All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

The flaw in Seymour Hersh's theory.

Slate (Liberal)
What Went Wrong By Christopher Hitchens
...the work of the sniggering video-morons is black and white: one of the very few moral absolutes of which we have a firm and decided grasp.

...in order to argue this top-down process, [Hersh] decides to propose that it began with Sept. 11...

...the Washington Post "reported that, as many as ten times since early October [2001], Air Force pilots believed they'd had senior Al Qaida and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles."

These, and many other bureaucratic and butt-covering obstacles, according to Hersh and others, engendered such frustration at the top of the Pentagon that ruthless methods were discreetly ordered and discreetly applied. Thus, from the abysmal failure to erase Mullah Omar comes the howling success in trailer-porn tactics at Abu Ghraib.

...(There would have been sadistic dolts in the American occupation forces in Iraq, even if there had not been wavering lawyerly fools in the Tampa center that was monitoring Afghanistan.) One needs to stipulate, once again, that the filthy images from Abu Ghraib are not bad because they look bad, but bad because they are bad...

...in the news cycle that preceded the Iraq atrocities, the administration was being arraigned from dawn until dusk for the offense of failing to take timely measures against the Taliban and al-Qaida. I hardly need to recapitulate the indictment here. We had our chance to see it coming, and to see where it was coming from, and the administration comprehensively blew all these chances, from the first warnings of suicide-hijacking to the cosseting of Saudi visa applicants...

But there is no serious way of having this cake and scarfing it...Would the antiwar camp have approved the [questionable] measures necessary to ensure those [beating Al-Qaida]? If they will the end, will they will the means? Would they taunt that lawyer in Tampa, as they taunt the supporters of regime change, with living a quiet life at home while others die in the field? Isn't the refusal to take out the leaders of al-Qaida a bit of a distraction from the struggle against al-Qaida?

...I know the answers to those questions as well as you do...the battle against Islamic jihad will be going on for a very long time, against a foe that is both ruthless and irrational. This means that infinite patience and scruple and intelligence are required, as well as decisiveness and bravery. Given this necessary assumption, all short-cut artists, let alone rec-room sadists, are to be treated, not as bad apples alone, but as traitors and enemies. If Rumsfeld could bring himself to say that, he could perhaps undo some of the shame, and some of the harm as well.
When anti-war people make these arguments that are critical of Rumsfeld's policy choices they don't really have any credibility. This is because everyone understands that they would oppose the war regardless of the specific policy choices made by Rumsfeld.

These arguments will only have validity when those of us who have been for the war on terror are willing to criticize Rumsfeld for being too tough on the enemy.

My criticism of Abu Ghraib is based on the premise that the prisoners in the pictures are suspected of being members of the Iraqi resistance. These are guerilla insurgents and must be treated as POWs.

On the other hand, when we are talking about Islamo-fascist terrorists, I support being as tough as possible. Tougher even. I believe that if a US agent believes that killing an Al-Qaida terrorist will save lives, they should do so with all due dispatch.

If you have already made the moral decision that we are at war with these Islamo-fascists, then it is our duty to kill them whenever an opportunity arises. Therfore, if I condone what amounts to the summary killing of suspected terrorists, how can I not support the use of lesser measures to extract possibly vital information? Whether an Al-Qaida agent is killed before, during or after interrogation makes no moral difference. He has died under the authority of the people of the United States.

This war is not a war of law enforcement, nor will it be won using military means. This is basically an intelligence war between the CIA and Al-Qaida. Almost everything else is a side issue. Even bringing democracy to Iraq.

In essence, those who criticize the war in Iraq are correct -- the invasion of Iraq has little direct effect on the overall war on Islamic fascism. They are two separate issues.

Hersh compares the treatment of Iraqi resistance prisoners with Al-Qaida prisoners. Hersh is mistaken in this premise because he is comparing apples and oranges, saying 'we treat apples this way and this "created a climate" that caused us to treat oranges that way'.

This fundamental error is due to the fact that he opposes this war, regardless of the specific policy choices on the treatment of prisoners. Someone who supports the war would not make this error in discernment.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home