Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The Pentagon has released the names of all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. The list contains information on 759 Muslim detainees from Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe. The list also includes two Bangladeshi citizens. The two Bangladeshis are listed in the table below:

Looking at the information provided by the Pentagon, a number of things strike me as unusual or incorrect. First, the place of birth of the second Bangladeshi detainee is listed as "Baria, BG". I think this is likely incorrect. The location the Pentagon may be referring to is likely to be Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh. Both Feni and Brahmanbaria are located in the eastern part of Bangladesh and abut the district of Comilla. This area is known in Bangladesh as an area where there is a large Hindu minority. Brahmanbaria and Feni would not be considered in Bangladesh as places that are likely to be breeding grounds for terrorists.

An obvious omission is the birth dates. Apparently the Pentagon knows the detainees’ birth years and not their birth dates. This suggests that the detainees are likely to be poor and illiterate. The names of the detainees also are unusual names for Bengalis. Especially the name "Mubarak Hussain bin Abul Hashem" seems unusual since the "bin" construction (meaning "son of" ) is normally not taken by Bengali Muslims - this construction is traditionally used in the Arab world.

The information released by the Pentagon, on close examination, suggests that after 4 years of detention the United States Government does not have complete or accurate information on, at the very least, the Bangladeshi detainees. These two men may be terrorists or they may be hapless individuals caught up in a Superpower’s global anti-terrorism dragnet. The lack of accurate information found in just this document released by the Pentagon suggests that the United States military cannot be sure who they are holding and whether these people have any links to terrorism. It is just this kind of inadequate information that may lead to the false imprisonment of innocents in this global struggle. It is just these kinds of errors that can be prevented or reduced if the United States brings the prison in Guantanamo Bay out of the shadows and under the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke writes today in The Washington Post that the six retired generals who have publicly called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld are likely speaking for their colleagues who are still in the military:

First, it is clear that the retired generals — six so far, with more likely to come — surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed.

I agree with Ambassador Holbrooke that what we are seeing is indeed the tip of the spear. The United States Military is quietly but surely signaling to their civilian masters that they need to change course.

Many commentators have tried to determine why the generals are speaking out and why they are speaking out now. Most, like Ambassador Holbrooke, have suggested that the frustration over the Iraq fiasco has now reached a boiling point within the military. This is certainly the case. But, I think there may be more to the generals’ timing and motivation than has been discussed so far. I think by focusing on Iraq we are all fighting the last war in trying to discern the generals’ motivations. I think a significant reason why the generals are speaking out has to do with our impending attack on Iran.

Seymour Hersh wrote in his article that the top leaders of the U.S. military are against a nuclear strike on Iran and may have to resign to prevent the Administration from moving forward with an attack. In one extraordinary paragraph, Hersh wrote:

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

I believe we are seeing the beginning salvo in the military’s push to avert a nuclear strike on Iran. The top leaders in the military may have decided that the civilians in the Administration are ignoring their advice in the march to Tehran and have now decided to take their case public. The military understands the grave consequence of an attack on Iran but have failed to convince the ideologues in the Administration to see reality. Having learned the lessons of Iraq that the checks and balances in the U.S. Government have failed to prevent a determined President from acting out his apocalyptic fantasy, the military have taken their case directly to the public in the hopes of averting a nuclear catastrophe.

This is not a revolt. This is the United States Military upholding the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath.