Month: January 2005

“Just before his helicopter lifted off, [Senate majority leader, Bill] Frist and aides took snapshots of each other near a pile of tsunami debris. ‘Get some devastation in the back,’ Frist told a photographer.” – CBA/AP.

Fred Kagan sums it up eloquently. Kudos to the Weekly Standard for keeping up the pressure:

With more troops in Iraq during and immediately after the war, we would have been able to do the following things that we did not do:

* Capture or kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were at that time still concentrated in combat units and had not yet melted back into the countryside with their weapons and their skills.

* Guard the scores of enormous ammunition dumps from which the insurgents have drawn the vast majority of their weapons, ammunition, and explosives.

* Secure critical oil and electrical infrastructure that the insurgents subsequently attacked, setting back the economic and political recovery of Iraq.

* Prevent the development of insurgent safe havens in Najaf and Falluja, or at least disrupt them at a much earlier stage of formation.

* Work to interdict the infiltration of foreign fighters across Iraq’s borders.

If the U.S. Army had begun expanding in 2001, we would have been able to:

* Establish reasonable rotation plans for our soldiers that did not require repeatedly extending tours of duty beyond one year.

* Avoid the need to activate reservists involuntarily.

* Dramatically reduce the frequency with which soldiers return from one year-long tour only to be sent immediately on another.

* Let the troops that would still have been overstrained know that help really was on the way.

The U.S. military did not do these things because of Rumsfeld’s choices.

And those choices have greatly impeded our ability to win the war. I have no ill-will for Rumsfeld. He’s the object of much unfair personal criticism. He’s a deeply kind man, extremely smart, and dedicated to the public good. But his errors have alas compounded our problem. And at some point, accountability must mean something.

MALKIN AWARD NOMINEE: “Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole,” – headline on an Ann Coulter column at Townhall.com.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: The NYT runs four corrections for a piece that ran almost three years ago.

When you review the way Jonathan Klein has treated Tucker Carlson, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Klein is a first-class shit. I loathed Crossfire, but Carlson is a rare, intellectually independent conservative, whose talents were greatly abused, in my opinion, by CNN. Mickey explains it all better.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “My brother was a reservist near Fallujah (who thankfully came home just this past year, although he is still technically under contract until December), who reports that coercion was encouraged, and abuse (not the same as coercion) was greeted with a blind eye. Now, he and I don’t see eye-to-eye on Iraq, because I pay attention to Chrenkoff’s reporting in addition to what I hear from my brother and from the MSM. Thanks to Chrenkoff, I know that there are large areas in Iraq where things are going right. Thanks to my brother, I also don’t automatically discount everything that MSM says (even a stopped clock is right twice a day).
According to my brother, the reservists have the lowest morale (because they have lives outside the military), and the enlisted men, particularly certain types, are more prone to carrying out the abuse… I believe that the vast majority of American service personnel are good people, as are most of their officers. But all it takes is one bad apple to ruin the bushel, and I don’t mean this in the sense that they ruin our image. Much more than that, Andrew. What I mean is, if they are seen as getting away with inhumane treatment of prisoners, what’s to stop another group of soldiers who were already leaning that way from giving into the temptation of sadism?
So while Gonzales may be correct on a technical level, it remains to be seen whether or not this sort of behavior is what we want the world to see. I don’t doubt that most other great powers would be harder pressed to be better than us. But as my brother takes pains to remind me, we are America, we can be better than everyone else, and so we should be.” It is important, I think, to emphasize that the incidents number in the low hundreds, while there were thousands of people in U.S. custody. It’s also important to note that no abuse was found in regular internment facilities in Iraq. This was not very deep but extremely geographically dispersed. And it was torture designed to get intelligence.

“I don’t even know who the candidates are other than Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), let alone this Gere. We don’t need the Americans’ intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them — they elected a moron.” – Gaza soap factory worker Manar an-Najar Wednesday. No I don’t think Bush is a moron, but the guy certainly demonstrates an understanding of the democratic spirit.

It’s relieving to hear many conservatives dissent from the kind of torture that the U.S. has practised these past few years in the war on terror. But there are two critical myths that keep being repeated. Let me enumerate them.

This was only about Abu Ghraib. Nope. Abu Ghraib was what prompted the inquiries and reports that showed us that this phenomenon was much more widespread. Torture has occurred at Abu Ghraib after the scandal hit; in Ramadi, Tikrit, in Saddam’s old mukhabbarat HQ in Basra, at Camp Cropper, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and in transit. It has been perpetrated by almost every branch of the military. When you read a blog like the Mudville Gazette, you realize that they are simply ignoring the bulk of the evidence. Why?

There’s no proof this was actually policy. Well, that’s pretty much true as it stands. Officially, the president ordered – like a monarch – that, although prisoners did not deserve Geneva protection, they should have it. But it seems to me remarkably incurious not to be troubled by the following series of events: memos telling POTUS that he has the right to order torture, regardless of any domestic law or international treaty; memos defining torture in the most minimal sense; torture restrictions loosened at Guantanamo Bay, under Rumsfeld’s instructions for a few weeks; the transfer of the general in Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, because intelligence wasn’t forthcoming; a sudden outbreak of torture across all the theaters of war. I would hope that those who say they’re against torture might not simply dismiss these facts as if there’s nothing suspicious here. And in many of the reports, plenty of military officials say they believed they were acting under orders from the highest authorities. I quote from the ICRC report:

“Several military intelligence officers confirmed … that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion … to secure their cooperation.”

Again: hmm. The current conservative orthodoxy is that the Red Cross cannot be trusted. I dissent.

If we are to have a debate about interrogating a few high profile Qaeda members, then Rich Lowry is right that the administration should welcome the debate. Alas, that is no longer the debate. The debate is how this administration has presided over widespread torture, abuse, rape and murder of inmates in American custody; how its own laxness and mixed messages contributed to this; how we still do not know how commanders got the impression that this was policy; andn how all this has deeply wounded America’s reputation, undermined the war, and perpetrated evil. Perhaps some simply trust the administration to be good guys. When it comes to torture, trust is not enough. In all this, the president has evaded any real responsibility and has rewarded all those who presided over this catastrophe. It is a shameful record. He deserves to be held to account. Not to benefit the pathetic Democrats – who ducked this issue in the campaign as well. But because this is America. This stuff shouldn’t happen. Period.

One of the aspects of George W. Bush’s political career I have long found troubling has been his evident comfort – even enthusiasm – for the death penalty. As governor of Texas, he didn’t have much power to prevent the extraordinary number of executions in his home state – but he did have a chance to demonstrate his concern for human life by reviewing each case very carefully. He didn’t. And a critical enabler of this insouciance toward human life was Alberto Gonzales, whose work on the legal memos for the then-governor has been criticized as shoddy, peremptory and incomplete. I respect those who defend the death penalty in necessity, even though I cannot morally acquiesce to it in any circumstances. But the blitheness of Bush’s and Gonzales’ treatment of the issue is surely troubling for those who are pro-life. Here is a man implicated in two policies anathema to serious Catholics. He gave legal sanction to torture – an absolute moral evil – and glibly facilitated the executions of dozens. Why are pro-life writers apparently untroubled by these facts? Or have I missed some out there?

ATTENTION STANLEY KURTZ! Finally, conclusive proof that marriage equality leads to the breakdown of heterosexual marriage.

Compare the kind of appeal made Wednesday night by Arnold Schwarzenegger with what is now the mojo of the national Republican party. The GOP nationally has increased its Congressional majority in part because of brutal gerrymandering in Texas that obviated the regular procedures. Call it Tom DeLay Republicanism: whatever it takes to win. Arnold actually challenges the established power of political parties and their self-interested rigging of districts to maintain incumbency – and wants to throw the issue to an independent body of retired judges. One is a corrupt defender of privilege; the other a reformer trying to expand the democratic process. I know which one I prefer. David Kusnet has a good analysis.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Based principally on your relating your own sleep apnea experience, I did a sleep study in December. Found out today that I do have sleep apnea, and I do need a CPAP. As my doctor said, it’s not unreasonable at age 45 to expect a good night’s sleep, and to arise feeling refreshed. Thank you very much for sharing your experience. Other guys I’ve talked to who have corrected their apnea problems have said the difference is ‘life-changing.” I hope your sleep is improved. Thanks again!” No problem. I’ve had several emails like this one. My own sleep has indeed improved – along with that of my other half. The effect is subtle over time. I do feel more alert in the daytime. And I haven’t felt the need for a nap in a month. Yay!

One of the remarkable features of this whole disgusting phenomenon is the anti-Muslim techniques. We now have the use of sexual humiliation, rape, the force-feeding of pork, forcible pouring of liquor down an inmate’s throat, wrapping someone in the Israeli flag, forcing inmates to kneel and pray and then kicking them in the head, and now placing duct tape over the mouth of someone reciting the Koran. Here’s a revealing piece of evidence – a first-hand sworn Red Cross deposition of an interrogation in Abu Ghraib:

They took me inside the building and started to scream at me. They stripped me naked, they asked me, “Do you pray to Allah?” I said, “Yes.” They said, “Fuck you” and “Fuck him.” … Someone else asked me, “Do you believe in anything?” I said to him, “I believe in Allah.” So he said, “But I believe in torture and I will torture you. When I go home to my country, I will ask whoever comes after me to torture you.” Then they handcuffed me and hung me to the bed. They ordered me to curse Islam and because they started to hit my broken leg, I cursed my religion. They ordered me to thank Jesus I am alive. And I did what they ordered me. This is against my belief. They left me hang from the bed and after a while I lost consciousness.”

And we wonder why we have all but lost this war.

“Has it occurred to anyone that Susan Sontag did not come out of the closet because she was 71 years old? People of a certain age — perhaps even people as enlightened as Sontag — are less comfortable talking about homosexuality or any kind of sex than younger generations. Baby boomer Camille Paglia was coy about the subject when she first came to public view in 1991 or so; I remember a long Washington Post article where she clearly hedged about what team she was playing on. In any case, it seems as if public figures & ordinary citizens have only been out en masse in the last 10-15 years, with a few courageous exceptions. If Susan Sontag had been born later, I bet you she would have been out along with everybody else.”

EMAIL OF THE DAY III: “I have no way to gauge Camille Paglia’s “courage,” but I am aware that Susan Sontag was never afraid to take an unpopular public position nor was she even unafraid to put her on life at risk as she attempted to learn and understand more about the world, as when she lived in besieged Sarajevo during the war in Bosnia. It is disgusting that, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, you would insinuate she was a coward because she didn’t live up to your ideal of a public gay figure.

Perhaps the best explanation actually is the one she provided (and not–imagine that!–the fervid projections of someone with a political agenda)–that she didn’t think it was interesting or relevant to her job as a writer who she happened to be sleeping with at the moment (and, remember, this reticence applied to her male as well as female lovers). That her “identity” might not have been first and foremost “lesbian.” That perhaps she felt she was beyond being labeled as “gay” or “straight” and had no desire to be pigeonholed as such. Perhaps, as a public figure, she wanted to protect the privacy of some part of her life. Who really knows? Honestly–and maybe this is because I’m a straight man who admired her for her mind, as a human being, and not as a member of some sexual-political group, I don’t really care. I don’t really understand why, even though she never denied having relationships with woman and certainly did her part for the gay community, you consider her a coward–presumably because she didn’t discuss her sexual life in confessional detail?

But then, I never understood how you could name a vile “award” after her for saying something (that the terrorists were demonstrably not cowards; that they had motivations beyond being “evil” and that we, as a nation, deserved better than the baby-talk the Bush administration put out after the attacks) that, while tough for many people–including you–to hear at the time, had the virtue of being absolutely, clarifyingly right, and is now conventional wisdom (well, except to the people responsible for our disastrous policies). Which isn’t to say she was right all the time–or never mis-spoke. But then again, who is? Certainly–as I’m sure, as a relatively intellectually honest pundit would be forced to agree, not even you.”

Yep, iTunes is now selling many tracks containing nothing but silence:

Among the other silent tracks are “Silence,” by Ciccone Youth, off “The Whitey Album,” “Silence” by Bill Schaeffer, from the album “Grain of Sand,” and “One Minute of Silence” by Project Grudge, which is offered only as a single-song download. For those looking for the best value, Schaeffer offers nearly two minutes of silence, almost twice as much as any of the other tracks…

Art Garfunkel was ahead of his time.