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.

Are recent Iraqi victories too good to be true? Only if they lead to poorly drawn conclusions by hawks or doves alike. As the Atlantic correctly points out, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We can see progress, but it is at best progress progressing—these victories are not an end in the themselves.

Still, it’s nice to see potential light at the bottom of Pandora’s box.

How could I forget that the mission has been accomplished for five whole years already?

I consider myself a forgiving American, because I would hope others would forgive me my faults, but what continues to drive Bush’s legacy (and our country’s reputation) into the ground is the insanely delusional insistence to stick with their blanket fantasies.  I cite the following from the article:

“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said ‘mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,” said press secretary Dana Perino. “We have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner.”

I would resign before I gave that statement.  It is an insult to national intelligence and human decency.  Such a bold revision of recent history should be considered a human rights violation.  This is the kind of press briefing I would expect to get from China’s state-run news or Soviet-era governments.  That is flat out embarrassing.

Our President is in his second term in office with no constitutional hope of another one.  Can there not come a point where he would be willing to break free from his political puppet masters and just simply say, “You know what?  We totally botched this.  But, we are now going to double our efforts to righting the situation, and with your support, we will pursue a strategy that will result in a lasting victory defined as a stable, representative country for the Iraqis and the return of our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, as quickly as possible.”

The rhetoric remains the same, though.  Admitting any kind of misjudgment would weaken morale, strengthen the enemies, be unpatriotic, and so on.  None of it is true, of course.  A clearly defined and articulated strategy is the first step towards military victory and national reconciliation, but in this administration’s hands that is continually shunned for the tools of partisan politics and power consolidation.

A pity.  Years from now, if the Iraq conflict turns into a failed venture, it will be exactly as the Bush Administration fears, the politicians betrayed the soldiers–only it won’t be as simple as pointing at reluctant democrats or resisting republicans.  Historians will vindicate the lives lost and harm caused by cataloging the gross abuses and negligence of the commander in chief to the citizens he serves.  (Notice, that is CITIZENS, different from CONSTITUENTS.)  For a man who claims to admire Teddy Roosevelt, he understands nothing about what made him great.

If the conflict turns out successful, which, believe it or not, is still very much within our grasp if we have the endurance and persistence for it, it will owe all of its success to innovative commanders and the sacrifices of the few who serve to keep everything we hold sacred safe.  It will be a success in spite of, not because of, our civilian leaders who obsess over whistles and tricks.

It is frustrating that it seems we need to re-learn old lessons with every conflict we find ourselves engaged in, but at least it seems that we finally learn them. Here is a great example of how a Marine general has turned an Iraqi prison around with the real application of soft-power that is going to win a protracted war.

Few strategists would disagree, but most politicians and citizens are blissfully ignorant to the fact that the nature of war has completely changed. The purpose of the American Armed Forces isn’t so much tearing down as it is building and protecting–and this is a jarring difference from expectations. Were we a misguided Soviet army or vengeful fascists, we would have already accomplished our goals by flattening everything in sight. These are short-term and easy to affect with the modern tools of destruction.

However, whatever errant and deceitful path led us here, it is in the long-term interest of our nation (and the world, but whatever) to have a moderate, stable Iraq. This means, first above everything, that insurgents must be convinced that that they should put down their weapons, and a facility like Bucca works to accomplish this. Instead of torture, humiliation, and degradation–all practices that will lead to the hardening of resistance and the depletion of our morale–Bucca is making efforts to rehabilitate enemies and turn them, if not to friends, at least ambivalent towards violence. Allowing families to visit often is a fantastic move on General Stone’s part, reminding the combatants what they were fighting for in the first place, and showing them that there is a better way to ensure their safety.

I can hear the clamor of accusations already mobilizing against the prison’s policies of having

no maximum period for holding them. They are freed only when it has been determined by a review board they are no longer a security risk. Some have been locked up for more than three years.

Undoubtedly, I would like to see some kind of charge raised against every person imprisoned, superficial as they may be, so that inmates can be presented with a cause to their imprisonment, but in the meantime it seems to me that expediency can take precedence of bureaucracy.

Another note: the word “re-education” smacks of every depraved oppressor from the Nazis, to the Soviets, the North Vietnamese, and the Khmer Rouges, but before propaganda tries to connect these disparate dots, I’d like to see the military release a comprehensive overview of what, and how, re-education is being applied. I necessarily trust an moderate imam because other Muslim countries have employed a similar teaching style.

A lack of communication between political and military leaders and the citizens they serve has doomed missions in the past. Press coverage is good, but this is the kind of stuff that the President and the President-to-be needs to highlight and emphasize. This looks like an excellent counterinsurgency model that is finally being employed to a great effect. Hopefully this is a lesson we won’t need to learn again.

Of course, one hopes the military can find more eloquent speakers. Sometimes generals have a bit of a one track mind…

“Each detainee represents the possibility of being a moderate missile, if you will, fired into a community to spread a degree of moderacy and that’s the way we view it,” he says.

“If we have half of them hitting their target, it makes a huge difference.”