Washington's Total Control Over Pentagon Public Affairs
One thing that comes up in the book and seems to last to this day that I think needs further thought - and I'm wondering if Michael and others have thought about - is the way in which the Public Affairs Office at the Pentagon has had so much control over the Guantanamo story.
Now, here is a story about the uniformed military being opposed by the civilian Pentagon leadership. But all inquiries have to go through the Pentagon Public Affairs Office, and if you contact the uniformed military directly - they say they cannot respond until they clear with Washington. This makes for an absolute control that, along with military protocols about obedience and following the chain of command, successfully keeps the real story hidden. So, while following the rules may have worked to some better effect in these early days, it has also led us down the wrong path time and time again in the detention effort. The PAO office is but one example.
My perspective is that of a former military interrogator and officer who led an interrogations team in Iraq. Karen's book offers a vital discussion and evaluation of military leadership. There is a dangerous precedent set for those military leaders who carried out unlawful orders to torture and abuse prisoners and the military needs to take actions to make it perfectly clear throughout the ranks that there is never a time that following an unlawful order to commit war crimes is sanctioned. As Karen stated here, "In addition, the professions - military, legal and medical, including psychiatric - need to think long and hard about how to reprimand those who violated the oaths of their practices, so as to consider preventing these crimes in the future."
Military officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States which specifically prohibits cruelty to any person. There is no oath to defend one's career. Note that the oath does not include language about "dark days versus sunny days", semantics that have been used to justify the emotional response to 9/11 for making these decisions. As General George C. Marshall said, "Once an Army is involved in war, there is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains…
…a good officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control both in his men and in himself."
This is at the very essence of leadership and the responsibility of leadership. Karen's book is an invaluable resource for understanding how some military officers rose to the challenge and lived up to our rich legacy of ethics, and how others failed to do so.
April 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one of the most eloquent and refreshing comments I've ever read on TPM.
This country needs more men like Matthew Alexander who have a clear head and the courage to stand up for what is right.
April 28, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
(more men and women!)
April 28, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to Karen's comments about the DoD Public Affairs, here is one item that civilians outside the military might find interesting. It has to do with a change in The Public Affairs regulations that curtails the First Amendment Rights of Reservists not on active duty (i.e., not subject to Title 10). Their right to free speech has been significantly curtailed in a re-write of the regulations under the previous administration.
Our reservists are an important reference point for the American public and their opinions, as first line observers to conflict, are invaluable and should not censored by the Department of Defense. Any restrictions placed on free speech should be of serious concern to the American public, especially those placed on the men and women who risk their lives to defend those rights.
April 29, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Toledo, Batman!
Civilian control of the military? What will they think of next?
Intelligent leadership?
Constitutional fidelity?
April 29, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink