|
|
Not Getting It Department
Posted by Stephen Green · 14 July 2005
Andrew Sullivan writes: Emails are running overwhelmingly in favor of the "abusive and degrading" treatment of detainees, as cited in the Schmidt report. And they are in favor of narrowing the definition of torture to the extremes that the Bush administration has done. Sully goes on to quote (in toto, it appears) one of those in-favor-of emails. Want to read it? Click on over and read Sully's post - no need to republish it here. It speaks well of Sully that the email he chose was well-reasoned and well-written. The moral of the story: I fear this [support for Gitmo "torture"] is the popular view. America is not the America it once was. But a couple of points: much of this is against the law, unless you believe that the president can change the law as he sees fit in wartime. Most do. As another emailer put it, "The Bush Administration will not be harmed by these reports of torture. The country has spoken and it does not mind. The pictures and actions are very American." I read earlier this week that, at 42, Andrew has now spent exactly half of his life in America. Maybe by the time he's 63, he'll get it. What I mean is, this is how America once was, and how America is, and how - I hope - America will always be. Let me quote from Walter Russell Mead's "The Jacksonian Tradition": Indeed, of all the major currents in American society, Jacksonians have the least regard for international law and international institutions. They prefer the rule of custom to the written law, and that is as true in the international sphere as it is in personal relations at home. Jacksonians believe that there is an honor code in international life — as there was in clan warfare in the borderlands of England — and those who live by the code will be treated under it. But those who violate the code — who commit terrorist acts in peacetime, for example — forfeit its protection and deserve no consideration. You don't have to be a native-born American of Scots-Irish descent to be a Jacksonian American - although it probably helps. However, being a Cambridge-educated Briton living on the East Coast is almost certainly a hindrance. Sully just doesn't get it. I don't begrudge Sullivan his opinion. It's his, and I've watched him ably create and defend it. However, when he claims that our rough treatment of rough characters "is not the America it once was," he's displaying an almost-willful misunderstanding of America's wartime mores. In WWII, German POWs were accorded proper respect. Those few Japanese who surrendered were largely not. Why the difference? Germany declared war on us before attacking; Japan didn't. When a German soldier showed the white flag, he usually meant it; a Japanese solider usually didn't. Germany treated American POWs according to the Geneva Conventions. Japan treated American POWs to the Bataan Death March. Today we're faced with an enemy who never signed onto the Geneva Conventions. An enemy who hides in plain clothes among civilians, who wages war against civilians, and who began this war with a surprise attack. While reading that last paragraph, maybe your mind wandered. Maybe your brain recoiled, and was haunted by questions. "Do we live perfectly by the Geneva Conventions?" "Don't our soldiers sometimes hide in civilian homes?" "Weren't we asking to be attacked?" "Didn't they attack us by the only means at their disposal?" If you asked yourself those things, you're certainly no Jacksonian. But millions of Americans - probably a wartime majority - do hold by Jackson's traditions. We try to play fair, and mostly we succeed. But we will not play fair with those who refuse to honor the rules of the game. In fact, we think it speaks pretty well of us that those Gitmo prisoners are being treated as well as they are. Sometimes, we even wonder if maybe we've gone a little too soft - if maybe we shouldn't be taking prisoners at all. The immigrants I know are pretty darn Jacksonian. Now, I don't know many immigrants very well, and most of them tend to be, well, sort of stereotypical. There's the Korean couple who own the corner liquor store. And the other Korean guy who owns my dry cleaner. The soldier originally from Taiwan. The Air Force officer from Puerto Rico. And... well, you get the idea. They weren't born here, but they're solidly middle class, patriotic without being weird about it, and from what I can tell from our waiting-by-the-cash-register conversations, hard-nosed Jacksonians, each and every one. Then again, these are people who - better than I ever will - really know what it means to be an American. They know it in their bones. Sullivan, despite the many things as we agree on, only knows being an American in his brain. In his gut, he's still the British whiz kid, more concerned with the niceties of decency, rather than the sometimes-brutal application of it. If we want to maintain a civil - a decent - society here at home, then we cannot be decent with our enemies abroad who consider decency to be a weakness. Fortunately, we haven't gone so soft that most Americans have forgotten that fact. If we've degraded ourselves by codifying harsh interrogation methods, it's because the other guy forced us to. Most Americans know that as a fact, too. Maybe someday we'll read about something truly horrifying going on at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. You know, thumb screws or lashings or Chinese water torture. If and when that day comes, my first thought will be, "Now that's wrong. That's un-American, and it's got to stop." My second thought will be, "I wonder what those guys did to deserve it?" My third thought will be, "It's still wrong, and it's got to stop." At the first sign of semi-torture, Sullivan stopped himself at the first thought. When he has the other two, that's the day Sully will understand Americans, right down to our bones. Comments
Yup. On point and on-target. Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 15, 2005 12:39 AMSullivan is pretty ignorant of American history, and it really harms his credibility on this issue. By the way, treatment of Japanese captured in WWII was certainly much more harsh on average than that of German captured, but the European Theater had more than a few summary executions of German soldiers, starting right at Omaha Beach. When considering captured Gestapo, S.S., or those who manned the concentration camps, well, the gloves really came off. I forget which death camp it was that the American unit which liberated it, upon realizing what had happened within the camp, lined the former guards up and shot them. Posted by: Will Allen at July 15, 2005 01:12 AMTO: Stephen Green I had an interesting revelation over at Scott 'The Daily Ablution' Burgess' place. Our press makes so much of the alleged torture at Gitmo. However, there is hardly any mention of what happens in France. The French, contrary to what we might like to think about them as being 'wimps' and 'surrender monkeys' apparently DO torture their terrorist suspects/detainees. And not the 'dressed to thrill' sort of thing either. They do it the old fashioned way. That's one reason why the Brits have not allowed the extradition of a suspect the French want to 'question' on a terrorism rap. They're afraid of what will happen to him at the hands of DSGC or whomever is running the French gulag. I think we've not heard about this in our so-called major media because it would make their 'position' on Gitmo look as ludicrous as it really is, being compared against reality. Regards, Chuck(le) Excellent post and I agree with all of it. Adrian. Will Allen is correct regarding the death camps. I don't recall the source, but I read somewhere that allied commanders started routing US forces away from the camps when they realized that units that 'liberated' them were not reporting any captured Germans for some time afterwards. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau/FiringSquad.html When Sullivan says ..."is not the America it once was," he errs in thinking that the America that existed in his imagination was the true one. America has changed since the 1940s. But not that much. Posted by: rosignol at July 15, 2005 04:11 AMSame thing started happening to SS after word got around about the Malmedy massacre of surrendered Americans during the Battle of the Bulge. Posted by: SDN at July 15, 2005 05:07 AMGreat post! I think Sullivan is still trapped in that sixties "malaise" that believes the "Summer of Love" was the real founding of the nation. Most Americans believe we must do what is necessary to save innocent (specifically American) lives. The reality of the U.S. being a nation built on judeo-christian values is that we all have a point where we say "Whoa....they shouldn'y do that to those inmates." The reality is not, as Sullivan thinks, that our "principles" will not allow us to defend ourselves. Posted by: Eno at July 15, 2005 05:52 AM>But we will not play fair with those who refuse to honor the rules of the game. And if we detain someone, they must OBVIOUSLY be a terrorist, right? > forget which death camp it was that the American unit which liberated it, upon realizing what had happened within the camp, lined the former guards up and shot them. I looked it up. It was "Camp Faktoid" near the town of Wingnut-am-Spin. Posted by: Jimbo at July 15, 2005 05:58 AMTO: All I've not bothered reading Sullivan for quite some time now. Not since his agenda's primary issue became whining about how so many people think he's a pervert. Regards, Chuck(le) ">But we will not play fair with those who refuse to honor the rules of the game. And if we detain someone, they must OBVIOUSLY be a terrorist, right? " No Jimbo, we sent thousands of US troops over to Afghanistan to pick up a few random men to sent them to Gitmo so that one of them could be used as a dress up doll. You do realize that only a handful of those caught were sent to Gitmo, and many of those have been repatriated back to their home countries. If getting those who deliberately attack civilians, if not kidnapping and cutting their heads off, means that we will sometimes put their leaders in bras & panties, and have women get close to them, then I am comfortable with that. We aren't cutting hands off (a la Saddam Hussein) or strapping electrodes to some guy's nuts. The Christina Aguilera music is a bit dicey though. Posted by: rbj at July 15, 2005 06:57 AMTO: Jimbo "And if we detain someone, they must OBVIOUSLY be a terrorist, right?" -- Jimbo The point is that one has to have a certain degree of confidence in the ability of the people doing the job of determining who is what. If you lack that confidence....you should do something 'constructive' about it. It's your duty. You do understand the concept of 'duty', I trust. I guess the question is how to give ourselves the greatest assurance that these people will do THEIR duty properly? As an answer, I offer Winston Churchill's statement... Let us go forward in our mission and our duty. Fearing God and nothing else.Amoral people do not fear their government, except that they might be caught. On the other hand, the religious, particularly of the Judeo-Christian bent KNOW they'll get caught. Maybe not by their government, but by that higher authority. Regards, Chuck(le) TO: everyone WTF, over? Just asking. But, really, WTF? Otherwise, great post, Steve, though I find it odd you're still reading Sully. He lost perspective a while back... ...and relevance. Posted by: William Young at July 15, 2005 07:20 AMI agree with William. I think Sully lost most of his audience when he went on his gay marriage tirade. Posted by: pianoman at July 15, 2005 07:26 AMThe treatment of POWs varied widely during WWII. Those countries that signed the Geneva Convention largely abided with it, at least with their dealings with POWs from other signatories. Germany signed the GC and so did the UK and US. As a result, each country pretty well followed the GC rules. The Soviet Union didn't sign the GC, so German treatment of Soviet POWs was utterly brutal, as was the Soviet treatment of German POWs. IIRC, Japan hadn't signed the GC and was very brutal with POWs. From 25-33% of their prisoners died in captivity, compared to about 4% of American POWs in German captivity. Japan's brutal treatment of prisoners began very early in the war (Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, etc.) The same thing happened in the Korean War. The North Koreans and Chinese treated their prisoners (including one of my uncles) very brutally. It happened again in the Vietnam war. As former POWs like my uncle about what they endured (if you can get them to talk about it) compared to the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. There simply is no comparison at all. None. Posted by: Larry J at July 15, 2005 07:42 AMTO: rbj "...we will sometimes put their leaders in bras & panties, and have women get close to them,... We aren't...strapping electrodes to some guy's nuts." -- rbj Remember the guy at Abu G, done up like a low-grade table lamp? They never really put the juice to him. But I saw that picture and said, "WTF!??!?! Are they running an impromptu prop-blast ceremony for detainees?" I was incensed. How dare they take a time-honored tradition of the airborne forces of the United States and bestow it upon some al Qaeda riff-raff! Stupid MPs.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 07:43 AMJimbo, you're an ignorant ass. Educate yourself. Tell 'ya what; name the wager, and if I can't establish the truth of what I asserted within 1 hour, I pay. If I do, you pay. Of course, it is likely that you are the sort who can't be trusted to pay up. Care to put something of value on the line, loudmouth? Or is yapping like a toy poodle your stock and trade? Posted by: Will Allen at July 15, 2005 08:00 AMGreat post. I've watched Andrew Sullivan wrestle with the idea of effective interrogation and lose. I have to disagree with your history. I think we did give most Japanese prisoners Geneva Convention treatment. There just weren't that many of them. Keep up the good work. Posted by: Roger Fraley at July 15, 2005 08:02 AMGood post Stephen, I gotta agree with you on this one. Regarding the terrorists, first, they are enemy combatants who dress as civilians and deliberately prey on civilian targets as their strategy. Second, their treatment of prisoners has been well documented, just watch any of the beheading videos that they so proudly posted around the internet. They merit no consideration or mercy. Nonetheless, those we capture are treated far better than they deserve. In the past, they would have been summarily executed. If anything, the minor harrasment of prisoners that we've seen to date speaks well of our restraint and disciple. Despite what the leftists and the MSM would have you believe. Roger, you may wish to read Paul Fussell's interviews with Marines who served in the Pacific Theater. While certainly American treatment of captured wasn't even in the same league, in terms of amount of cruelty, as what the Japanese directed at their prisoners, it was not highly unsual for those Japanese that were captured to be subject to a little target practice by a young Marine before the prisoner could make it to a P.O.W. camp. This was merely accepted as part of the war in the Pacific, and was indeed inflamed by a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to portray the Japanese in sub-human terms. Not that the Japanese didn't provide plenty of fodder for the propagandists. It is so rare that the hideous cruelty, and not just in the heat of combat, that was the every day reality of WWII is accurately portrayed. The myth of "the good war" is jealously protected. WWII was certainly necessary, but there wasn't much good about it. Posted by: Will Allen at July 15, 2005 09:00 AMTO: Will Allen "Not that the Japanese didn't provide plenty of fodder for the propagandists." -- Will Allen Yeah...like the Bataan Death March. Pure propaganda, that. In truth at the time of WWII the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces looked upon surrender as the most despical form of military comportment. Anyone who was taken prisoner through surrender was considered lower than the lowest dregs of human scum. Hence the cruel treatment of our soldiers by theirs. Hence the few prisoners taken of them by ours. RE: The 'Good' War? "The myth of "the good war" is jealously protected. WWII was certainly necessary, but there wasn't much good about it." -- Will Allen I've never heard of that myth. The "Just War", yes. The "Good War", no. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 09:09 AMGreat post, Stephen--pour yourself a chilly Citron. I used to read Sullivan, but gave up quite some time ago when he became such an insufferable pussy. Posted by: Brad at July 15, 2005 09:12 AMVDH has stressed this point many times. Americans are among the most decent people on earth, but when we are attacked we can become the most ruthless conquering people on Earth. We obliterated almost every city in Germany and Japan because they would not surrender after we destroyed their industrial base. So we went after their cities and killed millions of civilians - AND WE WERE RIGHT TO DO IT. My family has been here since the 1600s, and yes, I get it. I also work with many, many immigrants and THEY get it, too. I am amazed how many of them have kids in the military. We will be in good hands in the future. Posted by: Scott in CA at July 15, 2005 09:16 AMI think it was Paul Fussell again who talked about what happened to German soldiers captured while wearing U.S. army boots. And of a hushed-up massacre during the U.S. invasion of Sicily. I get annoyed at types like Sullivan who support a war until civilians are killed, or friendly-fire incidents occur, or a soldier steps out of line. What do they think happens in a war zone? The modern U.S. army has done a better job than any other fighting force in history of tamping down on abuses and collatoral damage, but you wouldn't know it from the media coverage and the attitude of the world. Posted by: C. S. Froning at July 15, 2005 09:29 AMI read Sullivan pretty regularly. I share some of his concern over torture, but I have always had the feeling that he was so desperate to find wayt to bash Bush after the anti-gay stuff that he percieved in the election that he has gone a bit overboard. I do not support torture in general, but in the case of illegal combatant Islamic extremists I am somewhat willing to move the bar a bit. Not a lot, but some. The whole point about this "not being amarerica" is uttter balderdash, but so is Stephens implication (calling Sullivan a whiz kid) that the English are somehow less willing to get brutal than we are. I have made the point before and will do so again now. The entire western world has a history of getting absolutely savage when they need to kill their enemy and then returning to the liberal progress of their history once it is over. We incinerated entire cities in WW2 without batting an eyelash, and we still returned to a society that grew more and more liberal to the point of absurdity. While we should be concerned about government abuse of prisoners of all kinds, I find it pretty unlikely that mistreatment of illegal combatants in this war against islamofacists will somehow alter the hyper-liberalizing nature of the west once the war is over. I may, of course, and hence the diligence that Andrew and his kind show in bringing it to our attention is a good thing. In my opinion doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at July 15, 2005 09:45 AMI agree with Stephen's post. Especially the point that most immigrants are more "Jacksonian" than the native-borns. I think people born here don't realize that most of the world isn't like the US. Since they have no real basis for comparison, they don't realize just how lucky we Americans are to live here. Freedom, rule-of-law and endless opportunity are taken for granted. Immigrants who come to America for a chance at a better life for themselves and their families know the differences all too well. That's why they still keep immigrating here. And why they feel so strongly about doing most anything and everything to protect the ideals of their adopted country. Some of these people have experienced and truly understand the meaning of evil, torture and persecution. Posted by: VChai at July 15, 2005 09:58 AMPanties on the head!! How do they even know those poor men were terrorists? Most of them were probably hiking through Afghanistan on the way to the haj! Perfectly innocent, you see. I think the "Jacksonian" angle seems about right. I might add that Americans are for the most part practical and tough. When confronted with violence we fight like hell and always have. Gitmo tactics are, in my opinion, an expression of this pragmatism. You see, we've got this problem. Sociopathic murderers are trying to kill us. Posted by: Old Dad at July 15, 2005 10:16 AMAgree with some of the comments here re: "used to read Sully, but stopped when..." I stopped reading when EVERYTHING he commented on was through his gay prism, exclusively. He's just become a drama - queen to no end. Posted by: Dmac at July 15, 2005 10:16 AMTo quote one of the gasbags from the '60s. "Violence is as American as applepie". Very true. The first brought forth the second. We've fought clean with those who did the same, and fought very dirty with those who prefered it that way. Nobody can say we Americans aren't accomodating. For a crash course in the American Soul Sullivan could do worse than watch a few episodes of Deadwood. Posted by: c at July 15, 2005 10:18 AMChuck:
Sully lost me when he came back from his August hiatus, declared the Vietnam War the private property of John Kerry, and demanded that every person who served his country in that war have his memories vetted by the Kerry campaign before saying them out loud. Apropos this issue, I think it's worthwhile to remember that Sullivan is the product of a British education. However well their schools stack up against ours overall, it's been my experience that the English, even thoughtful, well educated Englishmen, know surprisingly little about U.S. history. And every now and then, Sullivan shows a very poor grasp of the basics of this country. Posted by: byrd at July 15, 2005 10:53 AMI expressed some similar thoughts on this earlier this week. Anyone who thinks that America used to be a kinder, gentler place is deluded. Beginning with the first colonist to shoot a British redcoat from behind a wall, we've always known that war isn't a game. It's a fight for survival, and it can't be won through gentle handling of the enemy.
But all that aside, what the folk who support the maltreatment of prisoners forget is that is is profoundly counterproductive. Doing this does not defeat our enemies, it creates them. It is not merely immoral, but is also counterproductive. As demonstrated by the Pinochet regime, torture is best used to create insurgencies and opposition, not to break it. Posted by: William Oliver at July 15, 2005 12:32 PMTO: William Oliver "As demonstrated by the Pinochet regime, torture is best used to create insurgencies and opposition, not to break it." -- William Oliver Go read my initial post here, third from the top. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 12:35 PMStephen, Sullivan isn't worth a blink of your time or attention. What he thinks or says is irrelevant. Posted by: erp at July 15, 2005 12:37 PMClaiming that what Andrew thinks is irrelevant is misguided. What Andrew thinks and writes matters a lot. I alway supported the war. I was in favor of it long before Bush decided to do it. And still, Andrew Sullivan did a lot to buck up my spirits and keep me informed about things the mainstream media chose to ignore or lie about. Andrew does matter! doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at July 15, 2005 12:44 PMI feel a bit sorry for Andrew. I used to read him for a daily does of a hawkish liberial libertarian Now it seems that his understandable gender-politics based dislike for Bush has clouded his vision and seems to be anti-bush no mater what the issue. I was surprised while reading another post of his regarding the Wilson Plame hyperventilation he says, "It would be prudent for journalists and Democrats to hold their fire and wait until we have solid facts about an affair that remains cloudy before rushing to premature judgment." At least he is admitting to be a Democrat. TO: doug quarnstrom "Claiming that what Andrew thinks is irrelevant is misguided. What Andrew thinks and writes matters a lot." -- doug quarnstrom I generally do not take the advice of people who I think are behaving foolishly, if not dangerously, seriously. And, based on comments here, it seems a lot of others have the same beliefs. You're welcome to follow Andrew's advice, if you wish. That's your preogative. Enjoy.... Regards, Chuck(le) He has my sympathy and empathy. My Father died of this ailment. But his was sustained by a massive blood transfusion before anyone even knew there was a problem with the blood supply. But he does NOT have my confidence in his judgement. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 12:55 PMYes, chuck, the Bataan Death March happened. What a revelation. Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that any competent wager of war engages in propaganda. Clear enough? As to your lack of familiarity with the term "The Good War", in reference to WWII, well, it has only been a a term employed by best-selling books, Broadway plays, and television documentaries. It is a commonly employed term. Also, no, Japanese soldiers didn't surrender much, but those that did, or were captured due to being wounded, often received pretty nasty treatment, up to and including summary execution. Don't take my word for it; go read the eyewitness accounts. Googling Paul Fussell is a good place to start. Finally, I'll note that the American military forces conducted themselves better than anybody else in that conflict, with perhaps the exception of the British. The point is that in a global total war, in which the deliberate slaughter of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians is considered a legitimate tactic, there is practically no taboo that will avoid being violated with some frequency. WWII was a titanic slaughterhouse which debased any culture or people which participated in it, which, of course, does not mean that it was not a necessary war, and one with a just rationale, for the Allies. Pedantically Yours, Will(iam) Posted by: Will Allen at July 15, 2005 01:16 PMI do not follow Mr. Sullivan's "advice." But I do read him and think about what he has to say. Implying that he is suffering from dementia is a bit out of bounds, but you are free to express your opinion. When I read Andrew I find I disagree with him a great deal, but I do not find him irrational. That a lot of people here have stopped reading him is of no particular importance either. He is a prominent voice in the blogosphere and he does influence people's opinions. Hence, what he writes matters. Stephen does a more important service by engaging in discussion than he would do by summarily dismissing Andrew as some suggest. doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at July 15, 2005 01:30 PMWilliam - Chuck brings up a valid point: Interpol has been cooperating with us right after 9/11, and they've only intensified their efforts this week. And yes, the French have some very interesting torture techniques, amply demonstrated during the Algerian War. Makes anything we're doing now look like Mr. Rodgers neighborhood. Posted by: Dmac at July 15, 2005 01:30 PMTO: Will Allen "As to your lack of familiarity with the term "The Good War", in reference to WWII, well, it has only been a a term employed by best-selling books, Broadway plays, and television documentaries." -- Will Allen Look into my eye..... ...see anyone who cares about 'best-selling books, Broadway plays, and television documentaries"? That's pop-culture as far as I am concerned. There is only 'war' and it is always 'bad'. Sometimes it is justified, but it is never 'good'. RE: Slaugther, It's the American Way [of war] "The point is that in a global total war, in which the deliberate slaughter of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians is considered a legitimate tactic, there is practically no taboo that will avoid being violated with some frequency." -- Will Allen You're preaching to the choir, here, Will. I sing 'infantry'; 27 years in the chorus, as a matter of fact. Someone was pointing out (see above) how we fight total war. I think they were citing something by VDH. VDH, in my opinion, has read T.R. Fahrenbach's This Kind of War [Note: on the official reading list at Benning School for Boys.] Our way of 'war' is, according to TR is 'jihad'. Some would call it 'blood lust', at leat that's the way it comes across in that excellent simulation Civilization. And it works. We wouldn't have had to fight Iraq a second time, if we'd held true to our Jacksonian convictions back in '91. Indeed, the Middle East would probably be a lot better today, if we had. Regards. Chuck(le) TO: doug quarnstrom "Implying that he is suffering from dementia is a bit out of bounds, but you are free to express your opinion." -- doug quarnstrom No more so than watching any other dibilitating disease and people talk about them all the time. Care to hear about my pace-maker? Personally, I think it's the s---s, but then again, it apparently saved my life back around 0618 hrs, Monday, 18 Oct 04, while doing my morning workout. According to read-out, my heart stopped normal operation for 5 minutes. I could have been Terri Schiavo's roommate, from what my cardiologist tells me. Look upon it as learning from other people's 'misfortune'. Regards, Chuck(le) Chuck, I tend to agree that insufficient ruthlessness is one of the most grave of errors to be made in waging war. What I found to be ironic is how so many denounced the present Bush Administration for being insuffciently energetic in garnering support from other nations for it's policies, while they also denounced the last Bush Presidency for failing to remove Hussein the first time around. It never seems to occur to these titanic thinkers that it was the desire to maintain support from other nations which led the the first Bush Presidency to leave Hussein in power. Posted by: Will Allen at July 15, 2005 02:33 PMStephen, you could write a thousand word post and the America haters, and, yes, Sullivan is just that, will never be swayed even an inch from their bilge. Posted by: Redman at July 15, 2005 02:45 PMTO: Will Allen "...I found to be ironic is how so many denounced the present Bush Administration for being insuffciently energetic in garnering support from other nations for it's policies, while they also denounced the last Bush Presidency for failing to remove Hussein the first time around." -- Will Allen That's putting it politely, euphemistically. I'd call it nothing less than 'political opportunism'. Those cretinous pols don't care what is 'right' or 'wrong'. They remind me of the Soviet Communists of old, the way they change their tune to try to achieve some slight political advantage. Yesterday's truth is tomorrow's lie, in their view. As long as it serves them politically. We're watching what happened to the old Roman Republic, just before it collapsed into the Empire...and beyond to its demise. The truth of a matter is not important to them. Only what they 'feel' is 'important'. Ack! I'm getting cranked up about a little encounter with the judiciary recently, where the law had nothing to do with how the judge decided. Her decision was based solely on what made her feel 'good'. And I think I'll blog on that, by name, when it comes time for her retention. [Note: Nothing criminal. A matter of managing the estate of a deceased friend of the family. Grass roots judicial activism, if you ask me. The law be damned....] But enough of that.... ...back on topic. Bush 1 felt he had to appease the House of Saud. They were paranoid about the Shi'te majority gaining political power in Iraq after GWI. And Saudi Arabia was providing the quintessential Host Nation Support necessary to prosecute that action. Kuwait, after liberation, was in no condition to provide such support. The House of Saud brought this all upon themselves. And, I think, even more so, in light of the apparent fact that the Saudis are funding al Qaeda. [Note: At least the administration is beginning to admit to that in public.] RE: [OT] What to Do? Speaking of ruthlessness. I'm concerned about the possiblity of al Qaeda popping a nuke in DC. Considering the recent public/semi-official announcement that the Saudis are funding the blackgards, I would suggest that if a nuke goes off in this country, courtesy of the nice mean men of al Qaeda, we pop one in some city of relations size in Saudi Arabia. And we make certain that all the princes of Saud are fully aware of that. We'll even give them 24 hours notice, which is probably more than their under-the-table compatriots will give US. Futhermore, if China and North Korea want to take advantage of the situation....weeeeellll.....we're quite capable of dealing with them as well. After all...the people hold the power. And if the people will not police their own..... Regards, Chuck(le) A high % of the "civilians" killed in the War on Terror are the terrorists we want to kill. By we I mean freedom loving people; not the MSM. The Conventionh says enemies dressed as civilians have *NO* rights. When captured they can be summarily killed if the captors want. Or they can be put into solitary. Posted by: Rod Stanton at July 15, 2005 03:29 PMMr. Pelto, mentioning dementia in regards to the quality of Mr. Sullivan's writings is Ad-Homimen. Pure and Simple. It doesn't convince me of the merits of your complaint against him. doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at July 15, 2005 04:05 PMTO: doug quarnstrom Dementia is inevitable. It's a medical fact of the disease. Nothing ad hom about it, much as you may disagree. And I speak from experience. You don't like 'facts'? That's your problem. Sounds like a personal one to me. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 04:11 PMP.S. A caveat....dementia is inevitable...if some other opportunistic disease or accident doesn't occur first. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 15, 2005 04:51 PMThere are two issues with rough treatment of prisoners: is it moral? is it effective? From what I've read, I think that most of our treatment of prisoners has been moral, and that most of the exceptions will be investigated and punished by the military. We have the legal and moral right to summarily shoot any unlawful combatant, but not necessarily to torture him, for torture relatively narrowly defined. Sullivan is right that torture degrades us, he's just drawing the line poorly and ignoring the military's own efforts to prosecute people who have crossed the line drawn by the law. The other important question is whether rough treatment of prisoners benefits us. Certainly, skillfully applied levels of rough treatment can extract more information than kid-gloves treatment or real torture. Some forms of rough treatment will actually win us respect among Muslim populations. But some things which are close to real torture will hurt us in the long run. How much did it help us that Germans preferred to surrender to American or British troops rather than Soviet ones? Someone in an insurgency who isn't a complete fanatic might be a little more likely to surrender to American soldiers and provide useful information if he knows that he's not going to be tortured. Muslim populations might be more willing to turn over insurgents/terrorists to us if they know that we'll keep them without torturing them. Posted by: Anthony at July 15, 2005 06:51 PMThe wimpifing of US kids with soccer and baseball leagues that don't keep score so "no one loses" or dumbing down classrooms so no one recognises that some kids are smarter then others will create "Sullivan's" who were born here. It is just wrong. Posted by: TrueLiberal at July 15, 2005 09:49 PMTrue - I think that's one of the reasons why "The Incredibles" hit such a cord with the public. The latest world - wide high school math scores and resultant surveys also proves your point. The US was not even in the top 10 in proficiency, but when surveyed, our scholars thought they were "excellent" math students. The pendulum is swinging back, ever so slowly. Posted by: Dmac at July 15, 2005 10:18 PM A story (as accurate as I can recall from the history channel) A young Marine is fighting island to island in a brutal campaign against Imperial Japan. After many days of hard fighting his unit takes a Jap prisoner. He drags the nip back to HQ and hands him over to the CO. The CO stares at the young Marine and mutters, "We don't take prisoners". The Marine asks, "Well what should I do then?" The CO orders the Marine to take the prisoner to higher, and he had better be there by 11:15. The young Marine started marching the prisoner, a six mile trek, until he realized it was already 11:00. There was no way he could be on time and the unit was not taking prisoners. He shot the mother-fucker in the head. The End. Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2005 11:50 PM TO: Mike I the scenario you describe, I'd have tied the prisoner up, in a manner so that he could not escape, and left him, after radioing HQ the grid coordinates where they could retrieve him. It's HQ's responsibility to deal with prisoners when the subordinate units do not have the time to cope with them. Regards, Chuck(le) A timely video on just this subject. Check out this video of a soldier getting shot in the chest, then getting up and giving the wounded terrorist medical attention. Talk about turning the other cheek! http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/07/no_coveraage_of.html Two inescapable facts: "War is cruelty. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over" Gen. T. Sherman There is good reason for Pres. Jackson to be on the $20 bill, the most circulated bill in the world - (after the $100 probably). john Posted by: john at July 16, 2005 03:05 PMWhat you would legitimatize as the Jacksonian 'common law' tradition is the customs of the Scotch Borderers - the vicious tribalism of an illiterate and primitive people dedicated to brutality and savagery. This led West Virgina to have the highest murder rate in the nation until quite recent times. Posted by: dickmulliken at July 16, 2005 03:58 PMThe Scots Borderers? or the Sunni Arabs of Iraq? (BTW, Dickie, the proper adjective is "Scots" or "Scottish"; "Scotch" is a beverage. I know that lefty bigots don't care if they insult someone who can't or won't put a knife to their throats, but then, lefty bigots aren't my choice of role model.) Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at July 16, 2005 05:34 PMOh Dick, when in Rome... even were I to grant you your bigoted analysis unrebutted I would say in a contest between unfettered hilljacks and AQ I'd go with our boys. The vendetta is a nice balancing tool. Posted by: sven10077 at July 16, 2005 05:55 PMAre the anti-torture people willing to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers because they like to think of themselves as above brutality. I don't care how they get them to talk. If the intel saves one of our soldiers lives, it's worth it. If prisoners don't want a bra on their heads or other hideous torture, they can tell the guards what they want to know and they'll be left alone. Our soldiers, many in their twenties who've seen the bloody bodies prisoners leave in their wake, are expected to maintain perfect military discipline no matter the provocation. Instead of letting every cockamamie human rights groups and gaggles of politicians prance around the camp criticizing them, we should be thanking them and letting them know how much we support their efforts. Great perspective in your article. Please submit it to some major newspapers. The largest audience possible should read it. Not that your blog is chopped liver or anything but I just have never heard anyone put it so clearly and relevant in the context of the history of the United States, and it should be read by everyone. Schools should make it mandatory reading. I am not joking and I am not just trying to give you some lame complement. I am so sick of hearing that we should hand these scumbags the knife to stab us in the backs because it is the American way. Nice Job, Stephen. I agree with the many who say Sully should be ignored. He went south a couple years ago and gets more soft headed every day. Posted by: Horst Graben at July 16, 2005 10:07 PMPerhaps the best post I've ever read on the subject. You ought to submit something similar to a major paper, without the references to Sullivan. Posted by: Scott Martin at July 17, 2005 01:43 AM"And most of us know that there is no moving on from September 11. It wasn't a random tragedy for which grief is a slow-acting salve. It was a massacre - a cold-blooded, fanatical murder of civilians by men possessed by a theocratic ideology. It was an invasion - the violation of sovereign American soil, the erasure of a visible monument to American success and energy and civilization. It was a crime - the filling of the air of a great city with the irradiated dust of innocent human lives. It was a statement - that radical Islam intends to attack and destroy the very principles of the Enlightenment that underpin the American experiment - freedom of religion, of conscience, toleration and secularism. The appropriate response to this act of nihilism and evil is therefore not grief or remembrance or sadness or reflection, although each of those has its place. The appropriate response is rage." He understood then (that was posted 9/9/2002). And he still understands now, believe it or not. Even if he's believing lies, he's still (more or less) on our side (the pro-war side, not the conservative side). I never read him much, and still don't. But when he gets it right, he gets it right. Posted by: Kathy K at July 17, 2005 06:34 PMActually, Sullivan has spent most of the last 21 years in NYC, not America., which is enough to throw anyone off. Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 17, 2005 07:57 PMChuck, I probably would not shoot the guy in the head either. I don't know if you saw my ()(), but it was just a comment relating to Jackson's America. The Marine was tough and a serious fighting man. As he told the story (on the history channel) it was about not taking prisoners. They did NOT take prisoners. I doubt he gave a second thought to the poor bastard, fuck 'em anyway. Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2005 11:54 PMI'm just going to post this, though I'm probaby not as expert as most people commenting. Look, I don't disagree with the honor codes discussion. But if America just accepts that alone, and just accepts the logic of fight fire with fire, the logic that guides any nation regardless of values throughout time, then it doesn't really mean a damn thing, and the only thing happening is war of one tribe against another. Which is understandable, but if you believe in a higher honor code, let's say a Christian one, or anything greater than simple self-assertion for its own sake, then it doesn't mean anything. Sullivan has simply lost his mind when in comes to Gitmo. Of course he's lost his mind in regards to many things ever since Bush came out in favor of the FMA. I completely support gay marriage and was as disappointed as anyone with Bush's position, but Sully's histrionics on the subject were simply more than I was prepared to stomach. After his blog devolved into one long rationalization for voting for Kerry I bailed. His ongoing hysterics concerning "torture" are just absurd and he seems to get most of his ammunition from Kos. Just a month or so ago he claimed that over 20 inmates had "died during interrogation" in Gitmo with a link to dailykos.com. Whatever man... The scumbags currently being held in Cuba have information that I want. Does this mean we should flay them with a bullwhip or add on a few inches with the rack? Of course not, and if anything like that has in fact occurred, those who ordered and carried out such treatment should be prosecuted. However, if said "torture" consists of the standard slap-around, sleep deprivation, standing in uncomfortable positions, listening to Matchbox 20, or being forced to dance the Macarena...I could not care less. According to Sully I should feel ashamed for my callousness, but I don't. As a homosexual, he wouldn't last five minutes as a hostage in Falluja. It's just too bad that all Andrew cares about is protecting his rights as a gay man from the phantoms in the Republican Party and not from those who really threaten it. I had to read alot of comments to find some common cause, thanks Anthony and donald. I find it presumptious for Stephen (or anyone) to claim knowing what the real American attitude is on any subject. I am surprised to know we are 'Jacksonian' - thanks for the info. Also, to malign Sullivan's viewpoint and to offer a contradictory self-poll as evidence of Jacksonianism is curious, Sullivan being an immigrant himself... Asserting that we are a county not of laws, but of customs is not what I take from our Constitution and I am surpised so many do here. Regarding torture, are the FBI acknowledged activities in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib include waterboarding, electrocusion or threat of, and (I recall) murder, not really torture - or are claims of torture only valid when compared to the scope and magnitude of Bataan and the gulag? Further wondering aloud, are the cowardly war tactics (hiding and fighting amongst civialians) of the Islamofacists any different than their tactics in decades and centuries past? Are the Japanese tactics of prisioner treatment any different for any of their enemies in decades and centuries past? What about the Germans and British? I assert that GC or not, countries are treating civilians and prisoners much like their culture has for centuries. Trying to compare and assertain some moral scoring, based on GC, is immaterial. Speaking of ruthlessness. I'm concerned about the possiblity of al Qaeda popping a nuke in DC. Likewise. Low probablility, but not so much that it can be safely ignored. Considering the recent public/semi-official announcement that the Saudis are funding the blackgards, I would suggest that if a nuke goes off in this country, courtesy of the nice mean men of al Qaeda, we pop one in some city of relations size in Saudi Arabia. And we make certain that all the princes of Saud are fully aware of that. That would be far less effective than simply telling the CIA that it was open season on any Saudi that donated funds that wound up in terrorist hands- double points if they were royals. People giving money to al Qaeda are unlikely to be concerned about the fates of random countrymen- jihadis think all martyrs go to paradise- but keeping their brains inside their skulls, well, that's a little different. I'd rather target active participants in a war than passive sympatizers.... we're still a long way from the point where less selective tactics are necessary and appropriate. Posted by: rosignol at July 19, 2005 01:54 AMI'm a native born Englishman of Scots-Irish descent (educated at Imperial College, London, not Cambridge), and I think Sullivan has mutated into an hysterical buffoon. The treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay scarcely rises to the level of coercion, let alone torture. Besides, I'm on record as saying that whereas we shouldn't inflict genuine torture on these people, a large number of them should have been hauled up before a drumhead tribunal, convicted of waging illegal warfare, and shot. Posted by: David Gillies at July 19, 2005 02:36 PMA very good post. I said something very similar in a long post here: http://yankeestation.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_yankeestation_archive.html#112017015506267135 Unlike you, however, I'm willing to accept even traditional torture in extreme cases. Compared to what we could be, the gloves haven't even been taken off - this has thus far been war-lite. Posted by: Cutler at July 21, 2005 04:25 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"The James Bond of the Blogosphere."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
