Retired generals knock Cheney and supporters on effectiveness and morality of "enhanced interrogation"

At some point in the debate about both the morality and effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation techniques," the Bush Administration and its supporters euphemism for what many would call torture, you have to decide who you will believe. Those who claim to have knowledge and experience, and those that do.

Retired generals bluntly, publicly call out Cheney and his views

Over the last year, former Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively defended enhanced interrogation techniques as not only effective, but also legal and necessary (see this post). Previously, we have heard many come out against the practices, notably including retired General Colin Powell. On Friday, in an editorial in the Miami Herald, two more retired US generals, former Marine Corps Commandant Charles Kurlak and former chief of US Central Command Joseph Hoar, made it clear that they absolutely disagree with Cheney and his pro-enhanced interrogation supporters.

In the editorial, titled "Fear was no excuse to condone torture," the retired 4-star generals:

• Didn't shy away from blaming Cheney: "In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics ... And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to 'the dark side' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture 'worked' and that our country is better off for having gone there."
• Make it clear they don't believe the techniques work: "We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques ... Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did."
• Claim that torture destroys our moral high ground and can impact the judgement of US personnel: "Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor ... Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed."
• Believe torture makes us less safe: "As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most."

Trusting those who served or those who avoided

It's important to once again remember that retired generals Kurlak and Hoar are not the only military leaders who take this position. But even if they were, it is time for those who have supported the vice president and his claims to make a choice: To take the word and believe the wisdom of decorated US veterans and former military leaders, or to fall in lock step with a the former VP, a man who received five deferments during the Vietnam War.

It seems that those who back Cheney either want to believe that we did right or simply refuse to listen to the opinions of those that differ, no matter how compelling their resumes are. They don't want to admit mistakes even if a mistake is blatant. But most often, it is better to admit the US was wrong (the treatment of native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the use of chemical agents in Vietnam, etc.) and learn from past mistakes than to remain stubborn when all that stubbornness can do is to diminish the greatness of a country that has, does, and will make mistakes.

Whether we admit our errors to uphold the ideals of our country or to protect US servicemen, it is an exercise we should embrace. And by admitting our faults and correcting our poor judgement, we can reclaim some of that moral high ground that White House-sanctioned "enhanced interrogation" eroded.

On not showing the president's address to school children

President Obama's upcoming speech to the school children of America has become a major hot potato for school administrator's across the country, largely as a result of the campaign of conservative politicians and media pundits to force schools not to show it. Those against showing the address claim the speech is a thinly veiled attempt by the president to promote his "socialist agenda" to American children.

The result has been that many in charge of school districts have decided to not show the video, despite similar, previous addresses by Republican presidents (Reagan and Bush I). What follows is an open letter written to the school superintendent of Georgetown, Massachusetts in response to her decision (delivered in an email to parents) to not air the video.

Open Letter

Superintendent Jacobs,

I was extremely disappointed in your email of 9/3/09 detailing why Georgetown students will not be shown the presidential address scheduled for next week. As the father of children in the school system's care, this is not the behavior I expect from school leadership.

First of all, the email's subject matter was the presidential address, yet it was not until the third paragraph that you talked about the president's presentation, and only then you mentioned that it would not be shown. I know of a handful of parents who didn't know of the choice not to show the presentation simply because of the ambiguous email subject and because of where the explanation was buried. It would have been simple to title the email something like, "Georgetown Schools will not show the President's address to School Children ... Here's why." Not being clear makes it appear that you did not want to draw attention to the decision while also being able to say that the decision was made with full public knowledge (to put it in another way -- to cover your backside). While it could be argued you simply did not write a clear email, it certainly looks like it was intentionally misleading.

Second, and more importantly, the actual reasoning is more disturbing:

"After careful consideration we have decided not to air the speech to the student body primarily because there is not adequate time to make the necessary arrangements and to plan thoughtfully. In order to ensure that we provide the best possible instruction for students we like to preview materials that are used in schools however we do not want to our students to miss an opportunity that may be useful to them. Therefore, we will tape the speech and determine as a district to either show it to certain grade levels with parental notice at a later date as part of the curriculum or determine not to use it in our instructional program."

Since when is a presidential address to school children considered something that requires parental notice? Obviously, what you have failed to mention is that the conservative/right/Republicans, inspired and encouraged by high-profile media personalities, has made the president's address a major issue (in many cases claiming that the President is using this time in front of children to promote "socialism," with the underlying message that somehow America's youth will suddenly buy into the President's supposed socialist worldview and subvert the thinking and parenting of their non-socialist, true patriot parents).

Leaving aside anyone's politics, it is amazing to me that the school system reacted in this way. It is clear that a certain number of parents who subscribe to the right in terms of politics have complained, and that rather than face the issue directly, the school leadership has taken the lamentable position of blaming the decision on logistics, technicalities, and the need to plan. At the very least, I would hope you and the other school administrators would be willing to admit why you have chosen this course -- to placate a vocal group of parents that have complained. Instead, you have chosen to pretend it is for reasons that don't seem to hold much water.

Perhaps you assume the majority of parents won't care? Or is it that you care too much what a small group of vocal folks say because they can make your job more difficult, impact funding, or alter the school's political structure? I would like, for example, to know how many complaints you received. You mentioned "numerous." I would hope that numerous -- which is obviously a tiny percentage of town parents -- cannot change school policy whenever they feel like it -- whether the parents are hardcore Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or anything else. If so, this decision sets a dangerous precedent that parents of any political leaning can barrage your office anytime they want to and impact school policy. Yes, we live in a democracy, but democracy is not "ruled by the mob." You already teach controversial subjects in school. Why not have the same courage of conviction in supporting this decision as with those? I assume sex ed, evolution, and teaching tolerance about people with different religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientation is not subject to the whims of "numerous" vocal parents.

It is ironic in a school system that rightfully spends much effort to eradicate bullying from the student body that you have apparently been bullied itself. And worse, you and the other leaders won't even admit it -- making excuses that nobody on the left, right, or middle will believe! If you are going to avoid showing a presidential address -- that supposedly is apolitical -- at least have the courage to explain the real reason.

It is not encouraging to see that our school system, designed to help our children become thoughtful and contributing citizens to a democracy, will cave into pressure simply because of what appears to be a small but organized and vocal protest. What kind of message does that deliver? I can't imagine what may be acceptable now with regards to discussing foreign policy, healthcare reform, end of life issues, financial regulation, etc.

I am not the only parent upset that the school district apparently has no courage to either show the video in the face of critics, or at least admit that it won't do so in order to avoid pressure or to protect its leaders from critics. You know, we, like our kids in your care, aren't stupid. Please don't treat us as such.

Corridors in space? There is no topic that can't find an audience on the Web

While it is obvious that the Internet connects people with diverse and often niche interests, sometimes you have to stumble upon an article and the subsequent discussion of its content to truly see that there is a group of people out there that will be interested in almost any topic imaginable -- or unfathomable. A recent find illustrates this point: An in-depth analysis of the role and specific instances of corridors in science fiction movies.

Corridor Lust

Over at one of the most truly geeky sites imaginable, and aptly named, called Den of the Geek, there was a recent article titled "In praise of the sci-fi corridor." In the article you will find screenshots and discussions of famous and not so famous corridors in movies like Aliens, Moonraker (the cheesiest of many cheesy old James Bond movies), and the slow and cerebral 2001: A Space Odyssey. And lest you think the author simply posted his well-researched and opinionated piece in a vacuum, feel free to peruse the comments of more than 30 readers (that's more than you will find at the end of many articles at popular, mainstream news sites).

There's more than just corridors out there

But don't worry, if you either found the dissection of movie corridors too brief or too esoteric for your taste, check out other articles, such as the post about the 75 best spaceships in movies and television. There is certainly heated debate in the discussion following the main content (and yes, each of the 75 ships are described), which only makes sense when the drop ship in Aliens beat out Star Trek's Enterprise for top ship (but for those of us that are old enough to remember, who can argue with the choice of Space: 1999's Eagle Transporter being No. 2?).

And now, a completely weak segue to talk about some good sci-fi ...

Since this post is about science-fiction, it's a good place to blatantly plug some of my favorite sci-fi books, movies, and TV shows. Obviously, YMMV (your mileage may vary), but perhaps you will find something you missed.

Some interesting books:

• The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Robert Heinlein). One of the best, though you have to enjoy Heinlein's long political and philosophical discussions. To be amazed, just look at the date it was written and realize how current it still seems.
• Starship Troopers (Heinlein). The name may sound goofy, but it is so good that most of the US military service academies have it on their required reading list. The first chapter sets the tone, though there are plenty of slow parts. Just remember, the movie is nothing like the book!
• Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card). OK, Card may be an out-there political commentator now, and the book is sort of a gimmick in terms of the ending, but it is a fun read.
• Snow Crash (Neal Stephenson). An amazingly creative book with a main character named Hiro Protagonist, a world where roads are owned by corporations and all sorts of crazy and imaginative technology and behavior is common.
• The Diamond Age (Stephenson). Who doesn't like the idea of the hidden skull gun, the matter machines, and the retro-Victorian society? It's a bit weird in the end, but original. Stephenson's later books are very interesting though they can be hard to plow through.
• Startide Rising (David Brin). Don't overlook dolphins, as they may be your superior one day. Sometimes it's a slog to get through the long-winded descriptions, but it is a fun and creative read that will probably make you read the others in the Uplift series.
• For more choices, check out this list here.

Some good movies:

• Blade Runner. How many versions of one movie can there be? Go with the director's cut for the one that fans most often think is best (the one without the Harrison Ford narration).
• The Matrix. Only the first one, please. The others just make the first one seem less amazing, particularly its conclusion that seemed so definitive. And yes, this movie did all those effects first (remember, it came out in 1999!).
• Alien. While Aliens is a lot of fun (and almost as fun to quote as Platoon back in 1986-87), the first is just plain scary. And while the action and effect may seem common and low-tech now, the alien-bursting-out-the-stomach bit was disgusting and shocking in its day.
• The reality is that there are a ton of other really campy but fun "cotton candy" movies, such as Armageddon, Independence Day, Stargate, Total Recall (seriously, was it a dream?), and Predator. For a list of more good and bad selections, click here.

TV shows/video:

• Battlestar Galactica (the new series that just ended). Very dark and depressing most of the time, the show had amazing effects, no lasers, and enough questionable behavior by the good and bad guys to create online bar fights between conservative- and liberal-leaning fans.
• Star Blazers. The cartoon may look awful now, or so kids today say, but if you grew up with it, you made sure you came home from school in time to see if the Star Force could save Earth in that year. Just hearing the days left at the end of each episode was enough to bring you back the next day.
• Robot Chicken (the two Star Wars specials). You have to be a super Star Wars geek to get most of the jokes, but if you know your stuff, there is plenty to laugh at. It's also great that the shows make fun of the desecration of the series that creator George Lucas foisted upon fans after the third movie (including the awful prequels).
• There are a bunch of other shows that are cheesy but fun, such as the short-lived Space: Above and Beyond, the mini-series V, and Star Trek: The Next Generation. And no, Firefly, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1 just don't work for me. Here's a longer list with some good and many, many bad shows.

Colbert thinks troops first, politics second, on Iraq trip

If you lean to the political right, you are probably not a Stephen Colbert fan -- he's the Comedy Central comedian who analyzes the news and provides analysis in the character of an over-the-top, egocentric, conservative media personality (see his Comedy Central show site here). This week, he taped his four shows in Camp Victory in Baghdad Iraq as part of a USO tour.

Highlights from the limited deployment

The shows, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando," had a series of important and interesting guests and cameo "shout outs," touched on some thorny issues, and always seemed to have the common troops in mind (FYI: "going commando" is slang for not wearing underwear). For all shows, he wore a custom Brooks Brother suit made from the digital camouflage cloth now common with US military personnel (see this Boston Herald article about the suit).

Highlights of the Baghdad shows included:

• Pointing out that the media and the public seem to have forgotten Iraq, and thus, the 130,000+ troops still in-country. This was his primary week-long message, and central to the simultaneous editorial work he did for Newsweek (he was guest editor this week and chose to have the magazine focus largely on Iraq and US soldiers; read his intro to the issue here). He made reference to this point many times during his shows and it seemed well appreciated by the troops in attendance. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), otherwise known as the Afghan War, was once the forgotten war. Now it is center stage, or at least on a much more prominent stage than Iraq (officially called Operation Iraqi Freedom, or OIF). But for the many US military personnel still in that Middle East country, Iraq is still very much their reality -- and still dangerous, even if overall violence is down.
  
  
• Not shying away from touchy subjects for and about soldiers.
  
  The messaging focal point of his first show was to declare victory. He proclaimed that he, by the "power vested in me by basic cable, officially declare we won the Iraq war." His later guest, the top US commander in Iraq, General Ordierno, didn't concur, but the point was made to the troops. Unlike former President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" serious, official, and incorrect speech on the flight deck of a carrier back in May of 2003, the troops knew that the comedian was saying it in order to not only make a joke, but to also point out that they had done what was asked of them and should be heading home.
  
  In his opening monologue, Colbert noted the long, multiple tours in Iraq and likely future Afghan deployments of the very troops cheering him on in the former palace of Saddam Hussein. While told as a joke, it was most likely a bitter and truthful point to the soldiers assembled -- and obviously something always on their minds.
  
  In a self-debate skit, he discussed the issues of gays in the military, noting that valuable military personnel, such as Arab translators, had been dismissed because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
  
  Colbert even highlighted the issue of faulty wiring in US military facilities, substandard work that has cost the lives of soldiers.
  
  
• Keeping the regular soldier in mind.
  
  On one show, he interviewed two "regular" US soldiers: an Arab who enlisted in the Army and was planning to leave when the war was over (Specialist Tareq Salah) and a female soldier who corrected him for saying she had "won" a medal (Sergeant Robin Balcom). His final guest of the week, Command Sergeant Major Frank Grippe, the highest ranking enlisted man in the country, was also more about a connection with soldiers than about addressing policy or strategic issues. These two interviews contrasted with the heavy hitters in the lineup for the week, including General Ray Ordierno (Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq; profile here), Lt. General Charles Jacoby (Commanding General, Multi-National Corps-Iraq; profile here), and Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.
  
  Besides with some of his guest choices, Colbert connected with the audience and the troops at large on a more basic level. His comedic take on basic training (he attended it for a day) still managed to highlight the challenges and realities new recruits face. His flight with the Air Force Thunderbird team in an F-16 also showed his willingness to make fun of himself while also displaying respect for the dedication and skill of the airmen. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he let his head be shaved (first by Ordierno but then finished by a stylist). If nothing else hit home with soldiers and cynical viewers, seeing a celebrity who obviously banks on personal appearance willingly get a crew cut was especially powerful.
  
  
• Having major, controversial "shout outs" from both aisles. It was obvious Democratic politicians would take part in his show, so seeing President Obama order Ordierno to cut Colbert's hair and watching cameos of Vice President Joe Biden, Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and former President Bill Clinton made sense. But unexpectedly, Colbert also had Arizona Senator John McCain, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and both George Bush's tape appearances thanking the troops (the most recent Bush is especially impressive given Colbert's inflammatory critique of Bush II at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner back in April of 2006; video here). It was a very impressive, bipartisan collection of shout outs that illustrated how all involved were willing to overlook political differences to send a unified message of support to the troops.

A history of supporting the troops

While Colbert obviously leans left in his political critiques and has never been a supporter of Bush foreign policy adventures, such as Iraq, he has a strong record of supporting US troops. For example, he works with the Yellow Ribbon Fund, whose tagline is "Welcoming Our Injured Service Members Home." He auctioned his cast, asked viewers to buy "wriststrong" bracelets, and links to the site from Comedy Central (article here). He has also been a strong supporter of IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) and its primary public speaker, Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff (read about how Colbert mentioned the organization on his show here; read about the impact of the support here). In addition, the comedian lends support to military-based education programs that "benefit public school students with parents in the military," projects managed by donarschoose.org (where he is a board member).

While anti-Colbert pundits and other detractors may claim that his Iraq trip was simply about publicity or ego, it's clear that it accomplished more than that. Obviously, his trip, and especially his haircut, generated tremendous publicity about US troops in Iraq -- far more than his usual nightly show would have done. In addition, his Newsweek stint further brought attention to the cause. So, in the end, does it really even matter what his motivations were? He did what he said he wanted to do: Highlight the fact that America still has over 130,000 of its soldiers, airman, sailors, and marines in the country. And whether you wear red or blue, at least you can appreciate the fact that he helped a country with short-term memory re-focus, at least for a few minutes, on the self-sacrifice of troops in that region.

Hopefully, if he ends up going to Afghanistan at some point in the future, he won't have to go as a reminder of a forgotten war, but rather as simply someone showing support. Hopefully.

With Iranian elections, the Bush idea of a caliphate seems ridiculous

During the recent Bush tenure, a common administration concern was about the rise of a new caliphate -- a united, regional, if not global, Muslim entity that could threaten the security of the West and the rest of the non-Muslim world. While many thought this fear was foolish at the time, the ongoing presidential election in Iran is a example of why that will never happen.

Islam has two major branches that don't see eye to eye

According to the CIA Factbook, Iran is a country of 66.4 million people, of which 98% are Muslim. However, of those Muslims, 89% follow the Shia denomination of the religion, while only 9% are Sunnis. Compare this to Iraq, for example. In that country of 28.9 million, 97% who are Muslim, 60-65% are Shia and 32-37% are Sunni. In Indonesia (the fourth largest country in the world by population and home to the largest number of Muslims), there are 240.2 million people, of which 86% are Muslims -- 99% are Sunni versus just 1% Shia (from the Wikipedia entry on Muslim demographics here). In terms of radical groups, the religious split trend continues: Lebanon-based Hezbollah are Shia, while Hamas is aligned with the Sunni branch. Overall, out of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the Sunni branch dominates (75%), while Shia account for just 10-18% (CRS report PDF here; Wikipedia demographic breakdown here; everyone agrees the figures are not 100% accurate).

The key point is that the Sunni and Shia have major differences, stemming originally from who would succeed as the leader of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad died (632 CE). Sunnis believe that the best leader should be chosen, regardless of his family, and initially settled on Abu Bakr (many use the analogy of Catholicism and the Pope when talking about Sunni leadership). Shia, on the other hand, believe that leadership should have stayed in the family, and that the son-in-law of the Prophet, Ali, should have been in charge.

[see this previous post that talks more about the Sunni Shia split]

Iranian election shows that Muslims care about regular Joe issues, too

The idea that Muslims could suddenly unite in government, despite massive divides such as the Sunni/Shia division, seems preposterous, and the situation in Iran should further dispel this notion. While the election is not about Shia versus Sunni, its major issues demonstrates how Muslims, when it comes to politics, government, and the economy, don't hold a single view in even one country, let alone a region or the globe. Imagine if you add in the issues of ethnic background, tribal affiliations, nationalism, and geography to the Shunni/Shia problem? A single leader is impossible.

An article from the New York Times today read more like a story about any election in the West, with issues about corruption, foreign policy, and economic stewardship cited as impacting voters:

Less than two months ago, it was widely assumed here and in the West that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s hard-line president, would coast to another victory in the elections on Friday.

...

Some say this is another aspect of the campaign that could remain important regardless of who wins. In April, a number of secular and conservative women’s groups joined forces and submitted a list of demands for greater rights from Iran’s next president.

On even a regional scale, the belief that Muslims from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine could agree on a unified policy makes little sense. And that is with more mainstream Muslims. The most radical, such as those in groups like al Qaeda, can't agree on virtually anything and would undoubtedly turn on each other and fellow Muslims if a caliphate came to be (for a fascinating look at how splintered radical groups are, read The Looming Towers by Lawrence Wright). Just look at what is happening in Pakistan with the Taliban for evidence.

No caliphate, no way

The Bush administration had a way of conjuring up scary images that justified its policies. The mushroom cloud over an American city. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons. Terrorists with atomic bombs in suitcase at Penn Station. And the idea of a united and anti-West Muslim caliphate.

Of all these, this last vision is the one that has zero chance of ever happening. It made a great sound bite, and some Republican supporters bought into the vision, but it defies all logic and history to believe it could ever happen.

...

Note: For further reading, there is a fascinating blog entry on topics such as the difference between Arabs and Muslims, Shia and Sunni, and other commonly mistaken terms and concepts ("10 Facts about Muslims"). Another interesting breakdown of the difference between Shia and Sunnis can be found at Religion Facts here.