Unifying Purpose (Why Torture Matters)
There have been eloquent murmerings regarding administrative priorities. This nation is in the throes of crises not witnessed since the Civil War. Domestic tranquility is stretched taut and the threat of a rip is ever present. President Obama must handle all threats to this tranquility simultaneously, in my opinion. The reason is because, like fabric, it all ties together. To delay or ignore one problem at the expense of another would do us well at some other point in time, but not today.
History is not a continuum of progress. There is no gradual increase in scientific discovery, political liberty, and economic prosperity. I would even venture that there is a negative countertrend to each of these areas. The ability to communicate universally via cellular phones and the internet is countered by an increase in surveillance and coercion. The rise of the labor union is met by sophisticated intrusive countermeasures that often lead to union negotiators colluding with business leaders. The rising tide of economic progress can be swallowed by unregulated monopolies. And, as history unfolds, the countertrend can and does sometimes gain the upper hand.
We have just elected (h/t to dorn76) a gentleman of mixed heritage, illegitimate birth, and a foreign name to the highest office in the land. However, this distinction is made dubious because his election arrives after the most reactionary leadership we have endured. Worse still, Bush's tenure arrives after an extended period of reactionary leadership, from Nixon forward. I use the term reactionary because their political power is rooted in a reaction against threats and enemies. The threat of communism, drugs, terrorism, the dissolution of religious values, and the ideals of youth drove the ship of state. In fact, the main reason liberalism fails politically is due to being framed as congruent with these enemies. Conservatives root their politics in the idea that if liberalism were to succeed, then our enemies have won. Conservatives are allowed to push reactionary ideas and achieve reactionary goals because they are allowed to paint alternatives as enemy victories. Once the cultural mindset is fixed and rooted in reactionary attitudes, then that culture collapses under its own gravitational pull. Once the Vatican convinced its members of the primacy of its orthodoxy and the perpetual threat of heresy, then that culture fell victim to the Dark Ages. When paranoia supercedes common sense life becomes nasty, brutish, and short.
In order to push against this decades-long reactionary trend, it is necessary to thoroughly repudiate every facet of the reactionary philosophy. I submit that it does our society no good if we relent against one reactionary trend in order to focus on another. I further submit that it does our society no good if compromise yields the essential paranoia and power nexus to the conservatives. Therefore, all pieces of a decisive counter must be put into play.
The reactionary players have no problem putting every piece into play. They have had nearly two generations of practice and a playbook written by Machiavelli, who specialized in analyzing warring states from the perspective of uniting against a common enemy. Free speech can become a tool of the aristocracy by turning speech into cash and businesses into people. This makes centralized consolidated speech more free than the contesting masses of the polity. The justification for this is that free trade and neoliberal regulations hamper capitalism and thus weaken us to foreign infilitration. Due process can become coercive because accusatorial process is tranformed into inquisitorial process directed at an omnipresent enemy mythology. Once the enemy is potentially everywhere, the enemy can then transubstantiate into everyone.
You can take every individual right, apply enemy-oriented reactionary premises, and then eliminate that right. Then, once those rights are subservient to paranoia, all protections are lost. Once you are an enemy, once your ideas are those of the enemy, you are no longer human but a beast that can be tortured, imprisoned, ridiculed, and exterminated. Once you are a heretic, you must be destroyed in order to be saved.
The root of delusion is the objectification of identity. Once someone becomes something, then that person becomes a receptacle for your delusion. Only when a child or a spouse becomes a possession can someone justify abusing them. Only when a woman made a pact with the devil could an inquisitor justify torturing her body to save her soul. Only when President Clinton became "Slick Willy" could the reactionaries justify hunting him into a keystone impeachment. Only when liberals become mentally ill brainwashed cultist terrorists can the reactionaries justify the police state.
With that being said, I present the idea that we must cease making humans into objects. We must cease turning life into statistics. We must infiltrate human sympathies and compassion into all crevices of public discussion and political life. We must return to the major premise of individual rights carefully balanced against collective equality. And in every way we must fight against reactionary objectification. We can not afford to ignore torture policymakers. They must be held liable and responsible because even the lowliest scum terrorist is a human that deserves accusatorial treatment. Otherwise, reactionaries from Al Qaeda can objectify us as evil and justify their continued jihad.
Reactionary thinking is inherently cruel and inhumane. So a humane radical philosophy must be championed in its place. This is partly why I supported Obama so strongly. His message of United States instead of red/blue states resonates with this need for a triumphant humane philosophy. However, Obama can not confuse this with centrism. It does no good to forgive the architects of torture and publish the torture memos because a United States must let justice prevail. Otherwise, any enemy activity can swiftly insitigate the return of torture because the reactionary idea persists. It does no good to rescue the ailing economy but allowing the essential megabank structure to persist because the reactionary dynamic will ressurect.
The end result should be a common ground that transcends political beliefs about the size and scope of government. The common ground should be that we hold the truth to be self-evident that all men, women and children are created equal and deserve certain inalienable individual rights, and that no matter what enemy may arrive upon our shores the power of this truth will unite us in common purpose to defeat the enemy without sacrificing this ideal.
Whether this result definitively occurs or not is, unfortunately, besides the point. The importance is that those of us who believe as I do to hold fast to our purpose and not acquiesce one iota of this truth in the name of compromise. It is one thing to compromise on the scope and shape of government. It is one thing to compromise on the time and duration of a law or tax. It is another thing entirely to compromise the integrity of of human life.
So many irons in the fire. But I will now devote myself to reading your essay.
April 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, as always, TheraP. You are one of TPM's treasures.
April 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, so are you, buddy! A good influence - and a respected critic.
April 22, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant analysis! May I add a dynamic understanding of paranoia which I think buttresses or enlarges your superb argument:
Interesting that your talk about "reactionary" and my dynamic explanation does as well.
I now return to reading the rest of this magnificent post!
April 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another thought. The neo-con argument goes back to Strauss. And the neo-cons see the dictatorship as always outside themselves. They can never see the plank in their own eye.
You are one brilliant writer and theoretician! All I can do is a bit of psychology...
April 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Strauss link is further strengthened by his emphasis on esotericism. There is the truth that is dispensed to the masses (terra terra enemy 9/11), and the esoteric truth for the powerbrokers (PNAC, resource control)... but both sides of the dialectic are unified around a common premise: defeat of the enemy.
Strauss more or less offered a sophisticated method for dispensing reactionary thought.
April 22, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. That's very helpful. Your fund of information for history and political though far, far outstrips mine. That's why a blog like TPM Cafe is so wonderful. I learn so much. Working together we can move the ball down the field more effectively. :)
April 22, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry (to everyone) for so many comments. You have found the nodal point, not just of the "problem" - but for the solution. It confirms for me that I must write up something about the "terrible intimacy of torture" (the degradation of Stage 6 on Erikson's scale) because it destroys "humanity" - it assaults the sacredness and worth of the human person, both victim and captor. The captor treats the victim as "garbage" - to be recycled so long as something "useful" can be squeezed out - to serve the paranoid cause. And, as you say, the antidote is the dignity of all. Dignity is the basis of community. Torture destroys it. But we cannot confine ourselves to the idea that the dignity of a person stops at our shores. We must assert the dignity of every human person - including a criminal, including our enemy. That is our task. That is why "love your enemy" is our supreme aspiration - or if you prefer "compassion" for all beings. Taking that large view of humanity into account, I repeat your words:
April 22, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because no matter what, "their" rights are inextricably linked to "our" rights.
Iraq anecdote:
The son of a certain high-placed individual in the local Haditha government was arrested for rape. The rape was allegedly administered to the daughter of a major in the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces). The crime, however, fell under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Police. The task of the RCT unit (with whom I was accompanying on a pay mission) was to furbish the peaceful transition of the suspect into the hands of the Iraqi police, because he had been captured by... the ISF.
The ISF wanted to torture and execute the accused. The US military wanted the "rule of law" to prevail and the rights of the accused to prevail with due process and a speedy trial. The US military won the argument and the day because the potential fallout of having a government official's son strung up by his toenails outweighed the immediate need for frontier justice.
But I can remember with the utmost clarity, that the ISF Colonel initially laughed at our request. The translator quoted him as saying, "Americans kill indiscrimately and talk of justice. The only reason I am agreeing to release the prisoner is to prevent retaliations against my own family. Nothing more."
There was no way for the American military to impose a rule of law philosophy onto a land that we had smashed into bits. Our own reactionary action undermined the moral value of what we were trying to negotiate.
April 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your presence here. What a blessing!
Glad to see this post moving up. In my view, it needs to reach the top!
April 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is our job as citizens to discuss the direction of our country so you must not apologize for speaking out. Loudly and as often as possible.
Hesitation, or worse silence, in the face of offenses like those detailed in the various documents lately released is what the forces of evil will take advantage of to enslave us all.
The First Amendment is first for a reason and I doubt very much that it was assigned place it has by happenstance.
April 22, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend this post, not only for the brilliance of the essay presented but for the marvelous additions of the commenters. And it's not over....
April 22, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should have posted below..... at the end.
April 22, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend this post, not only for the brilliance of the essay presented but for the marvelous additions of the commenters. And it's not over....
April 22, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree! This is perfect.
April 22, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, that is perfect.
April 23, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo...what more can be added?
More and more of us need to advance our Chataqua (Native American circuit speakers) and press the truths of our postition onto more and more of this nation that we can once again be an Honored Nation..and Nation where law does not favor the rich or the strong
April 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to think I sometimes fear the demise of critical thinking and analysis. I am elated!
Very well done Zipperupus. Thank you for your service, both in the Marines and in the democratic dialogue.
I love your fabric analogy. I wonder if [and trust] that Obama is playing chess when his opponents think he is playing checkers.
Has he enrolled us as knights, pawns and bishops in the game so we can work on different parts of the warp and weft? I would point to his statement that no one would be prosecuted for torture. Enough players on the board said "No! we will have justice" and some of the back line started taking responsibility and Obama says go for it. Perhaps this was his strategy all along. He can stay focused on the big picture and let the knights, bishops, rooks, etc keep all the issues in play. Let the other side's energies be diffused while they play checkers.
I see and hear signs that we as a people have finally realized that it has been the Wolf crying "the sky is falling" and not Chicken Little. We have finally stopped being a "Little Chicken". I only have to look at the froth and fervor from the right that they are using to whip up a base that is been whipped so long they won't respond to last year's flogging. They have been beaten so long, fewer and fewer of them are responding. If I do have a worry, it is that the ones who still respond to Beck, Rush, etc are the wiggiest of the wingnuts and are capable of Murrah Building type violence and worse. We have triumphed over worse and will again if called upon to do so, of that I am confident.
April 22, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share in your optimism and delight in your comment. I too am worried about the deliberate rallying of extremist elements by a well-funded media. I am reminded of how the Saudi royal family employs the same tactics... keep the street outraged at everything but the suffering they endure under their policies.
April 22, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great big H/T to you too, Zip...
This is a tremendous piece of logical thinking, of which Aristotle could be proud. I need to read it again later when I have some time and try to comment.
I'll just say that I'll sleep better tonight if you can confirm that there are more people like you in the military.
April 22, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I just love your rephrasing of my typically inartful description of the "black dude named Hussein"...
April 22, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I meant Plato, but the Rhetoric is good too.
April 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dehumanizing people and turning them into objects is one of the major goals of militaries all over the world, since it is much more difficult to kill someone with a name... or at times, even someONE.
Thus, chinks, rag heads, radical islamist, right wing, left wing, etc. are used as a dehumanizing remark. In our society, it is occurring more and more at all levels, and is being passed on to the next generation. Too bad, because it is not only endangering THIS nation, but due to the enormous military and financial power we possess, it can endanger the entire world.
One fact which makes it even more difficult to prevent is that in our culture, the concept of Christianity has been warped (in my opinion) so much that it would be unrecognizable to its namesake, but it is also a call to battle for its followers... who seem to be hellbent to follow without even stopping for an instant to question its authority...
Thank you for reminding of this TheraP... great article
April 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always have to have a browser window open to dictionary.com for your posts, Zipperupus. :-)
Well done, per the usual. One factual quibble, and one point in extending the chess analogy you started here.
First, the quibble.
My understanding of common law is that a child is considered "legitimate" if born to parents who are married to one another.
From the Time magazine feature on Stanley Ann Dunham:
The second comment I wanted to make deals with the chess analogy, which you hit on in this excellent passage.
I would go one step further than this. I would argue that this is what would, in chess, pass for a critical juncture in a game. The "game" I reference is the underlying culture war that has shaped our politics for decades.
As you so cogently argue, this war has been a one-sided affair for so long precisely because the left, generally speaking, has allowed the right to define all liberal goals as being tantamount to enemy goals.
However, merely forming a "decisive counter" is not the way to play this game. And, for a chess analogy, I would only point to the official world champions and a quick overview of their playing styles. (Don't worry - it all ties back to politics.)
Of all the officially recognized world champions, only Tigran Petrosian and, possibly, Wilhelm Steinitz could seriously be classified as "defensive" players. On the other hand, Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Tal, Robert Fischer, Garry Kasparov, and Viswanathan Anand all made their marks as fearsome attackers.
Of course, one cannot get to that level without knowing how to attack AND defend. And many champions, such as Emanuel Lasker, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, and Anatoly Karpov were famous for doing both at the top level.
In general, though, chess players find it much easier to play from the *attack*. This is logical, because you're creating the threats, rather than responding to them. It's psychologically easier to create problems for your opponent(s) than it is to sit and wait for something to happen to you. And that, in turn, reduces tactical mistakes made due to fatigue and raw nerves. It also allows you to cover for your own mistakes with sheer aggression, by throwing so many banana peels in front of your opponent that he can hardly help but slip at some point.
(Sorry for the long chess exposition! Here comes the political stuff.)
This is where liberals are - FINALLY! - starting to improve on the political gameboard. We're starting to *press* issues that are important to us. And we ARE seeing results, slow though they may be.
And just look at the Republicans. They're led by an ex-Oxycontin abuser, an ex-Vice President and an ex-Speaker who are all on most anyone's Top 5 list of most despised political figures in the U.S. They can't get a message together to save their lives. And as for an effective push against the President...fuhgeddaboutit.
Did this happen by magic? I say, absolutely not! It's the happy result of much maneuvering, strategizing and opportunistic politicking by the left. And now, we've come to this point, which is where we should be, given the advantages we've accumulated to date.
This doesn't mean we should be lax in pursuing these edges! On the contrary, you keep putting the boots to your opponent when he's down. (This comes from the Kultida Woods School of Competition...rumor has it her son is pretty good at that.)
My summary in this long-winded comment is this: Press the attack! And let's use the right language to set the tone. Don't view the last few years as a "counter". The initiative has shifted, but we HAVE to remember that initiative - whether in politics, or in chess - is merely a dynamic advantage. Without proper care and continued development, it can dissipate - or even worse, flow back to the opposition.
(Holy hijacking, Batman...I apologize for the monstrous comment. Didn't start out to be near this long...)
April 22, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I definitely concede the first point. I will say that I was committing projection. I was illegitimate, and in the rush of writing put that reality onto Obama.
On the second, I love a good Chess discussion. I would definitely say that the left has adopting a more appropriate attacking technique. I would characterize the play of the left symbolically as drawish. No risk-taking sacrifices (like Tal), no positional wizardry (Alekhine), and in other ways no desire to win. The right pressed the attack, and the left mirrored, always giving the right a "move in hand." Slowly but surely on every issue, the right would achieve better position and even even when the left would have a material advantage, they wouldn't attack the king (Bush). Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would always offer a draw, even if the right was playing with its hand on fire.
At this moment, I think it is crucial to initiate an endgame. That is more or less why I am so adamant about putting the king in check vis a vis torture. It is a moment to draw a clear line in the sand about the rule of law... and it is a clear referendum on humanism and the rights of the individual as outlined by Jefferson and Franklin by the Declaration of Independence.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate the correction, and I love to talk Chess.
April 22, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper. I say this with respect, but the degree of opposition, I just don't buy. Count the number of times the words "all, no/none, every, not one and must" appear in this piece. A case can be strong, and good can be achieved, without having to red-line the argument. There's an aspect of "purity" to the arguments I've been reading lately here, and I'm not sure it isn't driven by motivations we'll later regret.
Example. An end to torture done by our side, directly, in no way guarantees that we will somehow in the future be clean. This development came after decades (more) of torture done through intermediaries - the School of the Americas, SAVAK, etc. If we go back to that, are we, and is the world, better off? Unclear. If we want purity, and are to take no prisoners in our opposition to torture, then we had better get out our books, and prepare charges relating to our experience with Iraq under Saddam, Iran under the Shah, Central and South America. More widely, what role has the Democratic Congress played in all this? What did they know? Agree to? Accept rewards for? Prosecute them too?
Example. You write of "reaction" and how its every facet must be repudiated, etc. If asked to spell out the reactionary position on, say, a dozen major issues (decision to go to war, wiretapping, torture, health care, taxation, inequality, etc.) then on how many of those issues would we find our own leaders caught on the wrong side? Knowing, voting, taking lobbyist cash?
Example. "Not aquiesce one iota?" Hmmmm. Well, how are we to spend our days then, other than in hurling things at Obama? Because he can, will, and HAS to do this, daily. You yourself say that we have to "carefully balance individual rights versus collective equality." Seems to me that that balance, in any particular case, is going to smell like compromise, no? But that Obama mustn't confuse this with "centrism." I don't know what this means. But it seems like... high feeling... driven at great pressure... through generalizations.
I'm troubled by the, OUR, response to this torture issue. It smells of purity to me. A need to cleanse ourselves, but without fully accepting the degree of our own involvement. And without recognizing the world as it is, and - if we want to change it - the degree to which we may have to make sacrifices. We're externalizing it, Zip. Dumping it all onto the black-hearted monsters, with their perfectly black hearts. We're making them into perfect enemies. Oh, they ARE enemies. But I'm not convinced we should ever see them as completely so. Or ever see ourselves as purely the forces for good.
What if Good was more like an ecosystem, and less like a black/white war with lines drawn? Your line which intrigued me, attracted me, was "We must infiltrate human sympathies and compassion into all crevices of public discussion and political life." I'm for that. But doing that may require a greater strength, a larger sense of the Good, and a confidence which caries self-doubt and admission of one's own failings along with it.
But purity talk - of rights and cities on a hill and constitutions and founding fathers and "what we once were to the world" - has too much illusion in it for me. Let's get the compassion into the crevices first. See what we can grow.
April 22, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like what you're getting at quinn. But I think your critique is focused more on Zip's style than substance. And I would agree with your critique, as long as we understand it as a stylistic one.
Although Zip isn't making the case as explicitly as you would like, his analysis of reactionary thought implies that "Other" is illusory. That case is the one you're trying to make--if I understand correctly that Good/Evil is not a strict dichotomy, but really divided by a dotted (not solid) line.
I think Zip intends that to honor humanity is to accept the presence of Evil--however subtle--in our own hearts. And I see his solution as a recognition that we are not pure. That is reason we must lift awareness back to the value of humanity.
April 22, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let me try another step in the direction I'm headed. Our countries are presently engaged in war in Afghanistan, and adding in troops. Now, this is not a pretty business. A lot of civilians are getting damaged, and killed. e.g. Children getting damaged by various nasty types of weapons, their wounds rotting out, and them getting a slow death. This is part of what we do. I'm tempted to throw it into the same circle of hell as torture. But we get to "distance" ourselves more fully from those results.
Now, WE'RE doing this. Our troops, our President, our Party. WE are doing this. We know about it, voted for the people implementing it, our families are involved.
We put forward various justifications for it. They seem to have something to do with the bad deeds which bad local players - like the Taliban - would do to others, and to *ourselves.* We are doing this, fighting this war, and permitting these wider impacts upon civilians, because of the threats of bombs or damage being wrought by these others. There's a useful parallel (not an identity) between the case some make for torture... and the case for this war, and our weaponry/tactics. Although, in terms of numbers, the War is causing far more individuals to suffer than our prisons or torture are.
We are presently in one of those periods when we're NOT being overwhelmed by horror/shock/outrage at the activities of OUR side, in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. But here's the question. When we have the next horror story of activities perpetrated by our side, what will we do? And I'm not thinking of activities in which soldiers go beyond their orders, but when they act WITHIN them, and produce horrific results.
Who's guilty then? Soldiers? Officers? Cabinet? President? Us? I'm sorry, but a case against torture has to look at motivations, processes, consequences - all of which are then at least partially applicable to these other acts. Some people are convinced Cheney & Bush and co. are War Criminals, for initiating those wars on false premises. But where do WE stand for continuing those wars, in particular, once any original justification has passed by?
And in terms of proxies, what do we think Karzai and Al-Maliki and co. are doing? Zipper has outlined some of the reality of the ISF & the Iraqis Police. How about what the Afghan Warlords we're buying? How are they doing? These are OUR GUYS now.
In short, we may find the torture issue one we can tackle with a degree of clarity, purity even. I'm not at all convinced there's not an awful lot on our hands. This troubles me. The torture focus strikes me as ignoring our own history of thuggish partnerships, everyday wider realities in these war zones, and likely futures awaiting us.
April 22, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, quinn. You see it as "torture focus." While I read it as torture "in focus" - in other word, torture in a wider context.
I kind of "get" where your argument is going. But here's my concern. I never, for example, get really, really complex about my (professional) subject matter. I always try to keep it within a language and network of ideas which is not overly complex. (at least I hope so...) Your training is to be very detailed and complex and erodite (at times) - even if very much in a playful way. And that is wonderful. But it doesn't always suit a blog, where you have so many people of different backgrounds. And, if I'm getting your critique (and I'm proably not - it's likely over my head), it would seem you view Zip's analysis as too simplistic (and it seems you're viewing him as seeing things black and white). Well, in some ways, if that's your critique, it's likely correct. But at the same time, the abstruse kind of reasoning and analysis (you seem to want from him) may be so far over people's heads that they just can't follow it or add to it. Whereas, to me, Zip's essay is something I could "get" and hang onto, something useful, which helps me see other situations better.
Sometimes, I think we need to go for pragmatic descriptions, kind of like impressionistic art, rather than overly detailed ones - which bog people down.
Now, if I'm totally off base, then just ignore this - cuz I'm not really well-versed enough in this subject matter to address the "matter" - but I'm looking at people's ability to participate and profit from discussion.
Hope I've made some kind of sense to someone.
April 22, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"torture focus" vs. torture "in focus"
You're so good.
April 22, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great points.
To me, the dehumanization process coincides with the use of violence. Violence is rooted in mishandled anger. Anger is natural. So, part of this equation is inevitable. Really, the driving force behind it is inevitable. What matters is how that force is handled.
Is our role in Afghanistan a proper way to handle that force? I don't know.
I believe there is a natural tension between these two propositions: 'the end never justifies the means' and 'the situation--not the end--supplies the means'. If we believed the former strictly, then someone like Obama would never have participated in politics. And oftentimes we as individuals would be forced into indecision/inaction over imperfect but effective decisions/actions. On the other hand, if we believed the latter strictly, we're quickly forced into Machiavellian territory.
So, I think you're right. This situation is not black and white. We have to approach it dialectically--constantly balancing between pure idealism and the facts.
So back to the question: is our role in Afghanistan proper? From one perspective, absolutely not. If 'the end never justifies the means', then we are in clear violation of our code. If 'the means are dictated by the facts,' then we may be in harmony with our code.
If it's the case that our actual Code is a dialectical balance between 'the purity of the end' and 'the means dictated by the facts', then it might be appropriate to say that we are in an unbalanced position--because the former is obviously violated, the latter is not as obviously satisfied as the former is violated. And to follow the next step in your argument: if we don't reconcile that unbalanced position with the perfect balance we are assuming in our state of shocked conscience, then we are helplessly hypocritical. And our dialectic balance will not allow helpless hypocrisy.
So, our question becomes: are there means--more consistent with our end--with which to more effectively deal with the situation in Afghanistan? If the answer to that question is yes, then I would agree 100% with you quinn. Our position is awkward at best and reactionary at worst.
Have I answered your question? No. I don't know the answer to your question. I think it depends on whether less violent means--more consistent with the goal of human dignity--are available and whether or not they would be effective.
I hope my thinking/ruminating out loud--if followable--demonstrates the power of your concern. Good stuff quinn.
April 22, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wars fall under Crimes Against Peace - also prosecuted as part of the Nuremberg proceedings.
I am wondering if the depth and breadth of the atrocities, scandals and crimes against our civil rights have given those of us who care a kind of collective PTSD or scandal fatigue.
The shock and outrage that I feel at all of these revelations is draining. Each new event brings on a flurry of comments that seem to ebb pretty quickly.
Outrage after outrage - It is the job of the new administration to reveal the criminality of the last but it is going to be a rough trip emotionally.
April 22, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outrage Fatigue. Yes. But still, we have to keep slogging. As you're obviously doing.
On the other hand, consider the pickle the other side is in right now! All this stuff coming out. Their worst nightmare. Popping up at home and abroad. A financial mess over the whole earth - like some kind of plague. It's like the plagues in Egypt. But no one to set them free. Jail time looking like a potential outcome - even if still not very possible.
Get this:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004829
April 22, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful present to leave behind.
I wonder what was on the note that GWB left in the desk drawer for BHO, 'Gotcha!' perhaps?
I wonder if that may be the point, make people so tired of hearing about and discussing the crimes and eventually they will stop from exhaustion.
April 22, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't think so. And I'll tell you why. Because over the last 6 years or so, when some of us became fatigued, we passed the baton to another runner for a while. And they passed it back when they faltered. We've got a pretty good race going here now. They keep dropping runners. We keep gaining adherents.
We'll get there.
April 22, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Quinn (good to see you by and by) I appreciate your critique. I am pretty aware of the United States' sordid history. I know that my country has committed a multitude of crimes. I am not reaching for a purity myth. I have an inkling of what Obama is up against.
But while you have a problem with my use of chiarascuro language, I take issue with your slippery slope. Yes, if investigations and prosecutions occur a lot of decent politicians may get mired in scandal. But they had no business supporting Bush.
We as a nation must (there's those words again) deal with Bush and his legacy. You have seen what was done to Reagan. His spotty reign has been polished and canonised. If a terror attack occurs, the revisionism will begin anew unless we develop a third way girded by passionate advocacy for individual rights.
Quinn, I believe that we can commit the organic good. I don't believe in the dualistic conception of good versus evil... But I do believe that any ideology, such as reactionary conservatism, that has an external locus of control will lead to evil acts. I further believe that liberals must present a sound alternative independent from the existence of an opposition. It must stand alone and only invite comparison... Not necessitate it.
I think that people aren't necessarily evil, but beliefs can be evil. A belief system that exists strictly as a reaction to nebulous threats is an invitation to disaster.
April 22, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you too, Zip. I feel iffy even raising these concerns, because it sounds like I'm supporting torture or critiquing prosecutions. I'm not. I want them, I want them thorough, I want those most responsible in jail. But I wanted to look at the wider circles of connections we're going to get into as we plunge in, and the consequences we may create.
The Reagan years were, in fact, the ones that seared me. That that man, and his cronies, aren't in prison still astounds me. But more importantly, the philosophy he raised I hold very much responsible for numerous of our ills today. But here's the thing. Much though I worked for Bill Clinton's victory, and thank God for the break we got in the momentum of the Right, too much went uncorrected. In fact, much of the Reagan beast continued to be fed (see: Wall Street.) The lesson is that we can handle these shifts poorly. We can make mistakes in how we fight. And these don't come about just through ill-advised sexual liaisons.
So yes, let's plunge in with prosecutions. But, for instance, we need to be aware that we may lose key Congressional leaders, and at critical times. After all, the hypocrisy of our side is going to look very bad - while the filth of some on the other side may well be treated as Business As Usual by their supporters.
Yes, let's wade in. But be aware that the stories undermining Obama's efforts in the wars of today will write themselves. The "How can you rage against torture when you use weapon X, and support Warlord Y, and why should we keep troops when leader Z is doing ABC." Because WE will be held to the higher standard. THEY will fight against it in the name of "realism," and even if a some are brought to justice, many of their core supporters will not move.
If we fight this fight correctly, we may come through stronger. We may gain public support. We may improve the personnel we have leading us. But thinking through those wider implications... that's what I'm wanting to do. At a minimum, I think we need to move VERY rapidly past our outrage, as too long spent in that territory is self-indulgence. We need to look at how to fight this battle, and how it will affect many fronts. e.g. Do we really want to put much weight on the "torture doesn't work" argument, and if so, let's be clear how we're going to put it. Or, since our wars themselves engage us in violent activities, and partner us with violent governments and groups, how do we propose to change how we act there? Because they WILL be linked to the torture issue. etc.
These strike me as the minimum we should be doing now.
April 23, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very helpful comment, quinn. I'm on board! I hope my post up now contributes to that discussion, though I hadn't read this comment till after I posted.
April 23, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend this post, not only for the brilliance of the essay presented but for the marvelous additions of the commenters. And it's not over....
April 22, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks for the insight based on compassion and truth.
April 22, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip, you're always a pleasure to read. This one is particularly fulfilling. I think you're striking at the heart. Reactionary thought has no core. It's "center" is outside of itself. It's M.O. is to negate, never to create. It's foundation is an Other, and it's motivation is to protect against that Other. It feels that the best means of protection against Other is to ensure that everyone fears Other--by whatever means necessary.
I was framing this--in a conversation with Thera this weekend--as a master/slave relationship. But after reading the declassified summary last night, I see that I'm wrong. Master/slave implies a being of the same origin--same species. Reactionary thought is worse than that. It frames as human/animal. But, like Thera and you are both suggesting, to negate that which is human (especially the human "Other") is to negate humanity itself. So even the human/animal dichotomy is untenable. We're left with dehumanizer/objectified.
I think dehumanizer/objectified is the correct framing because no one is human in this process. Reactionary thought is just a manifestation of destruction, death, the rape of life, etc.
Thera has been demonstrating the simple--yet profound--truth that to abuse is to experience abuse. That, combined with your clear picture of a cultural of abuse (via reactionary thought), equals a sickening but, I think, accurate depiction of torture as subtly epidemic and slightly omnipresent throughout our world.
I think your solution is also powerful. A reaffirmation of the value of humanity is it. Upholding and enforcing the law will be one manifestation of that reaffirmation. Hopefully, we can reaffirm that value on many levels.
Great work Zip. Thank you.
April 22, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great, drug addled thinker and writer Ken Kesey observed that there are people of a certain mind set who as children choose up sides and play the "cops and robbers game". They continue this game throughout their entire lives.
The problem is that the vast majority of us just want to live our lives but we are all stuck in the middle between these warring factions of like minded people who are the cops and the robbers. Or the forces of good and evil. Or the terrorists and the anti terrorist warriors. And these crazy people insist that all of the rest of us must be with 'em or agin' 'em. And either way we are all suppoed to devote our lives and treasure and hearts and souls to their nobble cause because they hear a higher calling from the great beyond that transcends our paltry desires to just live our lives in peace.
What was it the guy said? War is the force that gives our lives meaning. Youbetcha!
Yes it is very important to prosecute all of the participants in torture. Show them to be the reactionary, crazy, irrational beasts they are. And prove to the world that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. But the cops and robbers won't go away. All the world is just another act in "The Cops and Robbers Game" for them. Just another chance to proove their metal. Another chance to bomb some poor slob waiting for the bus. To drag some poor slob out of his home in the wee hours to a torture cell to fufill the destiny of some nobble cop or robber.
April 23, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great thread. Zipper's call for restoration of America as a place where torture just "isn't us", and his defense of individual dignity is eloquent, and stirring.
Equally thought provoking is Quinn's Devil's advocacy. Like that little voice in my head, that cruel reminder that America's history, and its place in the World is a much a tragic muddle as it is a shining glory.
I wonder how we pursue torture without a similar focus on other horrors of the "War on Terror", for example, the drone bombings in Pakistan? While I understand that if we torture we really aren't the "land of the free", it's equally hard to lay claim to the "home of the brave" when you send robots to do your dirty work.
April 23, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Zipperupus for this superb post it has help explain a lot of questions I have had. As I read Foxes book of Martyrs about the terrible atrocities committed by the Vatican that caused the dark ages,what could cause men to do these things to other men.Was it greed,lust for power,just plain undiluted evil, or all of them coalescing ? You have clarified it for me so convincingly.It was possible only by the dehumanization of those considered others.This is true also in racial prejudice,elitism,all abuse physical and psychological. Aren't these all torture in their own way? Last but not least would be murder,which not only destroys the other, but puts to torture everyone who knows or loves that other.This essay should be a classic and I will keep it to read time and again.Humble thanks sir for your post and also for your service to the American people.
April 23, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just realized that the Senate Intel report encapsulates a series of discussions very similar in nature to the Wannsee conference of 1942 wherein the Final solution was discussed.
April 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper,I first want to join with those who say this is an excellent essay. I will add that I composed this response, as I sometimes do, to try to see if I can explain my thinking even to myself, if my ideas will stand up even to my own scrutiny. At this point I am not totally convinced that they do, but then I rarely, if ever, feel certain about anything. So, what the hell,after quite a bit of hesitation I will submit this comment anyway and maybe find out to what extent, if any,my ideas stand up under the scrutiny of others. I try to keep my mind open to change.
I wish to completely and strongly align myself with any and all who are abhorred by the idea of torture and who want to see it end everywhere. Third, I am also completely with those who think that we citizens of the U S have a special obligation to deal with those who committed torture, directly or indirectly, using the power they derived from the government of the U S, that power ultimately being the power of we the people and, if our experiment in representative democracy is working at all, is the power OF the people even if not used as we would consciously and rationally choose, wielded [at some great remove in most cases] by the people, and is power our chosen leaders claim to be wielded for the purposes of the people.
We the people must recognize that our power has been perverted, we should have the natural and correct reaction of anger that torture has been carried out by our representatives and we the people have an obligation both as citizens and as humans to act both to prevent more wrongdoing but also to bring justice to those who have so hideously abused and perverted the power that they derived from we, the people.
Zipper, your essay appeals to both the intellect and to emotion and does so well, I doubt if I can find a single thing you said that I would not agree with when you lay out your case for action, but when you join with Boyd Reed in the analogy of our current situation to chess you have made the analogy that our correct course forward is with the strategy and tactics of war. You say the the pieces are set in place in such a way that we both can and should press the case, take the war forward to a just conclusion. We must win and we can win if we go on the offensive. Fight the fight on our terms for our just purposes and if we do then in the end we can be confident of that great moment when we look our opponent in the eye while knowing that we have both outplayed and out gutted him, and then we reach over the board and tip his king.
Victory is ours. The “right” side is victorious just like we've always been told that it will ultimately be. But wait, who is the “enemy” we have defeated in this war? Oh yeah, it is the “other” half of our own country, our misguided friends, neighbors, and family. [Of course, this part is pure speculation that supposes we actually will win the war. Maybe, but maybe not]
By God, it feels good. I feel the power of the great American myth stirring the blood of both great and plain Americans just as it has stirred my own blood flowing through my own simple mind at times in my life, but mostly when I was a kid playing war games, not so much later on when, as a bit older kid, and I played at war for real.
I think, though, that the analogy of war is completely appropriate. I think it will, in fact, be a war [ though with any luck not one using guns on a large scale ] if we press our position from a mindset guided only by the idea that we have the power and we have the situation such that we can win the war so by god we should press the war now and take the power to run this country our way and, luckily for all, we know that that will then be the right way..
My main reservation, beside my lack of confidence that we are sure to win, is that the war will not be with an abstracted, dehumanized enemy in a far off land and which we can revel in defeating and then return home to parades and medal ceremonies, [I hate that kind too] but it WILL be a war with a tough, hard, strong, and self-righteous enemy which means it will be, like all wars, one which creates lasting enmity and bitterness, but it will be a war within our own country, our own communities, and our own families. That is where the bitter enemies will be when the forever war we have fought doesn't come to an end. When the “enemy” king is pushed over in defeat there will still be 300 million pieces still on the board and at least half of them will be looking for a new king to lead them in renewed combat and, like in all wars, most of the soldiers on both sides will have forgotten what they are fighting for, if they ever really knew, but just remember which side they are on. They will be reduced to fighting for slogans but they will fight because they will have an enemy clearly defined for them. They will have internalized their conception of the other side as the evil and dangerous enemy. Our side will, at most, have ended not torture, but merely and temporarily, the “policy” of torture and will have done so at great cost. Maybe, unnecessary and pointless cost.
As victors, if we are required to “occupy” the country and rule by force we will not have really won and we will not maintain any power and if we have done any good then the good that was done will be very temporary. If we actually want to end torture by our country then we must not merely obtain the power to quit torturing for now but also face the fact that many Americans are currently willing to accept and even encourage the use of torture in the persuit of what they see as a just cause. W must demonstrate to them by the evidence that will speak to the conscience of anyone having a conscience that torture is not just counterproductive but also evil. To the extent that prejudice and discrimination has been overcome in this country, it has happened much more through the acceptance by the public at large that discrimination and prejudice are wrong than it has by the legal conviction of anyone who discriminated because of their prejudice.
Our ultimate goals are the same, we want to change that part of our countries journey which has taken a wrong path. I think we should give a great deal of thought to how we will try to change its path. Choosing to single- mindedly persue convictions of Bush and Chaney is a decision that could be made by a mindless computer. A computer will never acquire wisdom. Probably the only way those convictions can be obtained, and I think certainly the only way they are worth obtaining, is if the weight of American public opinion has been led to to both see and believe that what was done was so wrong that dealing with it should, and therefore does, transcend politics. The prudent course is to avoid war, do our very best to get the whole story out in the open and hope that we are a country strong enough as a whole to THEN recognize what is right and what we should do to the criminals whose crimes are then recognized and acknowledged by such overwhelming numbers that we don't have to fight a war within our own country. If we were to win such a war through battle rather than through negotiations that led to an agreed peace we will have won a hollow and temporary victory.
It is time to go beyond the chess analogy of war where there is a final victory by one side or the other. In real wars, war games are used to predict the end results of battles. If anyone in this conversation can game this out as a war in which convictions are what will demonstrate that we have won, including time-line, forces to be employed, tactics, and so forth, I would really like to see it done. If the call is to fight a war then I would like to see a long term plan to win something worth winning. At the same time, I wish someone would game out, as an alternative, how we should wage peace in such a way that we might maintain a peace worth having and honoring. I think that that can come only in incremental steps over a long time. I think that a blitzkrieg will almost certainly fail
My comments on this subject have upset and disturbed a few, or maybe many, whom I guess think that I am somehow downplaying the evilness of torture or justifying no punishment for those guilty. I say to all that that is absolutely not the case and hope that that be believed regardless of how you judge my other thoughts.
April 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I would like to add that we must restore the rule of law.
The founders of America realized that men (no insult intended) were subject to emotion, and emotions are volatile and can lead to precipitate acts such as torture, and thus they sought to establish a government that derived its power from law. Which law was designed to be the expression of the will of the people.
My many criticisms voiced here at the Obama administration have been provoked by the statements that have offered the resources of government to defended the perpetrators of torture. The statements leave open the possibility of prosecutions, but they also endorsed the torture in that the torturers are to be defended against prosecution both at home and abroad at taxpayer expense. Everyone has the right to counsel in this country as a criminal defendant, and it has been shown in numerous cases that he defense afforded to indigent defendants is often sub standard, and is conditioned on the defendants inability to pay.
I remember news that over the past few years that many CIA officers have been reported to be taking out professional malpractice insurance for actions committed in the line of duty.
Thus, we must take steps to remove the inappropriately apportioned power from the various offices of the government and the officers currently holding those offices and restore it to its rightful place - the rule of law.
April 23, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
adelfarb,
" The founders of America realized that men (no insult intended) were subject to emotion,....."
I know my screen name is misleading as to my gender, The story of why is only long, not at all interesting, but I am a man.
Thanks for your comment.
April 23, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not specifically to you - they also wrote all men are created equal - and I know some of our female readers may mistake my words.
April 23, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
LuLu This is a vibrant essay and may I humbly suggest you post it as a blog, it stands on it's own merit. I would certainly be sure to recommend it. You have a unique voice,humble and open,and very good arguments. Keep sharing.
April 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, DonDi, maybe I will but I think I have sang just about every vorse of this same ol' song more than once already. Still and all, I do feel strongly, as I know most everyone here does, and Zipper's probably went into the dead zone about the time I posted this. Maybe I will.
April 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper,
I wanted to ask you an off-topic question so I waited until this blog had been off the front page for a while. Maybe you will see it.
I am surprised that as an officer in the Marines you can blog with such forceful opinions about current political questions. Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that you can and that you do. If there are any restritions on what you say about politics and national affairs, does it matter if, for instance, you speak critically of an ex POTUS as opposed tp a current POTUS? Do you have any worries that taking a controversial stand, not that your stand here is such a one, that it could adversly affect your carrer if it is to continue to be in the military?
Just curious.
April 24, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink