I’m not sure we will ever recover from the public-relations damage that has been done by the mistreatment of the Iraqi prisoners by American (and now, British) troops.
We all believe that these were isolated incidents perpetrated by renegade soldiers whose actions do not reflect the values or intentions of their nations at large. But the Arab street doesn’t believe that, and it’s hard to imagine that they ever will. Every anti-American diatribe and every conspiracy theory has just been proven right, in their eyes. And can you blame them? Why should they trust us, now?
We cannot win the war in Iraq — nor, more broadly, the war on terrorism — unless we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Arab people. That was always an uphill battle, and I fear this may be the last straw that makes it utterly impossible.
And it’s our own soldiers’ damn fault. Just a handful of soldiers, yes. But ours.
Oh get over it. We were never going to win their hearts and minds–not as long as their perception of us comes through al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya. We will always be the Great Satan, and Israel will always be the Little Satan. You know, those evil Jews and all. Anyway, that doesn’t mean we can’t succeed in democratizing Iraq, or move on to eliminate the threat of WMDs from foes like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Besides, remember we once liberated France, and they still have yet to forgive us for it.
Except for the part where France actually wanted us there, we didn’t sodomize the French, the government in exile - which the French saw as legitimate - helped plan the invasion, there was already a Resistance, and we arranged to leave after the liberation. Also, Germany had declared war on us, was allied with a nation that had attacked American soil, and actually posed a threat to our traditional allies.
Another note, they did this in the same place as Saddam used to do this. And these are just the guys we caught because they were stupid enough to take pictures. Cue the warbloggers. Gee, I sure am glad those rape rooms are gone. Now the Iraqi people don’t have to worry they’ll be brutalized by those who control their country. It’s progress! There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!
I was having doubts, but now I think it’s official. We need to give the Iraqis sovereignty, REAL sovereignty, with the right to make laws and handle security for a governmental body chosen by Iraqis rather than appointed by us, then we need to get the hell out of Dodge.
You’re right Sean, all our soldiers are sick, sodomizing sadists.
Like I said, our liberation of France was so much more “legitimate” than our liberation of Iraq, and yet the French still hate us for it, so why should we not conclude the Iraqis will also be ungrateful?
“You’re right Sean, all our soldiers are sick, sodomizing sadists.”
Andrew, weren’t you the one accusing me of setting up straw-man arguments a few posts back?
“Oh get over it”? You continue to be dead wrong — and, dare I say it again, outside even the warblogger mainstream — about this issue. This is a much bigger deal than you want to admit.
And if you are right that “we were never going to win their hearts and minds,” then the war against terrorism — or the war against radical militant Islamism, if you prefer — is, and always was, unwinnable. I prefer not to believe that, but if you do, I don’t blame you. Don’t kid yourself, though, that we can win the war merely through disarmament, or that mass democratization is even possible if the “Great Satan” attitude continues. I repeat, the war on terror is unwinnable unless we win the hearts and minds of the people for whom the terrorists wrongly purport to speak.
Brendan, ever heard of sarcasm? After reading Sean, who wrote,
“And these are just the guys we caught because they were stupid enough to take pictures. Cue the warbloggers. Gee, I sure am glad those rape rooms are gone. Now the Iraqi people don’t have to worry they’ll be brutalized by those who control their country. It’s progress! There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!”
I could only respond with an equal amount of sarcasm for his baseless insinuation that Americans involved in this type of torture is widespread over in Iraq. There’s no straw man there, just disgust with Sean’s sickening degradation of those who serve to protect his worthless ass. Why should I dignify what he wrote with a real refutation, any more than you would waste your time countering a charge that all black people are criminals and welfare crack whores, or that all gay people are AIDS-bound promiscuous sickos? Just because a few apples go bad doesn’t mean everybody else doesn’t serve with great honor and dignity.
Eff the warblogger mainstream. I’m not a warblogger, I’m a hardcore libertarian-leaning conservative Republican who happens to enjoy a few blogs. Most of the blogosphere is a giant echo-chamber to me, whether it’s Left, Right, libertarian, or something else, so I spend most of my time reading my original favs–Sullivan and Reynolds–while visiting your site because you’re someone I know and it’s a familiar community. 9/11 didn’t change my POV on terrorism and the Middle East much; it just brought more people closer to my POV. Just because 9/11 changed a bunch of other people’s POVs, such as your own, doesn’t mean that you and your fellow shape-shifting warbloggers are now the arbiter of all that is correct when it comes to anti-terrorism policy and analysis. I am stoked that guys like Instapundit have so many readers, and I love the growth and influence of the blogosphere, but that doesn’t mean I now or ever took my cues from them (although admittedly, I am challenged occasionally by what they have to say).
The torture thing is a big issue, and it is going to have major repercussions, but unfortunately much of our reaction to this has been overblown. What is needed here is perspective.
In a trial, you have the findings state, the guilt determination stage, and the sentencing phase. Now, first of all, we’re still in the findings stage–we still don’t know a lot about what happened. And yet so many people are jumping to the sentencing stage and calling for extreme punishments: Execution! Life in the brig! When I hear pro-war radio hosts talking about how these guys need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, I have to wonder, are you guys insane?!?
Step back for a moment. Of what we know happened, absolutely it was wrong, and all who were involved should be punished. But in sentencing, you always take into account context of the crime; coming home and catching your wife in bed with another man doesn’t give you a right to kill her, but the circumstances absolutely mitigate in the sentencing phase. Similarly, what is the context here? These are not innocent Iraqis picked up off the street, nor are they cute little innocent children. We’re talking about Baathists and terrorists who, frankly, probably deserve to be executed on the spot. Most of them deserve the same fate as the Nazi and SS personnel got when they were tried by the post-WWII tribunals. I don’t shed a tear for the “victims” here; my guess is a very sizeable percentage of people–soldiers or not–would have felt it totally morally justifiable to f*ck with these guys, because they’re evil and scum and that’s it, just as your wife is scum if you catch her cheating on you. But again, no matter how despicable the person is, the law is the law, and in this case, military law and international law were blatantly violated, and the violators must be punished.
I don’t want to hear how it’s the same as what Saddam and the Baathists did, it’s not. We don’t go around raping innocent women and picking up innocent Iraqis off the street to torture and perform sickening tests on, in order to strike fear into the population and gain their unquestioning obedience and compliance; all of these “victims” are bad guys who deserve every ounce of pain and humiliation they got, even if it isn’t “lawful” or “civilized” to inflict it in such a manner. Is it a PR blow? Absolutely. But so was Israel killing the leaders of Hamas, and that absolutely was the right thing to do. The sick Arab media is going to spin everything Israel and America does to fight terrorism in the Middle East in the worse possible light, whether it’s something good (knocking off Hamas leaders) or bad (torturing Iraqi prisoners). That doesn’t mean we should not care if we do something that’s bad, it just means we should not let the Arab reaction dictate how we react and how we go about doing our business over there. We have to do a job, and we have to do what works. I’m not going to waste my time fretting over how al-Jazeera is spinning this unfortunate occurrence, I just want to let the machinery of military justice take its course and that’s that.
Frankly, I find it incredibly hypocritical when people cheer our soldiers and call them heroes for doing their job, and yet have absolutely no sympathy or mercy on them when they screw up, given the immense pressures and dangers they go through in training and going abroad to serve our country. I just think it’s sick. I may sound like a bleeding-heart liberal in defending these guys, but I don’t care; the regular criminal deserves everything that comes to him, but the servicemen criminal deserves a slight break, not a punishment that in the civil justice system would be ruled disproportionate to the crime. When a man or woman puts his or her life on the line to me, that person in my mind deserves some slack when they screw up at some point. I think the way you and many other warbloggers are reacting is frankly callous and hypocritical, and to me it puts the lie to any pronouncements of gratefulness for what our servicemen do that I hear from the warbloggers.
Finally, you and I apparently have different conceptions of what constitutes victory in the war on terrorism. IMO, hearts and minds have little to do with it. For victory, I list these objectives:
1. Eliminate any threats of WMDs falling into terrorists’ hands. This includes possible regime change in places like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. 2. Pressure other countries to do a better job in cracking down on terrorist networks, and work on better information-sharing and resource-sharing to this end. 3. Thin out the pool of potential terrorists by empowering moderate Muslims/imams, supporting democratic reforms in the Islamic world, and responding forcefully and overwhelmingly to potential terrorists.
I’m not quite sure I see which of these three objectives requires winning any hearts and minds by playing Mr. Nice Guy. As many people have noted, Arab culture likes the strong horse, and I never felt we were going to win points by proving to the world how moral and nice we Americans are. What we have to do is be more Machiavellian/Roman, and show our enemies that when you mess with us, it’s an automatic death sentence. Flexing our muscles against the terrorists wins this war, not following the Geneva Conventions. We follow the Geneva Conventions because we are a moral civilization, not because it helps us win anybody’s hearts and minds. I mean, come on Brendan, most Europeans are still convinced were torturing prisoners at Gitmo! How do you expect Arabs to be any better at recognizing the extent to which we attempt to be moral in our actions?
Well, you make your points well, and I’m not particularly in the mood to try and rebut them fully. Just a few brief points.
Regarding Sean, I think you’re reading a bit much into his statement — and really, since this post started, some indications have emerged that the abuse may indeed have been more widespread than we thought, which would basically prove Sean right. But the jury is still out, and anyway, it’s not really Sean’s statement you’re battling, it’s your perception that he’s anti-military, and I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Regarding the extra leeway for soldiers who do bad stuff, I see your point, but I think it’s partially offset by the fact that when soldiers screw up, their actions reflect not only on themselves, but on the whole military and the whole country — they do a disservice to everyone. So in that sense, their misbehavior is worse than an ordinary person’s misbehavior. And they know that when they sign up to serve, so I don’t really buy the argument that we should go easier on them because they’re soldiers and they’re brave, yada yada. I see where you’re coming from, though… but I don’t think it’s at all fair to say, as you do, that warbloggers are cheapening their own geniune respect for the troops when they say these things about the bad apples. I mean, really, we have soldiers saying these things. It’s just a difference of opinion, it’s not some sort of objective moral issue that you can condemn us on.
Finally, I didn’t say we have to be “Mr. Nice Guy.” But I continue to believe “hearts and minds” are important, and your “victories” will be Pyrhhic ones in the end if we don’t make any headway on the Arab street.
“…and your ‘victories’ will be Pyrhhic ones in the end if we don’t make any headway on the Arab street.”
There seem to be many people who would agree with that statement, but I ask you, was WWII a failure given that the European street is so tilted against us? I might also add that, historically, America has very rarely been popular in Europe. Assuming we can bring a similar measure of moderate politics, democracy, and economic vitality to the Middle East, why should these two examples be seen any differently?
You’re all dumb. The reason we should be in Iraq is oil–not terrorism or any other WMD bullcrap. Have you SEEN gas prices lately? I simply want to drive in my SUV that makes 4 miles on a gallon and worry about how to cram in a Pilates session between my massage and my golf lesson. >)
Suicidal terrorists cannot be cowed by fear, because they are willing to give their lives for the cause, so they are obviously beyond fear. States that harbor terrorists can be cowed, yes, but the terrorists themselves cannot. Which means that the best we can do, under your strategy, is reduce the terrorists’ chances of success somewhat by taking away some of their resources. But as long as there is still a large group of people who hate us enough that they are willing to kill themselves in order to kill us, we will never be safe, or even close to safe, from terrorism. And given an indefinite amount of time, the most clever of those people will eventually find a way to launch every type of catastrophic attack imaginable. As with the BCS nightmare scenarios, it is a mathmetical certainty that the worst will happen eventually. Your strategy would only succeed in delaying it.
I don’t know how we can win their hearts and minds, and I never claimed to know. There’s a reason why I am so pessimistic about our chances of long-term success!! But whatever it is that we can do, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t involve torturing Arabs.
I continue to have issues with your use of the term mathematical certainty, Brendan. Math being somewhat abstract, it isn’t limited to human timeframe references. Starting from first principles, mathematical certainty only occurs when the probability is 1 (it will definitely happen) or 0 (it will definitely not happen). Everything else is somewhere in between. So, for instance, if I flip a fair coin 100 times, the odds are that I will get heads at least once, as the probability of getting tails 100 times in a row is about 7.9 * 10^ -31. But it isn’t certain that I’ll get at least one heads. Actually, the odds are that if I try often enough, I will get a string of 100 tails in a row eventually. But it isn’t certain either, as the probability is always somewhere between 0 and 1 but not quite on one of those boundaries. Just because something is overwhelmingly likely doesn’t make it mathematically certain–while I can be certain from an everyday standpoint that the sun will appear to rise in the west (hooray for the Numenor–ed) I can’t be mathematically certain that the sun won’t mysteriously go supernova overnight for reasons that we failed to foresee, thereby engulfing the Earth and consequently not needing to “rise.” Practical certainty and mathematical certain are different matters. :)
Mike: I suppose you’re right. The origin of my use of the term is actually from a dramatic bit of movie dialogue — at first I couldn’t remember what movie, but a lucky Google search and a quick Find on this page reminds me that it’s from Titanic. My favorite line from that movie, in fact:
Thomas Andrews: The pumps will buy you time, but minutes only. From this moment, no matter what we do, Titanic will founder. Ismay: But this ship can’t sink! Thomas Andrews: She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will. It is a mathematical certainty.
A very dramatic line… but technically, incorrect, I suppose. I mean, there was always the infinitesimal mathematical possibility that an unexpected volcanic eruption could have occurred in the ocean directly under Titanic, producing a island that would rise up from the deeps underneath her, preventing her from foundering. :)
Or, alternatively, a fleet of giant eagles, one of them carrying Gandalf on his enormous back, could have come in and (with a mighty squawk, to be sure) lifted the boat and flown it to safety. Also mathematically possible…
Brendan, there will always be Islamo-fascists, just as there will always be neo-Nazis. Defeating the Third Reich didn’t end racism and fascism, and defeating al-Qaeda and terrorist-harboring states will not end Islamo-fascism. Your battle for their hearts and minds is a Don Quixote-like struggle, worse than the “War on Drugs”. It is fairly certain that terrorists–whether foreign or domestic, Islamo-fascist, Irish, or American reactionary–will strike again someday. The goal of the war on terrorism is to defeat organized international terrorism and the threat of terrorists using WMDs.
Brendan, if you can cite the torture of Iraqi prisoners as a negative event that impedes winning their hearts and minds, yet cannot cite a positive example of what might actually work, then that’s proof enough that such an objective is arbitrary and undoable. Winning hearts and minds is just liberal code for throwing a bunch of money, diplomatic niceties, and appeasements at the enemy so that we can pretend everything will be okay since we’re being nice people.
Dane, most of the 9/11 terrorists were independently wealthy or at the least middle class. They struck not out of a feeling of utter despair, but out of strong belief in a tortured, radical anti-Western ideology. For whatever reason, liberals like you have a problem understanding how religious fervor works, whether it’s nice evangelical Christians (evil fascist right-wing Bible-thumping fundamentalists), Orthodox Jews (evil Zionists, enemies of peace), or Islamo-fascists (hey, they don’t really believe that stuff, they’re just upset because their poor, so let’s give them money and leave them alone and they’ll be happy!). Hence, the goal of “winning their hearts and minds”.
“…nothing left too loose.” Let’s leave M. Lautrec out of this, Dane et mes autres amis. :)
“…It is fairly certain that terrorists…will strike again someday.” Andrew, you San-Francisco-marrying Mainlining slut. You’ve been Injecting Mike’s wisdom Straight into into your Adverbs. Good for you, that’s Absolutely right. :)
Mike, right on maaan, as always! Up the Quantum Possibilities! I’m Certain you are correct. :)
“…while I can be certain from an everyday standpoint that the sun will appear to rise in the west (hooray for the Numenor–ed) I can’t be mathematically certain that the sun won’t mysteriously go supernova overnight for reasons that we failed to foresee, thereby engulfing the Earth and consequently not needing to ‘rise.’”
As, consequently, neither will We be needing to that morning. (O goody! I can Sleep In. :) Hey There, mister ed! What’s with this Interpersed Insertion of Italicized Sillyarsed Anarchical Commentary into the very Midst of Somebody’s Else’s Words! Why that’s Illegal, where’dja get such a stoopid idea, wuttsa maddah fuh yoo. whah whah whah NEVERMIND ABOUT THE DAM’ NUMENOR! Heads must Roll, ya bigfat Cave Troll. (I always preferred the Denomenor anyway, it’s more Duvosive. After all, there are more things that Devade us than Inuite us. I had an awful bout of that btw. :)
But now to Wrenchingly switch Gears: Andrew, you are very persuasive as usual. However, as to “…Winning hearts and minds is just liberal code…”, recall that the phrase was invented by — or anyway dates back at least to — our warriors of The ‘Nam. Who were not necessarily all Liberal Code-talkers. And, who Fairly Certainly won none of either via the atrocities committed by the Lieutenant Calleys of that conflict — fairlycertainly inevitable as some such actions admittedly are in wartime, and much as they may have been Overblown by a foolish young Lieutenant Kerry in 1971 et seq.
But I must agree with your antiGnostic realism, re both Soldiers’ actions & Arabs’ H’s & M’s. We can’t Win ‘em All (though we do need to do a lot better than we’re doing now); and we can’t expect all of our Heroes to always Do Right.
(But, while you’re cutting our troops some Slack, can you see your way clear to slicing a little bit of it for our Bureaucrats too? We put our butts [as well as our Buts] on the Chair for you every day y’know. :)
Sure Joe, I’ll cut the bureaucrats some slack–as soon as the gummint cuts bidniz some slack by rolling back regulations and taxes. Dodging bullets and dodging budget cuts are not comparable in my world. But oh, if the threat of budget cuts were actually as constant and real to a bureaucrat as the threat of bullets lodging in a soldier’s kevlar!
I’m not quite sure how the use of the phrase “winning their hearts and minds” in ‘Nam has anything to do with how the phrase is being used now. I do hear some conservatives use the term, but I ascribe it to laziness; the more you parse it and try to break it down to concrete action, the more nebulous and impossible the task appears. But back to ‘Nam. We may not have done so well winning their hearts and minds over there, but the boatloads of millions of people fleeing the Communists after we gave up on them tells me they would have preferred us to win, at least.
This feels rather like when I replied to one of Tim’s Complaints of the Week - something about animal rights, I think - that love is associated with increased levels of oxytocin in the brain, then Marel said she was so sorry I didn’t believe love existed.
Andrew, when you say that I can’t question soldiers, I hear, “You’re not allowed to think!” It’s not so much that I’m anti-military as I’m against the mindless glorification of the military. As such, I can recognize that the soldiers in Afghanistan really are defending my freedom and Pat Tillman really was a hero, no matter what Ted Rall says, but at the same time I can realize that Iraq has nothing to do with protecting my ass, or any other part of me, and that torture is wrong. Nor do I blame the soldiers in Iraq for doing their duty; I blame the Administration, every Republican and every Democrat that voted for this, for putting them in that position. But torture is not part of their duty. In fact, it’s against an agreement that our nation willingly signed. Even if you think torture is just swell, maybe you would rethink going back on our collective word?
How do we know these prisoners were all Baathists and terrorists? When they’ve had no trial or any form of investigation? When we hear stories of young men being rounded up and held without charges? When we know that even if they fought against the Army outright, it may have been the inevitable resistance to an unpopular occupation rather than love for Saddam? How do we know this?
Winning hearts and minds was first used in this war by conservatives, the Administration in fact. Part of it is not unduly harming the people you’ve purportedly liberated. You really don’t see how this act is going to turn people against us, murderously so?
Osama bin Laden’s heart cannot be won. He must be arrested or killed. Same for his lieutenants and those already fully committed to the cause. But we can deny him recruits by not killing or disappearing people’s innocent sons and fathers and brothers, or by brutalizing people. Wrongs beget wrongs. I honestly don’t understand why you can’t see that.
“Osama bin Laden’s heart cannot be won. He must be arrested or killed. Same for his lieutenants and those already fully committed to the cause. But we can deny him recruits by not killing or disappearing people’s innocent sons and fathers and brothers, or by brutalizing people.”
Sean, you can question our foreign policy objectives and oppose the war, and many other things. But insinuating that our military personnel are not, as a general rule, men and women of character is out of line and disrespectful. There is no mindless glorification here, nor a whitewashing of the wrongdoings that some soldiers have committed, just a simple fact that our men and women are not evil scum, as you presume them to be, and that a few screw-ups does not a bad military make. Wearing the uniform is an honorable thing, and you should respect those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect you, even if you disagree with their mission vociferously. Such disdain for the men and women of the Armed Forces speaks a lot about one’s character, or lack thereof. Blame the Republicans, blame the Democrats, blame Bush, blame Pentagon bureaucracy and ass-covering–point the finger at anyone you want–but don’t impugn the vast majority of our troops who are serving with honor and dignity.
Abu Ghraib was not a detention camp or a temporary holding place for POWs. Abu Ghraib was a place where known and known-to-be-dangerous terrorists, criminals, and Baathists were held. As far as detention policy, I don’t know what you’ve heard, but I know directly from military personnel who are and have been in Iraq that the rules for detaining suspects over there are very, very strict, and they can’t hold onto anybody–even if they know they are bad–for longer than two days unless they have proof that they did something. That’s actually part of the problem; we should be locking these guys up in an Iraqi Gitmo until we’re out of there, or at least have an Iraqi government to which we can turn over the detainees.
I don’t care who has used the phrase “winning their hearts and minds”, it’s a nebulous phrase that lacks any definition of concrete steps we can take to move either towards or away from winning any hearts and minds. As for Iraqis turning against us, this does not seem to be the case. Of course, although the Iraqis are more forgiving, that doesn’t mean it’s No Harm, No Foul, but still, it’s quite obvious that the main obstacle to winning any hearts and minds is not ourselves, but Arab media. After all, everything we’re doing over there is twisted in the most perverse way on al-Jazeera to depict us in the worst possible light, and when we do screw up, they exaggerate it even more to preposterous lengths. The Iraqis aren’t fooled though, and that’s all we need to worry about, for now. At the end of the day, as Glenn Reynolds says,
“Instead of viewing this purely as a disaster (though, of course, it’s that) we should view this as a teachable moment. Everybody in the Arab world knows that their govenments engage in torture on a far greater scale, and as a matter of policy. People’s careers are built on it, not destroyed by it. We should be taking advantage of this opportunity to demonstrate the difference.”
The size of the so-called terrorist recruiting pool is impossible to determine, and as I hinted at above, Arab media is far more the problem than we are. Even if we did everything perfect, there will still be plenty of men lining up to do whatever they can to harm the Great Satan, or for that matter, Israel and the Jews. In fact, since these men care so little about their own lives, it probably is a much better idea to target their sisters and mothers and other family members, because at the least we know that such threats are a real deterrent to them in ways that ordinary death is not.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
May 2nd, 2004 at 1:37:24 am
Oh get over it. We were never going to win their hearts and minds–not as long as their perception of us comes through al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya. We will always be the Great Satan, and Israel will always be the Little Satan. You know, those evil Jews and all. Anyway, that doesn’t mean we can’t succeed in democratizing Iraq, or move on to eliminate the threat of WMDs from foes like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Besides, remember we once liberated France, and they still have yet to forgive us for it.
May 2nd, 2004 at 4:20:04 am
Except for the part where France actually wanted us there, we didn’t sodomize the French, the government in exile - which the French saw as legitimate - helped plan the invasion, there was already a Resistance, and we arranged to leave after the liberation. Also, Germany had declared war on us, was allied with a nation that had attacked American soil, and actually posed a threat to our traditional allies.
Another note, they did this in the same place as Saddam used to do this. And these are just the guys we caught because they were stupid enough to take pictures. Cue the warbloggers. Gee, I sure am glad those rape rooms are gone. Now the Iraqi people don’t have to worry they’ll be brutalized by those who control their country. It’s progress! There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!
I was having doubts, but now I think it’s official. We need to give the Iraqis sovereignty, REAL sovereignty, with the right to make laws and handle security for a governmental body chosen by Iraqis rather than appointed by us, then we need to get the hell out of Dodge.
May 2nd, 2004 at 2:45:03 pm
You’re right Sean, all our soldiers are sick, sodomizing sadists.
Like I said, our liberation of France was so much more “legitimate” than our liberation of Iraq, and yet the French still hate us for it, so why should we not conclude the Iraqis will also be ungrateful?
May 2nd, 2004 at 5:58:50 pm
“You’re right Sean, all our soldiers are sick, sodomizing sadists.”
Andrew, weren’t you the one accusing me of setting up straw-man arguments a few posts back?
“Oh get over it”? You continue to be dead wrong — and, dare I say it again, outside even the warblogger mainstream — about this issue. This is a much bigger deal than you want to admit.
And if you are right that “we were never going to win their hearts and minds,” then the war against terrorism — or the war against radical militant Islamism, if you prefer — is, and always was, unwinnable. I prefer not to believe that, but if you do, I don’t blame you. Don’t kid yourself, though, that we can win the war merely through disarmament, or that mass democratization is even possible if the “Great Satan” attitude continues. I repeat, the war on terror is unwinnable unless we win the hearts and minds of the people for whom the terrorists wrongly purport to speak.
May 2nd, 2004 at 8:40:37 pm
Brendan, ever heard of sarcasm? After reading Sean, who wrote,
“And these are just the guys we caught because they were stupid enough to take pictures. Cue the warbloggers. Gee, I sure am glad those rape rooms are gone. Now the Iraqi people don’t have to worry they’ll be brutalized by those who control their country. It’s progress! There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!”
I could only respond with an equal amount of sarcasm for his baseless insinuation that Americans involved in this type of torture is widespread over in Iraq. There’s no straw man there, just disgust with Sean’s sickening degradation of those who serve to protect his worthless ass. Why should I dignify what he wrote with a real refutation, any more than you would waste your time countering a charge that all black people are criminals and welfare crack whores, or that all gay people are AIDS-bound promiscuous sickos? Just because a few apples go bad doesn’t mean everybody else doesn’t serve with great honor and dignity.
Eff the warblogger mainstream. I’m not a warblogger, I’m a hardcore libertarian-leaning conservative Republican who happens to enjoy a few blogs. Most of the blogosphere is a giant echo-chamber to me, whether it’s Left, Right, libertarian, or something else, so I spend most of my time reading my original favs–Sullivan and Reynolds–while visiting your site because you’re someone I know and it’s a familiar community. 9/11 didn’t change my POV on terrorism and the Middle East much; it just brought more people closer to my POV. Just because 9/11 changed a bunch of other people’s POVs, such as your own, doesn’t mean that you and your fellow shape-shifting warbloggers are now the arbiter of all that is correct when it comes to anti-terrorism policy and analysis. I am stoked that guys like Instapundit have so many readers, and I love the growth and influence of the blogosphere, but that doesn’t mean I now or ever took my cues from them (although admittedly, I am challenged occasionally by what they have to say).
The torture thing is a big issue, and it is going to have major repercussions, but unfortunately much of our reaction to this has been overblown. What is needed here is perspective.
In a trial, you have the findings state, the guilt determination stage, and the sentencing phase. Now, first of all, we’re still in the findings stage–we still don’t know a lot about what happened. And yet so many people are jumping to the sentencing stage and calling for extreme punishments: Execution! Life in the brig! When I hear pro-war radio hosts talking about how these guys need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, I have to wonder, are you guys insane?!?
Step back for a moment. Of what we know happened, absolutely it was wrong, and all who were involved should be punished. But in sentencing, you always take into account context of the crime; coming home and catching your wife in bed with another man doesn’t give you a right to kill her, but the circumstances absolutely mitigate in the sentencing phase. Similarly, what is the context here? These are not innocent Iraqis picked up off the street, nor are they cute little innocent children. We’re talking about Baathists and terrorists who, frankly, probably deserve to be executed on the spot. Most of them deserve the same fate as the Nazi and SS personnel got when they were tried by the post-WWII tribunals. I don’t shed a tear for the “victims” here; my guess is a very sizeable percentage of people–soldiers or not–would have felt it totally morally justifiable to f*ck with these guys, because they’re evil and scum and that’s it, just as your wife is scum if you catch her cheating on you. But again, no matter how despicable the person is, the law is the law, and in this case, military law and international law were blatantly violated, and the violators must be punished.
I don’t want to hear how it’s the same as what Saddam and the Baathists did, it’s not. We don’t go around raping innocent women and picking up innocent Iraqis off the street to torture and perform sickening tests on, in order to strike fear into the population and gain their unquestioning obedience and compliance; all of these “victims” are bad guys who deserve every ounce of pain and humiliation they got, even if it isn’t “lawful” or “civilized” to inflict it in such a manner. Is it a PR blow? Absolutely. But so was Israel killing the leaders of Hamas, and that absolutely was the right thing to do. The sick Arab media is going to spin everything Israel and America does to fight terrorism in the Middle East in the worse possible light, whether it’s something good (knocking off Hamas leaders) or bad (torturing Iraqi prisoners). That doesn’t mean we should not care if we do something that’s bad, it just means we should not let the Arab reaction dictate how we react and how we go about doing our business over there. We have to do a job, and we have to do what works. I’m not going to waste my time fretting over how al-Jazeera is spinning this unfortunate occurrence, I just want to let the machinery of military justice take its course and that’s that.
Frankly, I find it incredibly hypocritical when people cheer our soldiers and call them heroes for doing their job, and yet have absolutely no sympathy or mercy on them when they screw up, given the immense pressures and dangers they go through in training and going abroad to serve our country. I just think it’s sick. I may sound like a bleeding-heart liberal in defending these guys, but I don’t care; the regular criminal deserves everything that comes to him, but the servicemen criminal deserves a slight break, not a punishment that in the civil justice system would be ruled disproportionate to the crime. When a man or woman puts his or her life on the line to me, that person in my mind deserves some slack when they screw up at some point. I think the way you and many other warbloggers are reacting is frankly callous and hypocritical, and to me it puts the lie to any pronouncements of gratefulness for what our servicemen do that I hear from the warbloggers.
Finally, you and I apparently have different conceptions of what constitutes victory in the war on terrorism. IMO, hearts and minds have little to do with it. For victory, I list these objectives:
1. Eliminate any threats of WMDs falling into terrorists’ hands. This includes possible regime change in places like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
2. Pressure other countries to do a better job in cracking down on terrorist networks, and work on better information-sharing and resource-sharing to this end.
3. Thin out the pool of potential terrorists by empowering moderate Muslims/imams, supporting democratic reforms in the Islamic world, and responding forcefully and overwhelmingly to potential terrorists.
I’m not quite sure I see which of these three objectives requires winning any hearts and minds by playing Mr. Nice Guy. As many people have noted, Arab culture likes the strong horse, and I never felt we were going to win points by proving to the world how moral and nice we Americans are. What we have to do is be more Machiavellian/Roman, and show our enemies that when you mess with us, it’s an automatic death sentence. Flexing our muscles against the terrorists wins this war, not following the Geneva Conventions. We follow the Geneva Conventions because we are a moral civilization, not because it helps us win anybody’s hearts and minds. I mean, come on Brendan, most Europeans are still convinced were torturing prisoners at Gitmo! How do you expect Arabs to be any better at recognizing the extent to which we attempt to be moral in our actions?
May 2nd, 2004 at 9:29:54 pm
Lileks is worth reading on the subject, even though he barely skirts it.
May 2nd, 2004 at 9:47:50 pm
Well, you make your points well, and I’m not particularly in the mood to try and rebut them fully. Just a few brief points.
Regarding Sean, I think you’re reading a bit much into his statement — and really, since this post started, some indications have emerged that the abuse may indeed have been more widespread than we thought, which would basically prove Sean right. But the jury is still out, and anyway, it’s not really Sean’s statement you’re battling, it’s your perception that he’s anti-military, and I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Regarding the extra leeway for soldiers who do bad stuff, I see your point, but I think it’s partially offset by the fact that when soldiers screw up, their actions reflect not only on themselves, but on the whole military and the whole country — they do a disservice to everyone. So in that sense, their misbehavior is worse than an ordinary person’s misbehavior. And they know that when they sign up to serve, so I don’t really buy the argument that we should go easier on them because they’re soldiers and they’re brave, yada yada. I see where you’re coming from, though… but I don’t think it’s at all fair to say, as you do, that warbloggers are cheapening their own geniune respect for the troops when they say these things about the bad apples. I mean, really, we have soldiers saying these things. It’s just a difference of opinion, it’s not some sort of objective moral issue that you can condemn us on.
Finally, I didn’t say we have to be “Mr. Nice Guy.” But I continue to believe “hearts and minds” are important, and your “victories” will be Pyrhhic ones in the end if we don’t make any headway on the Arab street.
May 2nd, 2004 at 10:06:50 pm
“…and your ‘victories’ will be Pyrhhic ones in the end if we don’t make any headway on the Arab street.”
There seem to be many people who would agree with that statement, but I ask you, was WWII a failure given that the European street is so tilted against us? I might also add that, historically, America has very rarely been popular in Europe. Assuming we can bring a similar measure of moderate politics, democracy, and economic vitality to the Middle East, why should these two examples be seen any differently?
May 2nd, 2004 at 10:11:13 pm
Because the European street has never been so against us that it becomes a breeding ground for terrorism against us.
It isn’t that I want everyone to love us. It’s just that I want them to stop wanting to kill us.
May 2nd, 2004 at 10:37:53 pm
You’re all dumb. The reason we should be in Iraq is oil–not terrorism or any other WMD bullcrap. Have you SEEN gas prices lately? I simply want to drive in my SUV that makes 4 miles on a gallon and worry about how to cram in a Pilates session between my massage and my golf lesson. >)
May 2nd, 2004 at 10:51:45 pm
Ever heard of the Red Brigades, GRAPO, ELA?
Okay, and would not my three stated objectives inspire fear if not love of America? Please tell me how you expect we can win their hearts and minds.
May 2nd, 2004 at 11:02:20 pm
Suicidal terrorists cannot be cowed by fear, because they are willing to give their lives for the cause, so they are obviously beyond fear. States that harbor terrorists can be cowed, yes, but the terrorists themselves cannot. Which means that the best we can do, under your strategy, is reduce the terrorists’ chances of success somewhat by taking away some of their resources. But as long as there is still a large group of people who hate us enough that they are willing to kill themselves in order to kill us, we will never be safe, or even close to safe, from terrorism. And given an indefinite amount of time, the most clever of those people will eventually find a way to launch every type of catastrophic attack imaginable. As with the BCS nightmare scenarios, it is a mathmetical certainty that the worst will happen eventually. Your strategy would only succeed in delaying it.
I don’t know how we can win their hearts and minds, and I never claimed to know. There’s a reason why I am so pessimistic about our chances of long-term success!! But whatever it is that we can do, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t involve torturing Arabs.
May 3rd, 2004 at 6:25:54 am
I wonder, is it that terrorists feel no fear, or simply feel they have nothing left to loose?
May 3rd, 2004 at 8:03:21 am
…since this post started, some indications have emerged that the abuse may indeed have been more widespread than we thought…
On the other hand…
May 3rd, 2004 at 9:18:10 am
I continue to have issues with your use of the term mathematical certainty, Brendan. Math being somewhat abstract, it isn’t limited to human timeframe references. Starting from first principles, mathematical certainty only occurs when the probability is 1 (it will definitely happen) or 0 (it will definitely not happen). Everything else is somewhere in between. So, for instance, if I flip a fair coin 100 times, the odds are that I will get heads at least once, as the probability of getting tails 100 times in a row is about 7.9 * 10^ -31. But it isn’t certain that I’ll get at least one heads. Actually, the odds are that if I try often enough, I will get a string of 100 tails in a row eventually. But it isn’t certain either, as the probability is always somewhere between 0 and 1 but not quite on one of those boundaries. Just because something is overwhelmingly likely doesn’t make it mathematically certain–while I can be certain from an everyday standpoint that the sun will appear to rise in the west (hooray for the Numenor–ed) I can’t be mathematically certain that the sun won’t mysteriously go supernova overnight for reasons that we failed to foresee, thereby engulfing the Earth and consequently not needing to “rise.” Practical certainty and mathematical certain are different matters. :)
May 3rd, 2004 at 9:31:20 am
Mike: I suppose you’re right. The origin of my use of the term is actually from a dramatic bit of movie dialogue — at first I couldn’t remember what movie, but a lucky Google search and a quick Find on this page reminds me that it’s from Titanic. My favorite line from that movie, in fact:
Thomas Andrews: The pumps will buy you time, but minutes only. From this moment, no matter what we do, Titanic will founder.
Ismay: But this ship can’t sink!
Thomas Andrews: She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will. It is a mathematical certainty.
A very dramatic line… but technically, incorrect, I suppose. I mean, there was always the infinitesimal mathematical possibility that an unexpected volcanic eruption could have occurred in the ocean directly under Titanic, producing a island that would rise up from the deeps underneath her, preventing her from foundering. :)
Or, alternatively, a fleet of giant eagles, one of them carrying Gandalf on his enormous back, could have come in and (with a mighty squawk, to be sure) lifted the boat and flown it to safety. Also mathematically possible…
May 3rd, 2004 at 2:00:08 pm
Brendan, there will always be Islamo-fascists, just as there will always be neo-Nazis. Defeating the Third Reich didn’t end racism and fascism, and defeating al-Qaeda and terrorist-harboring states will not end Islamo-fascism. Your battle for their hearts and minds is a Don Quixote-like struggle, worse than the “War on Drugs”. It is fairly certain that terrorists–whether foreign or domestic, Islamo-fascist, Irish, or American reactionary–will strike again someday. The goal of the war on terrorism is to defeat organized international terrorism and the threat of terrorists using WMDs.
Brendan, if you can cite the torture of Iraqi prisoners as a negative event that impedes winning their hearts and minds, yet cannot cite a positive example of what might actually work, then that’s proof enough that such an objective is arbitrary and undoable. Winning hearts and minds is just liberal code for throwing a bunch of money, diplomatic niceties, and appeasements at the enemy so that we can pretend everything will be okay since we’re being nice people.
May 3rd, 2004 at 2:05:04 pm
Dane, most of the 9/11 terrorists were independently wealthy or at the least middle class. They struck not out of a feeling of utter despair, but out of strong belief in a tortured, radical anti-Western ideology. For whatever reason, liberals like you have a problem understanding how religious fervor works, whether it’s nice evangelical Christians (evil fascist right-wing Bible-thumping fundamentalists), Orthodox Jews (evil Zionists, enemies of peace), or Islamo-fascists (hey, they don’t really believe that stuff, they’re just upset because their poor, so let’s give them money and leave them alone and they’ll be happy!). Hence, the goal of “winning their hearts and minds”.
May 3rd, 2004 at 5:14:20 pm
Lack of money is not the only thing that would cause someone to feel that you have nothing left too loose.
May 4th, 2004 at 7:29:40 am
“…nothing left too loose.” Let’s leave M. Lautrec out of this, Dane et mes autres amis. :)
“…It is fairly certain that terrorists…will strike again someday.” Andrew, you San-Francisco-marrying Mainlining slut. You’ve been Injecting Mike’s wisdom Straight into into your Adverbs. Good for you, that’s Absolutely right. :)
Mike, right on maaan, as always! Up the Quantum Possibilities! I’m Certain you are correct. :)
“…while I can be certain from an everyday standpoint that the sun will appear to rise in the west (hooray for the Numenor–ed) I can’t be mathematically certain that the sun won’t mysteriously go supernova overnight for reasons that we failed to foresee, thereby engulfing the Earth and consequently not needing to ‘rise.’”
As, consequently, neither will We be needing to that morning. (O goody! I can Sleep In. :) Hey There, mister ed! What’s with this Interpersed Insertion of Italicized Sillyarsed Anarchical Commentary into the very Midst of Somebody’s Else’s Words! Why that’s Illegal, where’dja get such a stoopid idea, wuttsa maddah fuh yoo. whah whah whah NEVERMIND ABOUT THE DAM’ NUMENOR! Heads must Roll, ya bigfat Cave Troll. (I always preferred the Denomenor anyway, it’s more Duvosive. After all, there are more things that Devade us than Inuite us. I had an awful bout of that btw. :)
But now to Wrenchingly switch Gears: Andrew, you are very persuasive as usual. However, as to “…Winning hearts and minds is just liberal code…”, recall that the phrase was invented by — or anyway dates back at least to — our warriors of The ‘Nam. Who were not necessarily all Liberal Code-talkers. And, who Fairly Certainly won none of either via the atrocities committed by the Lieutenant Calleys of that conflict — fairlycertainly inevitable as some such actions admittedly are in wartime, and much as they may have been Overblown by a foolish young Lieutenant Kerry in 1971 et seq.
But I must agree with your antiGnostic realism, re both Soldiers’ actions & Arabs’ H’s & M’s. We can’t Win ‘em All (though we do need to do a lot better than we’re doing now); and we can’t expect all of our Heroes to always Do Right.
(But, while you’re cutting our troops some Slack, can you see your way clear to slicing a little bit of it for our Bureaucrats too? We put our butts [as well as our Buts] on the Chair for you every day y’know. :)
May 4th, 2004 at 8:36:10 am
Sure Joe, I’ll cut the bureaucrats some slack–as soon as the gummint cuts bidniz some slack by rolling back regulations and taxes. Dodging bullets and dodging budget cuts are not comparable in my world. But oh, if the threat of budget cuts were actually as constant and real to a bureaucrat as the threat of bullets lodging in a soldier’s kevlar!
I’m not quite sure how the use of the phrase “winning their hearts and minds” in ‘Nam has anything to do with how the phrase is being used now. I do hear some conservatives use the term, but I ascribe it to laziness; the more you parse it and try to break it down to concrete action, the more nebulous and impossible the task appears. But back to ‘Nam. We may not have done so well winning their hearts and minds over there, but the boatloads of millions of people fleeing the Communists after we gave up on them tells me they would have preferred us to win, at least.
May 4th, 2004 at 1:07:35 pm
This feels rather like when I replied to one of Tim’s Complaints of the Week - something about animal rights, I think - that love is associated with increased levels of oxytocin in the brain, then Marel said she was so sorry I didn’t believe love existed.
Andrew, when you say that I can’t question soldiers, I hear, “You’re not allowed to think!” It’s not so much that I’m anti-military as I’m against the mindless glorification of the military. As such, I can recognize that the soldiers in Afghanistan really are defending my freedom and Pat Tillman really was a hero, no matter what Ted Rall says, but at the same time I can realize that Iraq has nothing to do with protecting my ass, or any other part of me, and that torture is wrong. Nor do I blame the soldiers in Iraq for doing their duty; I blame the Administration, every Republican and every Democrat that voted for this, for putting them in that position. But torture is not part of their duty. In fact, it’s against an agreement that our nation willingly signed. Even if you think torture is just swell, maybe you would rethink going back on our collective word?
How do we know these prisoners were all Baathists and terrorists? When they’ve had no trial or any form of investigation? When we hear stories of young men being rounded up and held without charges? When we know that even if they fought against the Army outright, it may have been the inevitable resistance to an unpopular occupation rather than love for Saddam? How do we know this?
Winning hearts and minds was first used in this war by conservatives, the Administration in fact. Part of it is not unduly harming the people you’ve purportedly liberated. You really don’t see how this act is going to turn people against us, murderously so?
Osama bin Laden’s heart cannot be won. He must be arrested or killed. Same for his lieutenants and those already fully committed to the cause. But we can deny him recruits by not killing or disappearing people’s innocent sons and fathers and brothers, or by brutalizing people. Wrongs beget wrongs. I honestly don’t understand why you can’t see that.
May 4th, 2004 at 1:10:41 pm
“Osama bin Laden’s heart cannot be won. He must be arrested or killed. Same for his lieutenants and those already fully committed to the cause. But we can deny him recruits by not killing or disappearing people’s innocent sons and fathers and brothers, or by brutalizing people.”
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.
May 4th, 2004 at 10:38:51 pm
Sean, you can question our foreign policy objectives and oppose the war, and many other things. But insinuating that our military personnel are not, as a general rule, men and women of character is out of line and disrespectful. There is no mindless glorification here, nor a whitewashing of the wrongdoings that some soldiers have committed, just a simple fact that our men and women are not evil scum, as you presume them to be, and that a few screw-ups does not a bad military make. Wearing the uniform is an honorable thing, and you should respect those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect you, even if you disagree with their mission vociferously. Such disdain for the men and women of the Armed Forces speaks a lot about one’s character, or lack thereof. Blame the Republicans, blame the Democrats, blame Bush, blame Pentagon bureaucracy and ass-covering–point the finger at anyone you want–but don’t impugn the vast majority of our troops who are serving with honor and dignity.
Abu Ghraib was not a detention camp or a temporary holding place for POWs. Abu Ghraib was a place where known and known-to-be-dangerous terrorists, criminals, and Baathists were held. As far as detention policy, I don’t know what you’ve heard, but I know directly from military personnel who are and have been in Iraq that the rules for detaining suspects over there are very, very strict, and they can’t hold onto anybody–even if they know they are bad–for longer than two days unless they have proof that they did something. That’s actually part of the problem; we should be locking these guys up in an Iraqi Gitmo until we’re out of there, or at least have an Iraqi government to which we can turn over the detainees.
I don’t care who has used the phrase “winning their hearts and minds”, it’s a nebulous phrase that lacks any definition of concrete steps we can take to move either towards or away from winning any hearts and minds. As for Iraqis turning against us, this does not seem to be the case. Of course, although the Iraqis are more forgiving, that doesn’t mean it’s No Harm, No Foul, but still, it’s quite obvious that the main obstacle to winning any hearts and minds is not ourselves, but Arab media. After all, everything we’re doing over there is twisted in the most perverse way on al-Jazeera to depict us in the worst possible light, and when we do screw up, they exaggerate it even more to preposterous lengths. The Iraqis aren’t fooled though, and that’s all we need to worry about, for now. At the end of the day, as Glenn Reynolds says,
“Instead of viewing this purely as a disaster (though, of course, it’s that) we should view this as a teachable moment. Everybody in the Arab world knows that their govenments engage in torture on a far greater scale, and as a matter of policy. People’s careers are built on it, not destroyed by it. We should be taking advantage of this opportunity to demonstrate the difference.”
The size of the so-called terrorist recruiting pool is impossible to determine, and as I hinted at above, Arab media is far more the problem than we are. Even if we did everything perfect, there will still be plenty of men lining up to do whatever they can to harm the Great Satan, or for that matter, Israel and the Jews. In fact, since these men care so little about their own lives, it probably is a much better idea to target their sisters and mothers and other family members, because at the least we know that such threats are a real deterrent to them in ways that ordinary death is not.