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.

The Bush Legacy

Anytime a President is about to do something you do not like, but you are not going to stop him from doing it, all you have to do is say that “history will regard him as the worst president ever.” Let us lay aside the fact that when people say this, they usually mean “public opinion” and not “history.” And by “public opinion” they mean their opinion, which is usually the only one that they care about anyway.

And we have repeated this process enough times from, say, John Adams onwards that the moniker has stuck at least once. To tell you the truth about it, I like the idea that history will take revenge on someone’s reputation after they have shed this mortal coil. But I am not naive enough to think that history always gets it right, or that it even matters who reigns supreme in the kingdom of worst presidents.

Yet, as we hurtle shakily towards the 20th of January, we may find ourselves with boiling blood and steam pumping out of our ears when we think about the past eight years of Bush administration. I need not remind you, faithful Dino-Readers, of our recent history in the Middle East, in New Orleans, in sub-prime mortgage regulation. Many of us feel secure, now, in the notion that finally the title will stick and Mr. Bush will become the worst president in all of history.

When lo and behold, rearing its ugly head into our airspace, comes this opinion piece by Prof. Stanley Fish, currently Professor of Humanities and Professor of Law at Florida International University, as well as Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Disregarding Prof. Fish’s critical lack of adherence to any logical system of thought in his postmodernist scholarship, could he be right that George W. Bush will wiggle his way into our hearts when we no longer feel obligated to hold him responsible (for the many things in which we were complicit)?

Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. Consider it a reversal of what happened to Harry S. Truman and Winston Churchill. They, along with Franklin D. Roosevelt, are the greatest war-time politicians of the 20th century (and perhaps of all time – only being rivaled by Abraham Lincoln, at least on this side of the Atlantic). They enjoyed supreme unity amongst their fellow-citizens during the war, but once there was peace they quickly found themselves out of jobs. Come to think of it, the same thing happened to old Themistokles – he rose to prominence on his naval construction program platform, and after the navy won the Persian War he quickly fell from favor and eventually resettled in Persia itself (imagine if the old Bulldog bought a condo in Stalingrad!). They were good wartime leaders, and once their nations had used them for that, they were out the door before you could muster a “blood, sweat, and tears” speech.

Now George Bush will leave office in the wake of strong criticism during the entrenched battle that was his administration. Without any responsibility, and therefore no reason to blame him for anything, we may yet embrace him as that funny sounding Texan with the boyish swagger. Maybe Prof. Fish will be proven wrong and our disgust for Mr. Bush will remain. But the cogs of history are slow to work, slow to judge: the machinations of the courtroom of history click and whistle and belch up hot air for much time before a verdict, if ever, is handed down from the ivory tower jury.

“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.