Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

George Allen’s desperate attempt to smear Jim Webb is likely to backfire with Virginia voters. Digging deep for dirt, George Allen has entered the realm of fiction. In Jim Webb’s novels, Macaca Allen thought he had hit pay dirt.

Last week the Allen campaign was finally able to get someone to publish the dirt they were peddling. The Drudge Report published passages from Webb’s novels in a last-ditch effort to sway Virginia voters. One of the books the Allen campaign believes is vulgar is Jim Webb’s novel "A Sense of Honor".

However, the novel George Allen finds vulgar, President Ronald Reagan found to be so significant that he quoted it at length at the United States Naval Academy Commencement Exercises in 1985:

One man who sat where you do now and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 is another member of our administration — Assistant Secretary of Defense James Webb, the most decorated member of his class. James’ gallantry as a marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations, including two Purple Hearts. James wrote several books about American service men and women. In his book, “A Sense of Honor,'’ he describes the life that you have chosen. He wrote:

“Servicemen are always in motion, in the air at more than the speed of sound, underwater at depths whales could only dream of, on the surface of the water cruising at 30 miles an hour through crashing seas with another ship almost touching theirs . . . replenishing their oil supplies. Or they are on the ground, in the dirt, testing and training weapons that may someday kill others but today may deal them that same irony. The smallest margin of error separates a live man from a dead man. And in war, of course, they are the first and usually the only ones to pay. The President and the Congress may suffer bad news stories. The military man suffers the deaths of his friends, early and often.'’

So, is George Allen saying that President Ronald Reagan read smut? Surely, Senator George "Macaca" Allen would like to retract his accusations so that he doesn’t risk offending his base voters who admire the Great Communicator.

"Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a Trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man.

But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength. The Prosecution’s case, at its close, seemed inherently unassailable because it rested so heavily on German documents of unquestioned authenticity. But it was the weeks upon weeks of pecking at this case, by one after another of the defendants, that has demonstrated its true strength. The fact is that the testimony of the defendants has removed any doubt of guilt which, because of the extraordinary nature and magnitude of these crimes, may have existed before they spoke. They have helped write their own judgment of condemnation.

But justice in this case has nothing to do with some of the arguments put forth by the defendants or their counsel. We have not previously and we need not now discuss the merits of all their obscure and tortuous philosophy. We are not trying them for the possession of obnoxious ideas. It is their right, if they choose, to renounce the Hebraic heritage in the civilization of which Germany was once a part. Nor is it our affair that they repudiated the Hellenic influence as well. The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.

…

Let me emphasize one cardinal point. The United States has no interest which would be advanced by the conviction of any defendant if we have not proved him guilty on at least one of the Counts charged against him in the Indictment. Any result that the calm and critical judgment of posterity would pronounce unjust would not be a victory for any of the countries associated in this Prosecution." - Justice Robert Jackson, July 26, 1946, Summation for the Prosecution, Nuremburg Major War Figures Trial

In 1987, I visited the Plötzensee Memorial Center in Berlin. In Plötzensee there is a small brick shed that served as the execution chamber. During Nazi rule nearly three thousand people were executed in that small shed. They were either hanged from the eight hooks that line the ceiling or beheaded using a guillotine. I still remember standing in that death room, looking up at the hooks (the guillotine had long vanished), with hushed silence all around me. The death room was small, almost claustrophobic, yet the thousands murdered there testified to the ruthless efficiency of the Nazi killing machine.

Plötzensee stands today in silent remembrance of the evil that touched this planet in the first half of the Twentieth Century. From the ashes of World War II and the Holocaust were born the great institutions of civilized society.

Faced with the horrors of Nazi atrocities, the victorious allies, the United States chief amongst them, decided to try the Nazi leaders involved in the Holocaust. The Nuremburg Trials laid bare for the world to see the Nazi crimes and, at the same time, the fairness and justness of the rule of law. But as Justice Jackson noted in his summation at Nuremburg, "fairness is not weakness."

The Nuremburg Trials became the foundation for much of international criminal law that followed. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 adoption of the Geneva Conventions owe much to the trials at Nuremburg. Beyond its legal ramifications, the trials were important in establishing the moral authority of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century. That moral authority found its most powerful expression during the Cold War - there was never any doubt during the decades of struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States about who was on the right side of history. John F. Kennedy carried that authority when he asked the world to "come to Berlin"; Adlai Stevenson carried that authority when he demanded an answer from Soviet Ambassador Zorin at the U.N. Security Council; and, Ronald Reagan carried that authority when he asked Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."

During the 1990s, as Islamist extremism began to spread its claws over the globe, once again there was very little doubt that the United States was on the right side of this struggle and on the right side of history.

Then 9/11 happened. The entire world rallied to the side of the United States in the aftermath of the attacks. On September 12, 2001 the French publication Le Monde declared, "We are all Americans":

In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?

The beacon of freedom, justice and liberty was attacked on September 11, 2001 and the world rallied in support. There was little doubt on September 12, 2001 that the United States would battle this extremism and come out victorious. There was little doubt that the United States would defeat this enemy and defend the ideals of freedom, liberty, and Justice Jackson’s fairness.

 That was then.

Five years later we have seen the willful destruction of a nation and its people over a fictional casus belli; we have seen the kidnapping and disappearing of individuals by the United States of America under the absurd sounding phrase "extraordinary rendition"; we have seen the rise of a modern variation of the gulag archipelago as American run secret prisons began to blanket the globe; we have seen the all too familiar justifications for torture posited by legal minds untethered by a moral compass; we have seen the detention of innocents on made-up charges presented in kangaroo courts; we have seen American torture practices roundly criticized by international human rights bodies; and we have seen the American President, George W. Bush, blithely declare that "we do not torture."

The Bush Administration has always committed or justified detention without charge and torture with a wink and a nod. However, last week it moved to legitimize its actions by writing torture into the law. The Bush Administration legitimized torture much in the same way other odious regimes have done in the past - they have redefined torture and then claimed that they do not "torture". So, small things like punching, kicking, cutting, and other thuggery are now not really torture unless you end up killing or seriously maiming the victim. They have also taken away the power of the Geneva Conventions by stating that the "Geneva Conventions" in effect do not exist for the purposes of defense against torture by the United States. Apparently, even if one could show that the United States violates the Geneva Conventions, the victim could not invoke the Geneva protections. They have left it up to the President to decide which methods constitute activity short of torture unless the method is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions - how very civil!

Ultimately, the Bush Administration’s retreat from international humanitarian laws and customs is not about the ability of the Administration to legally justify its position. It is about what kind of a country the United States is and wants to be. It is about the moral authority of the United States and its people. By broaching this discussion on torture and how to try to walk on the edge of the law without gravely violating it, the Bush Administration has already abdicated the moral authority of the United States on the issue. The era that began with the trials at Nuremburg has come to an end. The United States has declared that it is no longer important to be fair or just - the goal is to get your way at any cost. It is no longer important to uphold our values in the face of an onslaught from an enemy that seeks to destroy them. It is no longer important to show the enemy’s evils for what they are by holding them up for all the world to see in a forum that demonstrates the very values that we seek to defend and in a forum that makes it clear to all the stark difference between us and them. Justice Robert Jackson’s words no longer matter in this new era.

Now that we have abdicated our moral authority, the real question is what exactly are we fighting for?

[Cross posted at Taylor Marsh]

On December 20, 1983 President Reagan’s special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, met with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to foster closer ties between the two nations. On the agenda was how best to counter Iran and how to find alternate routes for Iraqi oil since the Iranians had cut off Iraq’s ability to ship oil through the Persian Gulf. The meeting with Saddam Hussein went swimmingly with the Dictator pleased by the support he was receiving from Washington in his war against Iran. The troubling topic of Saddam Hussein’s recent and continuing use of chemical weapons against Iran did not come up during the 90-minute meeting.

The United States had decided to lend its support to Iraq in its war against Iran. Although Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iran and Kurdish insurgents was an unfortunate distraction, it nonetheless was decided that Saddam would be a bulwark against Islamist Iran and must be supported.

The war between Iran and Iraq followed the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the rise to prominence of Islamist opposition in Iraq as a result. The most prominent opposition Islamist opposition party in Iraq was the Iranian funded al Dawa party. The current Prime Minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a long time member of the al Dawa party. As tensions between Iraq and Iran escalated after the Iranian Revolution over the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, the attempted assassination of Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz by al Dawa became a major precipitating factor that culminated in the Iraqi attack on Iran.

Iraq retaliated against al Dawa by systematically assassinating its members. Most remaining members of al Dawa fled to Iran. Under Iranian protection, the al Dawa party began to engage in ever-greater acts of terrorism against Iraq and Western interests. These acts included multiple attempts at assassinating Saddam Hussein and other leaders of the Iraqi Government and the car bombing of the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut on December 15, 1981. The Iraqi Embassy bombing in Beirut was the beginning of the modern era of suicide car bombing. The al Dawa party is also responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and French Embassies in Kuwait on December 12, 1983 in which six people were killed. 

While based in Tehran the al Dawa party formed a terrorist wing called the Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad and al Dawa were responsible for acts of terrorism against Americans in Kuwait and Lebanon. Islamic Jihad was the germ of what would later become the Iranian backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. The 1983 car bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 marines while they slept was carried out by these precursor groups to Hezbollah. That attack on the Marine barracks has been tied directly to Iran through its surrogates such as al Dawa.

Our brief jaunt through the history of the al Dawa party and our support for Saddam Hussein at the time raises the question, "Why is Donald Rumsfeld Smiling?" Who are our real enemies? Is the world really divided into "us" and "them"? And does membership in the "us" and "them" clubs shift over time due to political expediency?

The United States has a long history of supporting some very bad actors without regard for human rights, terrorism, murders, use of weapons of mass destruction, democracy, human rights or any of the other high ideals that the Bush Administration preaches and the evil acts the Bush Administration so righteously abhors. History shows that we have chosen to throw our lot in with any actor in a conflict without regard for any ideals simply because it supported some grand notion of realpolitik.

We have through our practice of nurturing hateful regimes and groups reaped the rewards that invariably come with such support. All our protégés have come back to harm us. These include, in no particular order, Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. As history has taught us nothing we have now elevated the al Dawa party and Ibrahim al-Jaafari to power in Iraq. Of all people Donald Rumsfeld should know the history of al Dawa well.

Now we are making noises to try to replace al-Jaafari as Prime Minister in Iraq. The likely replacements for al-Jaafari now are another al Dawa member or a member of the SCIRI (The Supreme Council for Islamic Resistance in Iraq). None of those prospects offer any hope of a better regime in Iraq.

The Bush Administration rhetoric rings hollow. It has never been about "evildoers". Who we consider evildoers changes with the political winds. This kind of pragmatic foreign policy might be appealing if not for the fact that in almost every instance the United States has been repaid by our protégés of the day with death and destruction and in most cases with American blood.

We should keep this in mind as we embark on another misadventure in Iran with the support of your newest terrorist allies: Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).

So I ask again, "Why is this man smiling?"

The New York Times is reporting today that Shia and Sunni Iraqis have begun to flee from mixed Shia-Sunni areas. This migration comes on the heels of increased sectarian strife, death squad activity; and bombings targeting political figures, businesses, ordinary citizens and religious establishments.

The daily body count in Iraq ranges anywhere from 30 to 60 deaths, depending on which source you cite. That translates to 10950 to 21900 deaths per year if the current trend remains steady and does not accelerate. To put these numbers in perspective, consider that during the rule of Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003, the US Government’s estimate of the number of deaths is 300,000. That is, about 12500 deaths per year. The current death rate in Iraq equals or far exceeds the deaths during the rule of Saddam Hussein. So, if you pose to the common Iraqi the Ronald Reagan question, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" it should not come as a surprise if the answer is "No."

The reader can continue the gruesome exercise of comparing body counts with such well-known civil wars as Lebanon and Algeria. If you do work the numbers you will find that in terms of the death rate, Iraq today either equals or exceeds the death rates in these and other civil wars of the 20th Century.

The consequence of the Shia and Sunni communities separating geographically will be further bloodshed. Mixed communities were the last strands of the chord holding Iraq together. Without the countervailing force of these mixed neighborhoods there is nothing to slow the rapid acceleration of sectarian strife. 

Into the imbroglio enter the United States. We have not too subtly asked the Iraqi Prime Minister to step down. Washington Post is reporting today that there are now calls from within Iraq for the Prime Minister to step down. The United States may unfortunately get its wish here. It is unfortunate because al-Jaafari’s likely replacement will be Adel Abdul Mahdi. Abdul Mahdi is the candidate backed directly by SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq). I think the name of the organization speaks for itself. Incidentally, the Badr Brigade, the militia blamed for a large number of the killings, is the military wing of SCIRI.

The pushing aside of al-Jaafari, with the backing of the United States, will further de-legitimize the Iraqi Government. It will certainly give no comfort to the Sunni minority to see the U.S., however inadvertently, offering support to SCIRI. Further compounding the problem is the large-scale infiltration of the Iraqi police and army by the Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army militias. Of these police forces, GlobalSecurity.org reports that the U.S. Army General in charge of security in Baghdad, General James Thurman, said this week:

Iraqi troops and police units are more and more often taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations in Baghdad and the three provinces to the south that come under his responsibility. He also says more Iraqis are calling a special phone number to report insurgent activity. He says there have been more than 3,000 such calls since January, and that most of them have resulted in military operations that found insurgents, criminals or weapons caches.

The paradox is what looks like progress in training the Iraqi police and military is in fact resulting in these forces creating the very instability we are training them to control. We have, like it or not, taken sides in this civil war. Our stated objective is to stay out of any civil war that may be occurring or may occur in the future. But, the reality is that you cannot have a 138,000 strong army sitting on its hands while a civil war rages all around. The logic of the situation will force the United States to choose one side over another (consider the examples of Lebanon or Somalia).

What then will be the role of the U.S. military in Iraq with civil war breaking out all around them? There is no viable role for the military in Iraq that does not entail a long-term entanglement in the conflict - with the outcome decidedly uncertain. It is time, then, to withdraw our troops in some sort of orderly fashion. Very little further damage to our credibility will result from a quick withdrawal. Our three years in Iraq have damaged our credibility to levels below which it is unlikely to go.

I think the Iraqi conflict train has already left the station. We are left only with trying to affect a quick resolution of the civil war. This does not require a military presence, and in fact, a military presence might hinder any such progress for reasons mentioned above. Our goal from this point should and must be to try to work to ease tensions within Iraq and to work with Iraq’s neighbors to contain the conflict within Iraq’s borders.

It is not an attractive proposition, but we are where we are.