But Look Here: Iraq

I am posting this from a thoughfully written piece by Christian Caryl in the NYRB because it is all too easy to forget what it is that we are fighting for, have in the past fought for, and what the "good life" means to us. Hint: this does not describe a country that professes to want to spread "democracy" (aka the good life). This describes an utter failure of that country to fulfill the mission: (sorry, I hate to be piling on like this but this is probably the defining issue of our times and is difficult to ignore--when the vets from this war retire, will they be proud or angry for having been there? While an A for effort should be given to the troops could the same be said for those responsible for the planning?)

Small wonder, then, that the American discourse about the war usually ends up saying far more about American domestic politics than Iraq itself. Within the United States, politicians and commentators are fervently debating the issue of whether what is happening there now constitutes a "civil war." In Iraq there is no equivalent discussion that I am aware of. Such a discussion, one presumes, would be bizarrely misplaced when more than one hundred Iraqis (in a country of 29 million people) are dying each day from internecine violence. In a country of America's population, the equivalent losses would be a little more than 1,000 per day—or roughly two September 11 massacres per week. Similarly, New York Times journalist Sabrina Tavernise, who has spent much of the past three years in Iraq tracking down the views and daily experiences of ordinary Iraqis, wrote shortly after the US midterm elections that many members of Baghdad's present-day political class, though well aware of the elections, regarded them as irrelevant to the fate of their country.

Interesting Contrasts and Currents

Saddam Hussein, “The Butcher of Baghdad,” was executed just before dawn 12/30/06 local, at 10 pm EST (that is 12/29 EST). We can depose a foreign tyrant but cannot keep him from being executed. So sadly so much power is so wasted. I have no doubt that no-one ever deserved to be executed more. However, to my mind, life without parole is the much greater deterrent, is the greater punishment, and teaches the greater moral lesson.

A New Jersey commission has voted 12-1 to abolish the death penalty in that state. Just as I thought, Prof. Berman has this excellent "first cut" take. Karl Keys at Capital Defense Weekly has still more on that, a little piqued, or at least disputatious, re Doug's use of the term "sophomoric" or something like that, (college student quality of the report--maybe the students are REALLY VERY HIGH QUALITY -- even though he is "underwhelmed") here. And Scott Henson does his usual excellent job here reviewing Texas developments in 2006.

Now, NPR is reporting that the executioners taunted on the gallows?! Apparently, despite the searching by American troops to prevent this, one of the five executioners already present (according to the report) must have taped this on a cellphone.

President Ford's state funeral began with much fanfare. America buries a great President. Ford taped an interview that was only to be released upon his death in which he described how big a mistake he thought it was to precipitously invade Iraq (paraphrasing): we must not use force unnecessarily, even to further spread democracy, unless our own national interests are clearly hinging on the immediate use of that force. Tuesday, January 2 was designated a national day of mourning.

Whoops! Did he really mean to inhale at that particular point in time? Nah. Must'a been just an accident, breathing in like that. (Thanks Jeralyn). For more on this SCOOP see here, Talk Left.

And the PD Awards are almost over now. I really like how Greg has that "feedroll" (with me in there heading up the "Z"s, and Arbitrary doing the "A"s). Only four blogs linking to me (so far) but all quality, I'm telling you.

Allegations of Torture Overseas in Our Courts

Direct from WaPo:
Saturday, December 9, 2006

The Bush administration asserted in federal court yesterday that DefenseSecretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and three former military officials cannot be held liable for the alleged torture of nine Afghans and Iraqis in U.S. militarydetention camps because the detainees have no standing to sue in U.S.courts.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. Frederick Beckner III also argued that a decision by the court to let a trial proceed would amount to an infringement by the judiciary on the president's power to wage war and would open the door to new litigation in U.S. courts by foreign nationals who feel aggrieved by U.S. government policies.

NB. Sen. McCain has argued previously that we don't want to encourage torture because that would encourage "them" to torture Americans. He should know because he was held captive by the Vietcong. So why would we not want to show the whole world that we will enforce the law, whether or not the law is sought to be enforced by "foreigners"? Comments anybody?

Do we really want to demonstrate that the President's power to wage war will include everything, even the power to order torture and turn a blind eye to violations of basic human rights? Even the possibility of that power? The fact that this is even a debatable question is itself rather curious in my view. This is the old "ends will justify the means" slog. But here, it is highly questionable whether getting somebody to say something under extreme coercion yields useful and accurate information. One more thing, inflicting extreme pain and suffering, and torture, must really be seen as simple retaliation and retribution for being on the wrong side of conflict, and wrong, because there is not one case that has been brought to the public's attention where torturing somebody has yielded useful information. And even if it did and that has not been brought to our attention it is still wrong absolutely, and a good way to keep our enemies even more dedicated to harming us.

Out of Iraq

How many different ways can you say
OUT OF IRAQ?

Hint: what is one less than eighty?

What happened to the 80th recommendation?
That was the straw that broke the camel's back.
What?

Purchase the Iraq Study Group report at my convenient link at the top of this page or click on the link you just read. Proceeds go to a worthy cause, my tip bucket (very, very, tiny right now--actually the bucket is VERY BIG but just not very full--its early in the game, right?), which feeds the Prison/Innocence Project (501(c)3 iminently in progress) and Newsletter. The next volume is due out on Dec. 15, when I get around to editing and layout.

Food for Thought Post-TGiving

That all men are equal is a proposition which, at ordinary times, no sane individual has ever given his assent. Aldous Huxley

A man walked into a bar with his alligator and asked the bartender, "Do you serve lawyers here?". "Sure do," replied the bartender. "Good," said the man. "Give me a beer, and I'll have a lawyer for my 'gator."

Francis Fukyuyama, Professor of International Political Economy at the Nitze School of Advanced Internaional Studies at Johns Hopkins University wrote this almost two years ago:

“The Iraq war has isolated Washington in unprecedented ways and convinced a large part of the world that the United States—not Islamic terrorism—is the biggest threat to global security.”

Is America really not okay? Leaning too far to the right? Taking on too many characteristics of a police state in addition to an indifferently policing one? Reflect also on Professor Fritz Stern's discerning idea, something he calls the “pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics,” describing “Hitler's success in fusing racial dogma with Germanic Christianity,” and “the moral perils of mixing religion and politics.”

Are there hot headed change agents to blame if blame be found, or is this new-fangled American oppressiveness a development which is nobody's fault but simply the unavoidable result of circumstances beyond anybody's control? The acts of a few bad apples; to be blamed on “the terrorists”?

Rather, what if it was really a well planned assault by a cabal purveying a theory of the unitary executive which is both the result of a mistaken and naïve misreading of the U.S. Constitution, and a cause of the document being altered, indeed interpreted, in reactionary, autocratic and merely politically expedient ways? Now, one of this cabal is running the World Bank. So can a tiger change his stripes?

As the undisputed heavyweight world predator and bully is America going to avoid taking responsibility just because it can for violations and abuses of human rights for which it should be accountable whether they occur at home or abroad? The problem, assuming there is one, might well be the ponderous footprint, the inability to cover those tracks, the failure to recognize and cure the damages. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Star Chamber? Sir Walter Raleigh?

The lessons of history need not go unheeded.

Finally, after digesting the turkey, and hearing the venerated Honorable Messrs. Brzezinski and Kissinger debate this question, it is now very clear (to me at least) that what is needed in Iraq is a complete end to the world's perception of unilateral American involvement.

What is interesting is that the terms of the debate have not changed over the previous three years that the senior diplomats have been having this discussion. What has changed are events on the ground. That tells me that one has been proven correct, with the benefit of hindsight. The unilateralism v internationalism debate has been fought before. What is sad is that the lesson has yet to have taken hold.

My plan to accomplish this is simple: Authorize the U.N. to

(a) take all necessary action in the Middle East (nothing will get done and that is fine, being an improvement over what is going on now, which is only pushing things in the wrong direction and, when things finally do get done the decision will be made by "the people," democratically)

(b) to train Iraqi police, and

(c) precede this by the installation of a new representative to replace Mr. Bolton.

The Baker Commission must go the final mile to internationalize the issue. More bombs going off in the Middle East only aggravates the global warming problem among other things, and this must stop.

But so long as the bombings cannot be stopped, the least we can do to salvage our international reputation, as well as the safety of our young men and women and the nation itself, is to make an effort to be as far away removed as possible from ground zero. We can't fix it, and we must recognize this added "inconvenient truth."

Finally, as an afterthought, containment works.

No Honor in Contientious Objector Aguayo's Court Martial

Here are moving excerpts from the heart, of Agustin Aguayo, an Army medic facing court martial for refusing to redeploy to Iraq. I must say that, especially after seeing Flags of Our Fathers, it is not unreasonable to me that somebody would object on personal and religious grounds to waging war. Only those who have been there could possibly have any idea of what it entails to go to war. The Bush chain of command got it wrong on this one too. It is no dishonor to stand up for what you believe. The prosecution is discretionary, so the Army can only be motivated on political grounds and from an effort to preserve discipline in the unfortunate ranks of the disaffected and demoralized. I can't quite understand what we are fighting for at this time, except to give cover to somebody's big mistake. It was senseless to start this war and senseless to continue to wage it. Even the former Secretary of State and senior statesman Dr. Henry Kissinger was heard on CNN last night, saying this war can't be won. And if you can't win then what's the point? Agustin's statement can be found on his website:

My beliefs and morals come from a transformation as a direct result of my combined religious/family upbringing, military experience, and new experiences I’ve created and sought. Such as, I have surrounded myself with people who cherish life and peace. I have become an active member and supporter of many peace organizations such as The Center on Conscience & War, Military Counseling Network, The Munich Peace Committee, and American Voices Abroad. I have overhauled my life with new practices such as the peaceful art of Yoga and meditation. As time progresses (it has been more than two and a half years since I became a CO) my beliefs have only become more firm and intense. I believe that participating in this (or any) deployment would be fundamentally wrong, and therefore I cannot and will not participate. I believe that to do so, I would be taking part in organized killing and condoning war missions and operations. I object, on the basis of my religious training and belief, to participating in any war. I have to take a stand for my principles, values, and morals and I must let my conscience be my guide.

In my last deployment, I witnessed how soldiers dehumanize the Iraqi people with words and actions. I saw countless innocent lives which were shortened due to the war. I still struggle with the senselessness of it all – Iraqi civilians losing their lives because they drove too close to a convoy or a check point, soldiers' being shot by mistake by their own buddies, misunderstandings (due to the language barrier) leading to death. This is not acceptable to me. It makes no sense that to better the lives of these civilians they must first endure great human loss. This, too, is clear and convincing evidence to me that all war is evil and a harmful.