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 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?