itself out of the caves… and while — indeed– the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, we have simultaneously made some strides toward greater levels of civilization. And now what? Confronted not by the almighty Japanese Empire nor by the Wehrmacht, but rather by a rag-tag of second drawer terrorists, we are supposed to chuck our pretenses to civilization and to world leadership and resort to bone-breaking, and hot pokers up the rear? I hope not.
December 21st, 2004 at 11:39 am
“It seems me, FBI agents who were taking heat for their inept intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 were 1) getting even, 2) distracting (hey look, we’re not the only fuck-ups) and 2)covering their asses”
The stuff conspiracy theorists will come up with on a good day…
December 21st, 2004 at 12:19 pm
As I understand them, the apologist positions are:
1. U.S. torture is not as important as other, more serious crimes.
2. This stuff isn’t torture.
I find both of these rationales very flimsy and wholly unpersuasive for reasons outlined by other posters.
GJ, Woody, others: Is there another reason not to investigate this behavior that I’m missing? If not, then why isn’t all this a bigger deal? Why aren’t more Americans outraged?
p.s. Tom, none of the countries on your problem list are Democracies. We are institutionally able to hold our government to a much higher standard. Let’s take advantage of it.
December 21st, 2004 at 12:31 pm
Thought also noteworthy wss the comment by the FBI official that said `these techniques actually “have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee.”‘ Guess that means the administration has unofficially given the detainees `Man in the Iron Mask’ status.
Hope also that the sarcastic tone in the `p-h-l-s G-Men’ remark is recognized…probably not a good time to wind up on an `enemies’ list…
December 21st, 2004 at 1:39 pm
Torture, is verboten, period. I don’t think wrapping a flag around some one constitutes torture. Beatings do, sticking lighted cigarettes in ears or noses does, playing music loud is not, and playing music over 85db for a period of 8 hours or more is. Telling someone that they will be tried for specific crimes is not, telling them that their families “will feed the fishes” or some other similar threat is.
I don’t think anyone, regardless of political leanings if they are democracy inclined and thinking types can condone torture in any fashion. Having said that, I also think that there is an awful lot of hysteria on both sides regarding what is or is not going on, excusing or condoning who did what to whom and saying there is or is not a moral equivalence.
We need to step back, come to an agreement on what constitutes torture (without political implications included, i.e., pro-Bush/anti-Bush; pro-Kerry/anti-Kerry; pro-republican/conservative anti…. ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and when and if it occurs, punish those who did it and/or those who ordered it and punish them harshly and openly for the world to see, but do the same to the other side when they are caught. Try them for the same crimes or turn them over for trial to the appropriate authorities.
December 21st, 2004 at 2:04 pm
GM,
There is a definition of torture as defined in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture:
“For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The US has signed and ratified the CAT and the implementing legislation has been signed into law.
December 21st, 2004 at 2:17 pm
Randy, thanks. But should/does that include wrapping a flag around one’s shoulders? Is that a stretch or no? Not being obstreperous, just curious. The same question is for lights, sound, etc. Some things obviously fall under this catagory. but, do the others?
Again, just curious.
December 21st, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Just read a great new report today by the Commonweal Institute, a new progressive San Francisco think-tank, called “Responding to the Attack on Public Education and Teacher Unionsâ€. It shows how a well funded conservative movement is on the verge of creating a major shift toward privatization of the U.S. public schools. It ought to serve as a wake-up call to progressives, and offers a plan of action for those who care about protecting and improving America’s public education system from its adversaries, including Heritage, Cato, not to mention Bush and Cheney themselves.
The report shows that the attack on public education is part of a broader Radical Right antipathy for many “liberal†institutions and policies, such as organized labor, progressive taxation, regulation of business, reproductive choice, and the environment. The Commonweal report exposes the anti-public education perspectives being marketed daily to the American public by a virtually fascist movement led by Grover Norquist and others. It lays out how Americans now hear incessant hard-right messaging from such sources as Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the countless gas-bags from conservative think tanks appearing on cable TV nightly. It’s time to fight back before they eliminate public education in America – as preposterous as that may sound, it’s happening.
Check out the report online at: http://commonwealinstitute.org/reports/Responding_Ed_Report.pdf
December 21st, 2004 at 4:53 pm
Methinks Chunkylover has been at the magic mushrooms once too often.
December 21st, 2004 at 5:15 pm
I think Chunkylover might be what we call in the marketing world as a “viral posting.”
It is hard to take the higher ground considering the techniques that the Islamists are using (like Mr. Grey noted).
Torture doesn’t work. Being the nice guy does not work. What does?
December 21st, 2004 at 6:00 pm
“Torture doesn’t work. Being the nice guy does not work. What does?”
Intelligent policies that address the root conditions that give rise to and perpetuate terrorism in all its forms, state and non-state sponsored. If that is good enough for Bush or Arroyo…
December 21st, 2004 at 7:07 pm
Steve writes, “Intelligent policies that address the root conditions that give rise to and perpetuate terrorism in all its forms, state and non-state sponsored.”
Steve, please, how can you address “root conditions” when no root conditions other than a overweening fascist mind set that says “do it my way or die.”
Terrorism is not war, it’s politics used to force an ideology on someone who doesn’t elect to have that ideology on its own. That doesn’t matter whether it’s Mussolinni, Menachem Begen, Hamas or Al Qaeda.
These are NOT reasonable people. You are, after all, in spite of your utopian ideas about society, you still like the capitalist running dogs of professional sports vis-a-vis the Red Sox. And FOR THAT, I’m willing to over look your other idiosyncrasies.
December 21st, 2004 at 7:22 pm
Let me pose this question to you, GM (though I recognize the idealistic nature of it full well); is a person who has a fairly satisfying life and enough to eat as likely to be recruited for matyrdom as one who doesn’t have those things? I realize that at least some of the 9/11 hijackers fit the former profile; Anomaly, or trend?
December 21st, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Jim, that is a GREAT question. I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that it is a trend. Those who have so far been “terrorists” suicide-bombers have been fairly well to do, educated and in the upper classes of their societies. It was not some of the 9/11 hijackers though, it was like 13 of the nineteen I believe. Two thirds is fairly significant methinks.
The “foot soldiers” in Afghanistan and Iraq on the other hand, have been typically the poor but who reports have it have been “paid” handsomely by the inherators of Hussein.
December 21st, 2004 at 7:42 pm
“Steve, please, how can you address “root conditions” when no root conditions other than a overweening fascist mind set that says “do it my way or die.”
No less differently than the US addressed root conditions of fascism in the post-war era. or at least sort of did that. and you can be sure many wished that that had been done *before* WW2 much earlier to make that war unnecessary. Or, you can think of how the violent terrorism of the Jim Crow South’s system of Apartheid could have been dealt with simply by carrying out the promises of Reconstruction…
Unless of course one thinks that fascism or terrorism [and I'm sorry, I'm not simplistic enough to equate the two, fascism is a specific type of coercive regime of governing relations different from what we see in AQ, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,...] comes from no explainable conditions. No serious defense or intelligence analyst thinks that way.
December 21st, 2004 at 8:21 pm
Torture doesn’t work. Being the nice guy does not work. What does?
As long as this naieve belief in American innocence and pure virtue continues to withstand critical scrutiny, we’re in some trouble fellas.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:16 pm
Mavis Beacon wrote: “GJ, Woody, others: Is there another reason not to investigate this behavior that I’m missing?”
Mavis, I’ve been out and really have not had a chance to review all the notes and make an informed opinion. Therefore, I’m going to shoot from the hip and hope that my comments fit in somehow.
First, just because I support the Republicans doesn’t mean that I support everything that the President and his cabinet does. (Conservatives are more invidualists and not herd animals–so, we can disagree with our side.) However, I have more patience than others on this site and choose to judge results after sufficient time has passed.
This reminds me of an episode in last year’s football season. Right before Auburn played its biggest rival Alabama, some influential parties at Auburn tried to replace Coach Tuberville because they didn’t like the way the season had gone. Well, after the search attempt was leaked, the school decided to keep the coach–and, he went on to beat Alabama and then Wisconsin in the bowl game. Of course, after his big wins, he had more support. It’s a good thing, too, as this year he took Auburn to an undefeated season in the toughest conference in the country!
Now, you ask, what’s the point of this? Well, first, to get on the nerves of those who hate sports analogies. Next, to say that this is like the situation with Bush. He was heavily criticized last season, but now he’s coming off of a big win in November. If we let him run the team another year with the game plan and players he wants (and we voted on this), then this country may end up a lot better off than what the naysayers want to believe. That’s one reason that I’m not crying for investigations.
Torture? I’m against it. But, I don’t know that I should believe all the reports about it from those who have a conflict of interests. If the FBI witnessed this, then they had an obligation to step in right there and not stew over it and conveniently leak it. Why didn’t they stop it as soon as it was witnessed–if it was?
Also, I am less inclined to express outrage if our questioning tactics result in saved American lives. I don’t believe that the enemy will be any more harsh if this country does engage in the very same tactics that they started against us. These people already hate us more than they love life. How can we make that any worse?
Ragarding Rumsfeld…. Get off of his back, everyone. Good grief. People want to find any little thing to complain about. In one Sunday talk show, the left kept complaining that Rumsfeld didn’t personally sign letters to the families of fallen soldiers. Of course, these selected families already didn’t like Bush. The complaints about these letters, torture accusations, Rumsfeld’s honest answer about the army you have, etc. are just detractors from the big picture.
I don’t complain because I’m focused on what is important and don’t see complaining and undermining our military as being productive. We need to hold our military accountable and hold them to high standards, but now isn’t the time to make changes or try to distract our leaders from important work.
Well, I’m sure I probably missed major points by not having more time-but, that’s my quick take from the right. Oh, and I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh has said about this, either.
Now, I’ve got to get back to the baseball trades.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:32 pm
The BIG trade’s off, Woody…unless you’re talking about giving McCourt back to GM and Steve…
December 22nd, 2004 at 12:56 am
“Torture doesn’t work. Being the nice guy does not work. What does?”
Hitchens provided this answer back on Slate in June.
“I have a historical example to offer. In the early 1970s, there was a gigantic scandal in England over the torture of Irish Republican detainees….The resulting outrage led to a commission of inquiry ….However, the government did tell the army to stop it, and it pretty much did stop, and the terrorists didn’t win.
They didn’t win because their idea of bombing a large Protestant community into joining a united Catholic Ireland was a bit mad to begin with. And they also didn’t win because security methods became tremendously more professional. Skill, in these matters, depends on taking pains and not on inflicting them. You make the chap go through his story several times, preferably on video, and then you ask his friends a huge number of tedious questions, and then you go through it all again to check for discrepancies, and then you watch the first (very boring and sexless) video all over once more, and then you make him answer all the same questions and perhaps a couple of new and clever ones. If you have got the wrong guy—and it does happen—you let him go and offer him a ride home and an apology. And you know what? It often works. Only a lazy and incompetent dirtbag looks for brutal shortcuts so that he can get off his shift early. And sometimes, gunmen and bombers even have changes of heart, as well as mind.”
Torture. Ineffective, counter-productive, morally deadening. Why do it?
December 22nd, 2004 at 6:34 am
Hitch isn’t entirely correct. Certainly from the vantage of some they did ‘win’. Political negotiations took place and there were changes made that at least moved things forward somewhat. A long way to go surely, but the military solution was not nearly as effective as the political ones.
December 22nd, 2004 at 8:26 am
[days later] jim: Do you really not recognize the sheer propaganda value this gives to terrorist organizations, not only for recruitment purposes, but also in how it gives cause to disparate orginizations to ally against us?
To blithley dismiss this issue by labeling it as an `imperfection’ is just plain ludicrous.
Go look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. The US troops were NOT ready to be guards, or interrogators. Hitch is right that the long-term, correct policy is painstaking and repetitive interrogation (good Stanford Magazine article on Afghanistan, too).
The US Military Public Relations effort does seem weak. Abu happened. I don’t dismiss it — but what IS the real significance? I am certain that EVERY single Arab country has prisons with worse conditions; and in fact that many, if not most US prisons have worse abuse occuring (the rape of first time in-mates is a huge scandal).
Abu is perhaps the biggest club the anti-war folk can use to bash Bush. But how big is it? Each and every beheading by the terrorists is worse. The recent murders in Baghdad are worse.
Yes, it is good, even great, for the USA to have higher standards. In January 04, the General was fired. Imperfect humans in an imperfect system, doing better than any alternative. Compare with the French in Ivory Coast firing into a crowd and murdering some 60 — little news coverage because it’s not anti-US. The US did the right thing, fire the responsible general.
I do think Rumsfeld failed to discuss the theoretical “optimal” response, and compare it to the actual response. I think support for firing a general is NOT dismissing it. I think calls for the Sec Def to be fired are WAY WAY overblown, especially after a so far 94% rating in handling the war, measured by US deaths, with anything less than 2500 getting an “A” (90%).
You have a different metric? If you can’t quantify it, it’s hogwash. I haven’t seen any critics with reasonable metrics for failure / success; nor any other war supporters.
Marc: we are supposed to chuck our pretenses to civilization and to world leadership and resort to bone-breaking, and hot pokers up the rear? I hope not.
I hope not either — but aren’t you asking for Unreal Perfection? You accepted, even advocated the policies towards, the Asian Killing Fields. The Left chucked the civilization then, didn’t it?
If you accept some imperfections, what does acceptance mean? To me, it means some standards. Like exactly HOW many minutes without sleep. 30 hours? so 29 hours is NOT torture, but 31 hours are? In fact, actually drawing lines is so difficult, the Convention avoids it:
“severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted”.
The US is deliberately trying to get to maximum pain/suffering that is less than severe, less than torture. No convention says what that is. Individual cases need individual attention — and individual responsibility.
Perhaps a speed limit analogy. Say it’s 65 mph. So you’re a criminal at 66. But most go 70-75, so the “real” limit is maybe 75. Cops are to be feared at 80+. What’s the real limit?
What’s the speed you want cops coming to YOUR house, to save your wife who just called a hot-line that there’s an intruder downstairs and she’s hiding in the attic?
Steve: Then ya woulda had to occupy … Vietnam, …for a long time Yep. Say ANOTHER 10 years, at some 200 body bags a month. To create a S. Vietnam, strongman dominated with a market economy, like S. Korea. [Prolly not occupy Laos or Cambodia.]
10 more years of war or genocide. You still choose accepting genocide? (I know you do, but I’m interested in whether you’re intellectually honest enough to say so.)
To address it in Iraq you advocate
take the main force that is responsible for creating the conditions of violence in Iraq today…the US military.
Nope. The Sunni anti-democrats are the main instigators of violence. Just like the VC and N. Viet army were the main violence folk in Vietnam. And the VC did plent of torture, beheading, and intimidation of the local peasants.
The main failure of the US forces in Vietnam (beside the obvious unjust draft/ temporary slavery) was in the failure to stay and train locals enough to defend themselves.
In Iraq, this is prolly not going to be a problem — instead, as the Shi’a majority take over, it’s more likely the world will see what the democratic Shi’a decision is on what constitutes torture when dealing with (mostly Sunni, former Baathist killers?) anti-Iraq suspected terrorists. After Jan 30, I expect to read about a LOT more Iraq anti-terror torture — and a fairly rapid decline in Sunni support for the terrorists.
The Sunni terrorists want to postpone the elections, and then again, until the US leaves. Once the Shi’a Iraqis take over, one of the tests of sovereignty will be Shi’a looking for that “torture line”.
December 22nd, 2004 at 12:38 pm
“You accepted, even advocated the policies towards, the Asian Killing Fields. The Left chucked the civilization then, didn’t it?”
This is totally ignorant bullshit. First of all, the Hanoi regime brought an end to the Khmer Rouge disaster. This was at a time when Reaganites like Jean Kirkpatrick were giving the Khmer Rouge government de facto support at the U.N.(sort of like the monstrous de facto alliance that Rumsfeld made with Saddam and the use of our military intelligence to assist his war crimes against Iranians.) The destabilization of Sihanouk’s Cambodia culminating the victory of the Khmer Rouge was a product of the prolonged war in Vietnam. Who prolonged that war after the decisive defeat of French colonialism in 1954 and scheduled elections. None other than the good old USofA. The outcome of the 1954 peace agreements would have been far short of the “perfection” that Tom Grey accuses Marc of holding out for, but it totally preferable to the ensuing death of hundreds of thousands that was precipitated by U.S. intervention against the Geneva Accords. Only a moral monster could argue otherwise and only a fool would argue that the U.S. wasn’t responsible for scuttling the negotiated agreements that ended the war in 1954. (I’m expecting Tom Grey to continue to fly that banner, idiot that he is.)
Also, I’d like one of these pro-war cretins to explain exactly how the Shiite-dominated Iraq-Iran alliance that is the only possible political outcome in the Gulf over the next ten years (short of long-term U.S. occupation and installation of a puppet government) is in any way, shape or form going to reflect U.S. interests or give solace to the American parents who’s children have been made blood sacrifices on the altar of neo-con ideology and incompetence.
December 22nd, 2004 at 1:35 pm
“Then ya woulda had to occupy … Vietnam, …for a long time Yep. Say ANOTHER 10 years, at some 200 body bags a month. To create a S. Vietnam, strongman dominated with a market economy, like S. Korea”
uhm…that’s basically what you have now in Vietnam, sounds like a lot of deaths to tolerate for such a small gain. I would love to know what kind of fascist state measures would have been necessary to crush resistance to the war that would have only grown exponentially as a result of such a ‘commitment’. Mussolini or Hitler, or Pinchet?
December 22nd, 2004 at 2:23 pm
Tom says; “The US Military Public Relations effort does seem weak”. Well…yeah. The `hearts and minds’ campaign doesn’t seem
to be doing so well. But what do you really mean by that, Tom? Are
you stating that they are failing in their efforts to sell the war
to U.S. and Iraqi citizens, and to the rest of the world? If so, isn’t that more the job of the Bush administration.
“Abu is perhaps the biggest club the anti-war folk can use to bash Bush”. Well, at least you qualified that remark with `perhaps’, because I hardly think so. Even leaving deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens (collateral damage) out of the equation, what about the simple economics of the war (210 billion and growing)?
And while I’m flat out fascinated by YOUR metrics (2500), what’s
your cut off time to receive a passing grade, the scheduled elections, or complete troop withdrawal. Guessing it’s the latter.
December 22nd, 2004 at 8:46 pm
Elections or no, the US has lost:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/15/why_elections_wont_quell_iraq_resistance?mode=PF
December 22nd, 2004 at 9:13 pm
Steve, i didn’t know that with the aid of the Boston Globe that you could read the future. Is that a prediction, wishful thinking, what? Do you ball your copy of the Globe up into a chrystal ball shape to help you scan the aether or do you just use your tea leaves instead fished out of Boston Harbor?
December 23rd, 2004 at 1:50 am
“Torture doesn’t work. Being the nice guy does not work. What does?”
Our choices boil down to those two, do they? Gosh, I guess consideration of anything in between would require nuance, and that’s, like, a French word, isn’t it?
“Nice guy” can work, by the way.
Earlier today I read an op-ed by a guy who’d been part of interrogating Japanese POWs in WW II. Japanese troops had been brainwashed into thinking that death was more honorable than being captured, but just to be absolutely sure, they were also brainwashed into thinking they’d be horribly mistreated by Americans.
Much useful intelligence was gained by treating their wounds, feeding them properly, and permitting them a more dignified existence in POW camps than they’d experienced under their commanding officers. Being interrogated in their own language, by sympathetic native speakers of Japanese, was also hugely useful.
Needless to say, the author of this op-ed was quite upset about how “enemy combatants” in this war have been treated.
I’ve lived long enough in Japan to understand that the Good Samaritan never made it over here to enlighten the Japanese about certain human potentials for tuning into the Better Angels. Well, that’s too strong - in fact, the culture has changed, and continues to change, in this respect. I have read bits of history that indicate strongly to me that the course of Japanese history was literally changed - and for the better - by the beneficence of Westerners at various critical junctures, starting from before the Meiji Restoration.
Iraq is not Japan and never will be. If it ever could have had something like the post WW II Japanese experience, I think that chance is gone. We missed a trick or two. And one of these was: once you get a white flag from one of your opponents, the rules change. Combat is amoral - it’s kill or be killed. But once the question of who is the victor and who is the vanquished has been settled for an individual in that war, the rules change.
Recently, a U.S. GI was sentenced to a prison term for killing a young, mortally wounded Iraqi simply to put him out of his misery. Well, that was wrong, and the act should be punished. But it was still, in a strange way, a more compassionate and intelligent act than torturing Iraqi and Afghan prisoners for what so often turns out to be useless - or even dangerously misleading - misinformation. In some better world, toward which we should all continue to strive, there is not only punishment for that American GI, but also forgiveness. But for someone who would put a lighted cigarette into the ear of a man bound to a chair … well, that’s a lot harder for me to see.
Still, there may be a way to see it compassionately from both sides. Frederick Law Olmsted, designer of New York’s Central Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, and numerous other lesser urban sanctuaries, threw himself into a frantic and ultimately vain effort to head off America’s Civil War. It makes for interesting reading. In the diary of his travels on this quixotic mission, diaries, he recounts seeing a Southern slave-owner capture one of his escaped slaves, beat her savagely, and drag off her off by her hair. He expressed pity for the slave, but also wrote that it was the slave-owner who he felt was the more degraded by the experience, and the more pitiable of the two.
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:30 am
Let’s get down to the real issue of why people want Rumsfeld gone.
He cancelled a lot of Cold-War derived weapons systems, and wants to cancel more. This takes money out of Defense Contractor’s hands, hurts thousands in the Pentagon who built entire careers out of these weapons systems, and takes PORK away from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.
Example: the Crusader self-propelled artillery. Great weapon. But it costs a ton, and is a monster to move across the US let alone into a place like Iraq with poor ports, roads, rail. The thing was designed to fight a massive Soviet Tank army, and did that kind of job well in testing. It isn’t what we need now.
Multiply that times ten and you get the real reason Bush wants Rumsfeld on the job, and why so many hate him.
The next war (and yes, there will inevitably be one) won’t look like OIF. Just as that didn’t look like Serbia, and Serbia didn’t look like Gulf War 1, etc. At a guess the next war will require Information Tech networked down to the individual soldier (for a whole slew of command/control and access to intel, artillery, close air support, etc). As well as new “ablative” body armor, full electromagnetic spectrum vision (Ultra Violet down to maybe gamma rays) goggles so no one can hide, much more lethal rifles, and a host of umanned recon and fighting vehicles, a lot of them minituarized. Whoever makes the more lethal soldier (and sailor and airman) will command the battlefield and that DOES matter. We aren’t at the end of history and there’s a lot of people who won’t be dettered by the Oceans anymore.
We can have the Cold War weapons systems of the past, or weapons of the future that can win wars. We can’t have both and Rumsfeld chose the future.
As far as the torture thing goes, we’ve abuses that dont even … compare to sawing the heads off total innocents like Margaret Hassan. Not even the Gitmo stuff seems anywhere near that though it should obviously be addressed. ANY of our guys (or gals) would likely even get worse … all lovingly shown on Al-Jihad TV for the “pleasure” of jihadis and wanna be jihadis (young Muslim men in London and Paris have snuff videos of Westerners on their new cellphones for “fun”).
Our guys would get this horrible death even if we had Mr. Rogers and Mary Poppins running our detention centers.
What’s the solution? In immediate Postwar Germany, the Soviets responded to the “werewolves” aka Nazi terrorists who killed Soviet soldiers and Germans working with the occupation … by killing all males over the age of 13 in any suspected village or town, and sometimes even destroying a whole town (with everyone in it). That sorted things out quickly. The French simply shot on sight anyone who even looked like a Nazi werewolf. The American and British Occupiers conducted quick tribunals and shot those found guilty.
Being nice to the man who used to work for Mr. Himmler didn’t work (though it was tried at first by the US). Shooting him did. We probably have too many prisoners, we need a tribunal to quickly sort out those guilty of being Al Queda, Baathists, or terrorists, with those picked up by mistake who were not involved in taking up arms against us. Shoot the former, and release the latter. Publicly. As in post-War Germany. It worked then and it can work again.
Do we have the legal and moral basis to do this? Yes. Al Queda and the other terrorists are not armies, militias, or even organizations like the Viet Cong observing even SOME of the rules of war, much less signatories to the Geneva Convention. Moreover, morally, belonging to Al Queda or the Baathist terrorists is like being a Nazi Werewolf (an SS organization) after WWII was already over. It’s just killing for the sake of killing.
And in the real world, absent Superman and the Justice League to put the bad guys in the Phantom Zone forever, you have to kill the killers to make it stop. Agreed we should not torture them, we’ll get nothing of value. Let’s shoot the guilty, release the innocent, and move on.
December 23rd, 2004 at 4:48 am
Comparisons of the war in Iraq to the “werewolves” operations in post-war Germany is stupid beyond belief. If you don’t get it by now, you’ll never get it. Iraq has been a civil war waiting to happen since the damn country was cobbled together. We triggered it by overthrowing Saddam - which in certain obvious ways wasn’t a bad thing in and of itself. But in making ourselves responsible for picking up the pieces and achieving nothing in terms of non-proliferation or weakening al Qaeda factions (which, in fact, we’ve handed opportunities to kill Americans and propagandize among Arabs, although foriegn volunteers are obviously the minority among the insurgents) , the war was unutterably stupid and not even remotely in our interests - or justifiable by any measure iformed by common sense or, one is forced to add, sanity. I’m still waiting for some pro-war hack to explain how the inevitable Shiite Iran-Iraq alliance that will evolve as the dominant force controlling the Gulf (assuming BushCo does anything remotely resembling what it proposes regarding the future of Iraq, given that the only alternative is endless occupaton) will be in American interests or justify the sacrifices made by our families.
If you can’t answer that one, shut the fuck up. All of your yammering is pointless and absurd.
December 23rd, 2004 at 4:51 am
Also, I love it when right-wing apologists haul out the moral relativism in defense of the White House/Gonzales torture rationales and the operations at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. There’s always someone worse one can cite to justify damn near anything.
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:08 am
Rockford’s pretty coherent, isn’t he?
Yes, let’s do just what the Soviets did - kill all males over the age of 13 in rebellious regions. That worked.
Oh wait a minute, no, he says - we should TRY them first, he says, then kill the guilty.
But you can see how even that little modification breaks down fast. How do you determine guilt? Torture doesn’t work, he admits. Hm, maybe you you have to cultivate informants, maybe you have to increase the effectiveness by offering plea-bargains, maybe … maybe you have to show some mercy here and there, in the interests of justice. Maybe you have to become Mr. Nice Guy after all … OH WAIT WHAT AM I SAYING HERE OH GOD ANYTHING BUT THAT.
Bah — don’t fall into the trap of thinking justice is possible. Just kill. Kill kill kill. Kill all Ba’athists. What’s that you say? Just about everyone who knows anything about running anything in Iraq was a Ba’ath Party member? Well, kill ‘em anyway. And in the particularly rebellious regions, all males over 13. One of the boys was under 13? Maybe more like 10 years old? A little mistake, that’s all. I’m sure the Soviets made plenty of those mistakes, cleaning out the Werewolves, making way for that wonderful twentieth century model of freedom and prosperity called East Germany.
Oh, and make sure you use lots of super hi-tech bionic soldiers to do all this killing. We can’t get the world to love us. So let’s make sure they FEAR us. Fight terror with terror. Fight indiscriminate slaughter with indiscriminate slaughter. Last man standing and all that.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming …
December 23rd, 2004 at 7:31 am
I, Robot.
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Reg.. last warning… be civil… or leave. I dont care what other commenters say.. stop with the name calling.
December 23rd, 2004 at 4:45 pm
Gm asks:
Steve, i didn’t know that with the aid of the Boston Globe that you could read the future.
Nope, I’d say it’s written by someone who risked her life to find out in depth more about the resistance than the US military itself knows, or would appear to know from how they talk of the resistance as ‘baathist dead enders’ and ‘foreign terrorists’
July 19th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !jms
July 25th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
September 12th, 2006 at 7:05 am
football predictions qwn football predictions qwn http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comqwn
September 12th, 2006 at 7:33 am
football betting jmn football betting jmn http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comjmn