More On Torture

As if you needed more reasons to oppose it, another government official experienced in interrogation and counter-terrorism, has publicly registered his disapproval of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – also known as torture.

Back in America, Back in Iraq

Today the Washington Post printed an opinion piece by an American officer in charge of interrogations in Iraq.

Matthew Alexander (a nom-de-plume for this homme-de-guerre) has conducted more than 300 and overseen more than 1,000 interrogations. His experience says: Abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual and the spirit of American freedom. Do not torture. We found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this way, it works.

But his experience is falling on deaf ears and obstructive bureaucracy. Top brass at the Pentagon and in Baghdad is not in the mood for ’soft’ interrogation.

Why? Because they are neo-conservative Bush Doctrine supporters? I suppose we will find out once the Obama administration takes the reins. Because they have existed in and propagate a culture based on aggression and the ability to dole out violence? Perhaps, but Mr. Alexander  exists in the same culture and is not so bent on using torture. While we debate the morality and motivations for torture, we are losing ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Janus previously addressed Victor Davis Hanson’s opinion that the Western war machine works because democracy is responsive to the public. But now we see the inevitable discord between ideal and reality: we espouse freedom, we bring torture.  Should we despise and denegrate our nation and our ideals because we can not live up to them?

I think not. Our ideals are still intact. We will probably never fully live up to them. We probably never have. Of course, we have our beautiful and ugly aspects. The liberty of the Constitution, the inhumanity of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The success of western expansion, the blood of native Americans and Mexicans. The triumph of the Second World War, the black mark of Japanese detention camps.

But neither should the knowledge that we will always fail our highest principles lull us into complacency. Are our leaders, in Congress, in the Supreme Court, in the White House, in the Pentagon – are they responsive to cries for justice? Will they stop torture, not only because it is ineffective but because it is wrong? Can we culturally and ideologically triumph over terrorism if we indulge in barbaric and anti-American practices? This antithesis between American freedom and American torture can only co-exist for so long before it mars our memory of this war, and more immediately hinders our ability to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

“We Call Them Pirates Out Here”

In the wild waters off the Horn of Africa, local fishermen have turned to piracy. And this week they hit the jackpot in the form of a ship registered in Belize - $30 million of Ukrainian arms bound for Kenya. The booty includes grenades, small arms, and yes, Soviet tanks.

Piracy has been an increasing problem in the Indian Ocean waters hugging Somalia. Earlier this year a Jordanian ship was seized en route to Mogadishu with international aid supplies. Pirates took hostage a French yacht and her crew in April before the French military led a successful raid on the pirates’ headquarters in the Gulf of Aden on the northern coast of the country. The International Maritime Bureau believes that pirate attacks were up 10% in 2007 from 2006 – and most of these attacks occurred off of Somali and Nigerian waters.

Piracy is an increasingly popular career option in the nearly-anarchic Horn nation, which is one of the most lawless countries in the world. After independence and unification in 1960, rebels forced out the president in a 1990 invasion of Mogadishu; a UN invasion followed in 1992. In 2006, an Ethiopian-led coalition stepped in, in order to shore up a government besieged by rebels. Violence has continued between Ethiopian forces and various insurgent groups up until now. The de jure government in the south can not control the de facto independence of the northern regions, where the pirates operate.

We should seemingly be quite dismayed that pirates now have a column of T-72 tanks. Not exactly so – they may be in possession of them, but it remains to be seen that they have the technology to offload them. In fact, most pirate operations are known to store captured ships in coastal caves. None are known to have the technology or know-how to get the tanks off the ship, which requires specific types of machinery.

Where this episode will get interesting is the international response. Russia has already deployed a flotilla to hunt down the missing ship. The U.S. Navy is not far behind. I do not expect African Union and Ethiopian forces to delay long. I do not think it would be a stretch to say that, in conjunction with their military exercises South America, this is a great opportunity for Russia to assert influence in a Third-World area and possibly gain some friends among Somalia’s more stable neighbors.

America’s involvement is interesting, within the framework of African criticism of American military presence in Africa. The Africa Command, established in 2007, has come under fire as being a vehicle for combating Chinese influence in oil-rich African nations. The U.S. military responds that its primary mission is to prevent terrorist networks from operating effectively in Africa. The current pursuit of the pirates could also be an excellent opportunity for the United States to aid the political stabilization of the Horn, strengthen relations with Kenya (by rescuing their arms – which might similarly help relations with the Ukraine, but hurt those with Russia), and then return to a general policy of non-interference.

A New Army for Every War

Strictly speaking, no two moments are ever alike.  Even on an infinitesimal scale, the measure of time spent between breaths contains entire univereses of possibility, no two exactly similar.  Now blow this up to the grand scale of politics and it doesn’t take a professional philosopher (ha!) to figure out that no two situations will exactly repeat themselves.

It’s important to take lessons from the past, recognize patterns where they exist (and acknowledge where they don’t), and make educated plans for the future.  It is reckless, and a mistake oft repeated, to seize on a model and apply it wholesale to new conditions.  This is best illustrated in the arena of armed conflict.

The Atlantic points out how the apparent success, and political popularity, of the Petraeus Doctrine is reshaping the future of the army. The Petraeus Doctrine was overdue for Iraq, there is no denying that.  If civilian leaders had done any research on Iraq, or any history at all, they would have recognized the need for a counterinsurgency plan and an occupational strategy.  As it was, the army was forced to reinvent itself on the fly, and what a testament it is to the soldiers and officers that they were able to do this.  That being said, it’s in danger of going too far.

Undoubtedly, the Patraeus Doctrine will help the army avoid a similar shock in the future.  But the article points out the dangers of seeing the Doctrine as an end in itself for armed forces.  It’s most vocal opponent deserves to be listened to, fearing:

that an infatuation with stability operations will lead the Army to reinvent itself as “a constabulary,” adept perhaps at nation-building but shorn of adequate capacity for conventional war-fighting.

While it is important that the army be ready to take on all situations, and all aspects of war, it should not put slack on the most basic abilities in order to refocus the battle to hearts and minds.  It needs to be remembered that before the stage of “winning hearts and minds,” one needs to conquerer hearts and minds, armed with weapons, and shooting them at our soldiers.

I take issues with Gentile’s assertion that Abrams’ strategy wouldn’t work in Vietnam.  I think the evidence currently supports the claim that, with continued funding (and no American soldiers) victory was possible.  That being said, I understand his defense of this position.  Strategy is not always strictly about “victory,” it’s also about cutting losses.  If the army is being geared to fight long wars, it will fight long wars, even when they are best avoided altogether.

Ultimately, the goal of the army must be the protection of Americans, and that includes the soldiers who serve it.  Rigid plans to fight past wars will not accomplish this.  The army should absorb the Patraeus Doctrine like a sponge and let it soak alongside the Powell Doctrine before it decides to wring it all out. The army needs to be flexible and ready to adapt, not stiff and forced to adapt.

Better yet, their civilian bosses should remember the Washington Farewell Doctrine.

Looks Like VDH is Vindicated

Victor Davis Hanson, the classicist and military historian at Stanford University’s invaluable Hoover Institution has long advocated that the culture of Western civilization has throughout history given its constituents a decisive advantage over its enemies. In the brave new world of 21st century asymmetric terrorist and anti-terrorist warfare, this shamefully antiquated, western chauvninist, orientalist, </ivory tower newspeak> proposition of VDH seemed destined to meet its Waterloo in the bloody streets of Baghdad.

But it looks like VDH may wind up with the last laugh after all. The quantitative and qualitative success of General Petraeus’s COIN [COunter-INsurgency] strategy has turned the tables on the insurgency (knock on an entire rainforest’s worth of wood, of course), whose brutal tactics and inflexibility have cost it the strategic advantage and popular support it once commanded. As Andrew Sullivan opines:

Maybe this will be history’s judgment of the last few years: both the US and al Qaeda over-reached. But al Qaeda’s over-reach was greater. And in this we see why democracies do actually do better in warfare in the long run: because our leaders have to be responsive to the people; because legitimate internal criticism and debate forces course correction and exposes self-defeating hubris. With the Bush administration, this process took much longer than it should have, and the Bushies did all they could to stamp out, rather than hear, criticism. But in the end, democracy adjusts to reality; religious extremism cannot.

Whammy! Western Civ for the win!

Petraeus for President. and VDH as veep. And Andrew Sullivan as Secretary of the Interior[-Design].

The Air Force Is Wasting My Money

I am not a fan of the air force.  I think that strategic over-reliance on air power in the latter-half of the 20th century has produced some of the greatest embarrassments for the western world’s military endeavors.  The US expectation that North Vietnam would cower in fear at its bombs to the recent Israeli attempt to bomb Hezbollah into the stone age while they hid in… well… the stone age… are too of the greatest offenses of an air force strategy.  No war will ever be won by anything but an army boots on enemy soil (or the distinct threat of).

Now before I sound like a crazy hater, I’d like to explain my position a bit more clearly.  First of all, I acknowledge the extreme importance of air power.  The Allies do not win World War II without it.  April 1975 would have been a much different month in Saigon if ARVN had it.  But what has been crucial about the success of air power, and its failure, is how it has been used—successfully, it is a means to an end, the best support a soldier could hope for.  Improperly, it is thought to be an end in itself, an expensive way to avoid casualties to the home team while accomplishing very little on the ground.

The Navy still operates their own planes, the Marines still operate theirs, and in my opinion the air force should never have been separated from the Army.  Attempting to promote themselves and their self-anointed role as defenders of my cell phone, the Air Force has been running ads so ridiculous, I thought they were trailers for a bad Babylon 5 knock off the first time I saw them.

The premise of the ad is ridiculous and not grounded in any sort of current tactical reality.  The solution to the ad is vague and non-existent.  So… you want more money?  The Air Force already has the biggest budget of all the services.  If I begin think about how inefficiently that money is spent within the armed forces I will smash my computer screen, but I will acknowledge that inefficient spending is unavoidable, so let’s just say this: if anyone needs more money, give it to the army so there is no excuse for sending soldiers to war without kevlar and hummers into battle zones without armor.  The last thing I need my tax dollars wasted on is an $81 million ad campaign to tell me that someone is going to blow up my satellites.

Which, interestingly, doesn’t make me want to give the Air Force more money.  It makes me want to ask what the hell is wrong with us if the destruction of a few satellites would fuck up our world so much?