The Dish

Yes, it exists. Yes, it’s more effective. Yes, Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, is right. And yes, the Bush administration has done nothing to improve our human intelligence gathering and methods in the last five years, further endangering national security. They’ve been too busy firing gay translators and macho-ing it up in the Congress and courts:

Some of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called "Educing Information," say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were effectively questioned without coercion.

"It far outclassed what we’ve done," said Steven M. Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator and trainer, who has studied the World War II program of interrogating Germans. The questioners at Fort Hunt, Va., "had graduate degrees in law and philosophy, spoke the language flawlessly," and prepared for four to six hours for each hour of questioning, said Mr. Kleinman, who wrote two chapters for the December report.

Mr. Kleinman, who worked as an interrogator in Iraq in 2003, called the post-Sept. 11 efforts ‘amateurish’ by comparison to the World War II program, with inexperienced interrogators who worked through interpreters and had little familiarity with the prisoners’ culture.

The Intelligence Science Board study has a chapter on the long history of police interrogations, which it suggests may contain lessons on eliciting accurate confessions. And Mr. Borum, the psychologist, said modern marketing may be a source of relevant insights into how to influence a prisoner’s willingness to provide information.

"We have a whole social science literature on persuasion," Mr. Borum said. "It’s mostly on how to get a person to buy a certain brand of toothpaste. But it certainly could be useful in improving interrogation."

Robert F. Coulam, a research professor and attorney at Simmons College and a study participant, said that the government’s most vigorous work on interrogation to date has been in seeking legal justifications for harsh tactics. Even today, he said, "there’s nothing like the mobilization of effort and political energy that was put into relaxing the rules" governing interrogation.

The decent people in this administration – mainly career military brass and Condi’s circle – are finally pushing back against the war crimes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. But the Bush mojo is the same. They don’t actually care about the effectiveness of their policies, just how they can be used as wedge issues. Last summer, Karl Rove was determined to use torture and Gitmo as his electoral path to retaining the Congress. He thought he could portray the Democrats as weak on terror. Of course, only cowards and failures use torture. And how many Democrats or Republicans could have made us more vulnerable to more terror than Bush has these past five years? You can read about the Nazi origins of the term "enhanced interrogation" here.

(Photo of a Khmer Rouge waterboarding, in a torture museum in Cambodia. They didn’t get the Bush memo that the museum needs to be called one of "enhanced interrogation.")

Ralston, Nebraska, 8.51 am.

For an interactive gallery of Dish readers’ window views across the world, click here.

A reader writes:

I’m sure you realize that you could re-write your recent post "Do Republicans Get The Terror Threat?" almost word-for-word, substituting "war on drugs" for "war on terror". Amazingly predictable parallels. "Do Republicans Get the Drug Threat?" No. "Do Republicans Get The Terror Threat?" As you make so abundantly clear, no. Tragic paradoxes, indeed.    The question now is, why? Why don’t they get it? The answer, I think, is quite simple: the Republicans – especially now that they are the party of the American Christian fundamentalist movement – are not interested in reality. They’re interested in their echo-chamber, their self-reinforcing, self-congratulatory, self-protective ideological bubble. A human trait, granted, and a political trait, left and right – but now that the Republican Party is the Christianist Party, a defining and deadly dangerous trait. What matters now is not performance, or practicality, but rigid adherence to ideological purity – even if that "purity" results in reinforcing the very behavior it is meant to suppress. This adherance to ideological purity is a form of quasi-religious hysteria (and maybe not so quasi). It is, as you say, ultimately tragic – tragic for those caught in the cross-fire, tragic in that it makes very real problems much worse than they need to be, tragic in that it wastes our resources and drags us backwards, tragic in that it keeps us locked in endless, unwinnable battles with the very things we loathe and fear. We’re turning ourselves into zombies.

That’s bad enough, given the gravity of the issues. Drugs are a scourge. Terrorism is a scourge. But you don’t have to be a Nostradamus to see far worse waiting for us on the horizon. Is this how we’re going to meet those challenges? As zombies? If so, we’re going to fail.

It’s a question, finally, of courage.

Ideological purity, rigid thinking, quasi-religious hysteria – these are all forms of self-protective armor that weigh us down and make it impossible for us to move, and change. To remove that armor, to stand naked and vulnerable before reality, unsure, uncertain, full of doubt, requires real courage – and real faith. Faith is not in the knowing – it is in the unknowing. That unknowing, that vulnerability before God – or fate, or reality, call it what you will – is the birthplace of creativity, the very crucible of creation. Stand there, and you will be changed. That is terribly frightening. It is, in a very real sense, death. To walk knowingly into death, for the sake of greater life, that takes courage – and it is now the challenge before humanity as a whole.

The hysterical refusal to take that leap, to allow ours old selves to die and our new selves to be born, is at the root of all the fundamentalisms that now plague us around the globe. Fundamentalism is, simply, fear. The fear of death. The fear of change. The fear of being wrong. The fear of being imperfect. The fear of being human. And in their fear, fundamentalists lash out at all who challenge their rigid, self-protective thinking – lash out, always, at the "other", the one who is different than they are, and therefore by definition impure, evil, bearer of sin and hated of God. Tragic paradoxes, indeed: those who claim the greatest faith have the least, those who claim eternal life refuse to be reborn, those who claim the love of God institutionalize hate and loathing.

Fundamentalism is rampant now globally because the globe is hurtling into an unknown future. Time is accelerating. Change is accelerating. We’re approaching an evolutionary singularity. Everything is going to change. Everything is changing. It is natural to be afraid in these circumstances. We have no idea what’s going to happen. There are signs of impending doom all around us. Will we survive? The past, surely, is going to die. It is dying. But is there a future?

It depends. It depends on us.

If we succumb to fear, if we hold hysterically to the dead past, then, no, there is no future for us. We will pull ourselves down, self-destruct. It is not terrorism that will kill us. It is our own terror. We will die of fear.

If we face our fear, if we are willing to walk into the death of radical change, then we will be reborn. We will survive the coming storm, and we will grow, and mature. We will look back, someday, and understand that this storm we face, this singularity, was part of our destiny, the birth pangs of a new world, "a new heaven and a new earth". Yes, we are heading into a kind of darkness, without question. The real question is, who has the courage to face this dark night of unknowing with a little equanimity, a little generosity, a little compassion? Even a little humor? A little love? There will be real death, and loss. Half the species of this earth. Perhaps half of humanity.

A wise man once summed up his entire understanding of life in three words: "Be not afraid". He was right. Volumes, bookshelves, whole libraries could be written on why he was right. Every human being, every individual faces this challenge. Every society throughout history has faced it. Now, for the first time, our whole world faces it. No wonder people are afraid. No wonder fear is everywhere. No wonder fundamentalism is on the rise.

But the answer now is the same as it’s always been: "Be not afraid".

So, my dear fundamentalist friends: Do not fear death, or change. There is something greater on the other side, a greater life – not punishment, and not some sterile perfection, but an ongoing, real life, full of its own doubts and dangers and challenges, its own rewards and satisfactions. and that’s true whether it’s the life of an individual or the life of a world. Have some faith. Relax. Let go. Stop trying to control everything. Trust that that divine spark within you – the imago dei, the "image of God" – will be sufficient to the task. Perhaps even have some faith that God knows what She’s doing, even if you don’t happen to approve.

And for God’s sake, please calm down. Stop digging the holes deeper. The tragic paradoxes are not necessary. Things are hard enough as it is without all the drama. Study the real paradox, the divine paradox: death is life, life is death; let go and live, hold on and die. That should be comforting – but it’s also a warning. Or as another wise man once wrote:

"Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."

This man was not a fundamentalist. Or a Republican.

Neither was the one who said, "Be not afraid."

To those of you politicians who trade in fear, I say, you are just as low as you seem. Look for the man – or woman – who trades in courage. Not bravado – courage. Learn to tell the difference.

This is really the core message of my book.

The latest Gallup poll shows that we’ve dramatically narrowed the gap in public opinion on the question of marriage rights. In the last decade, when the Christianist right was at their apex of power, the margins have gone from 68 opposed to marriage equality and 27 percent in favor to 53 opposed and 46 in favor. So the majority against marriage rights for gays is now just outside the margin of error. By any measure, that’s a staggering victory in the debate. Yes, there are backlashes with every advance. But that’s the case with every civil rights movement – especially when one political party has decided to milk prejudice for short-term gain. And at the rate we’re going, we should have a clear national majority for marriage rights in the next decade. When you look at the 18 – 35 year olds, we now have 75 percent saying that being gay is "an acceptable alternative lifestyle." Forget the vile phrase and look at the data. The debate is basically over.

On the other hand, being gay is about as morally wrong as having an abortion, according to the poll. Huh? And, according to Shrum (and I believe him), Bill Clinton is an asshole. But gays knew that already, didn’t we? Or are there still some delusional morons out there who think Bill Clinton and his life-partner give a flying DNA sample about gay people? Yes, the last president was marking the dress of an extra-marital lover, while he was grandstanding on the Defense of Marriage Act. That says everything about Bill Clinton that you’ll ever need to know.

David Patten urges skepticism of the term:

There is no dispute about the dire situation in Iraq. Insurgents, militias, terrorists, and death squads are killing civilians at an alarming rate. Security forces are unreliable, and the Iraqi government is not meeting the needs of the people. Iraq is in a worse state than U.S. policymakers expected it would be three years ago.

However, it does not follow that Iraq is in a civil war. While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time.

This does not mean that violence will decline; quite the contrary, as the referendum on the future status of the disputed city of Kirkuk nears, violence may increase. Nor does the central government appear able to consolidate power in the short term. Its inability to provide security and basic services will lead local officials, including unelected leaders of religious factions, to assume more power. But, in the long term, the central government will survive and take on a more significant role in keeping Iraq unified. For U.S. and coalition policymakers, assisting Iraq’s transition to democracy will require patience, diplomacy, and ingenuity.

However, unfounded concerns over a civil war erupting could prompt an overreaction from U.S. policymakers. Should they conclude that Iraq is in a civil war—even if they base their determination on political expediency and no clear criteria—the most likely response would be a demand for withdrawal. A premature withdrawal of coalition forces could motivate the Sunni Arab insurgency to unify behind a political program; Sunni Arab civilians would likely lose any remaining confidence in the security forces, and many more would flee their homes. The Jaysh al-Mahdi undeterred would expand its influence and become the government’s rival for the people’s loyalty. Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.

Matt Yglesias responds here.

Be afraid of what this man has done to our long-term fiscal health. Be afraid of the massive tax hikes he has made inevitable. USA Today tells the truth:

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows. The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

John Hawkins freaks out here, as well he might. Money quote:

Do you know want to know why the "White House and the Congressional Budget Office" don’t want the real numbers used? Because those numbers would scare the American people to death and they’d demand changes when they realized what we’re doing is unsustainable. That would force the politicians to start making unpleasant choices about Social Security, Medicare, pork, and the budget.

I was, of course, freaking out years ago. I also noticed in my latest letter from the Social Security Administration that, as currently configured, I’ll get 76 percent of what I’m due if and when I retire. My bet is that it will turn out to be less than half. The boomers are going to hog all of it for themselves.

A Dutch explanation:

"Are women more attracted to the life of a desperado than men?" asks sociologist Jolande Withuis in her essay "Suffer, fight, become holy" on radical women Muslims. She sees their motivation in the promise of complete devotion. "Faith offers radical women Muslims a ‘total’ identity that isn’t limited to certain occasions and which is considerably more serious than anything else. It demands effort and renunciation, yet offers fulfilment and peace of mind. Boring or tiresome rules, such as covering oneself or not being allowed to eat certain foods, become a source of self-awareness. They are like anorexics, who derive satisfaction in overcoming hunger, even if it is harmful to their health. Correspondingly, these women occupy themselves to the point of absurdity in trying to determine whether things are ‘haram’ or ‘halal’ – and this occupies their time and gives them the pleasant feeling of pursuing a meaningful life."

(Photo: Young students study at the the women’s School or Madrassa inside the compound of the Lal mosque on May 28, 2007 in Islamabad, Pakistan. The Jamia Hafsa, which is attached to the famous Lal Masjid (red mosque) has been steeped in controversy over recent years. Brothers Maulana Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid Ghazi who run the Mosque been vehement in their support for the "jihad against America" and have openly condemned President Musharraf even calling for his assassination. In July 2005 Pakistani security forces made an attempt to raid the mosque following the suicide bombings that month in London, they were refused entry. By Paula Bronstein/Getty Images.)

Here’s a link to the blogs that have discussed the fact that the Bush administration’s term "enhanced interrogation" was coined in 1937 to describe exactly the same techniques authorized by Bush, Cheney, Tenet, and Rumsfeld. The term was coined by the Gestapo. The original post, with historical documentation, is here. Please read it. Please send it to others. We have to wake people up to what is being done in their name. There is a better way to get intelligence, and before the goons and thugs of the Bush administration, the U.S. used to practise it. We still can return to honor and excellence in interrogation – instead of shame and failure.

A reader writes:

It seems to me that at least half of all Americans have changed their mind about this war, going from overwhelming support to overwhelming opposition. Are we forgetting that three years ago, the war was still so popular that it was an article of faith that only a Democrat who supported and had voted for the war could be elected.  That may have been Kerry’s and Edwards’ "mistake" now, but it was their qualification then! Are we forgetting that the "peace" candidate, Howard Dean, did not win a single Democratic primary outside his home state of Vermont? My own position on the war has roughly tracked your own – although I was more skeptical from the beginning, and more troubled by the "spin" used to justify it.

Well, a self-described conservative of doubt should have been more skeptical – both of the project and the people in charge of it. And I wasn’t just not skeptical enough, I was passionate in my support. I know others have followed the same trail. But I’m not responsible for them, just for myself. Another reader writes:

When this war started I was behind it completely, even considered volunteering for the military. Slowly but surely I witnessed a deluge of broken promises, dead friends, emotionally messed up friends who had joined the military, and of course no solutions. There are still no answers and that is what scares me.

To top it all I am sick to death with what my America has become … I cannot imagine how smart intelligent people can witness the defilement of such things as habeas corpus, the Geneva conventions, and the Constitution and lie dormant. However, any time I want to speak up or say something against the war or the policies of the Bush administration I feel attacked with great acrimony. Aren’t we all in this thing together … but hey what am I to do?

You give me faith to keep treading water, lets hope there is water left when all is said and done.

Yes: treading water … mixed with a great deal of blood.