Friday
May222009
A Gut Reaction to the Obama National Security Speech: Getting Stuck in A "Long War"
Friday, May 22, 2009 at 10:58
Obama Speech on “National Security” at the National Archives (21 May)
Dick Cheney Speech on “National Security” at American Enterprise Institute (21 May)
Halfway through President Obama's speech on national security, including torture, the Guantanamo Bay detention regime, and the tensions in transparency and state secrets, I thought:
He's nailed it. Flat-out nailed it.
Obama illuminated with flashes of rhetoric: "“We cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values." He used the setting of the National Archives, with America's founding documents: "We must never – ever – turn our back on [the Constitution's] enduring principles for expediency's sake." He turned inside-out the Bushian cloak of national security and "our boys" when he criticised waterboarding and other techniques of torture:
In comparison to this powerful opening, the fear-mongering invocations, the evasions, and outright deceptions of Dick Cheney --- who is speaking as I type --- are not just tired and tiring excuses; they are close to obsolete.
But then, halfway through the speech, Obama got into trouble. Because it was then that he had to move from his powerful abstract of "values with security" to the realities of the Bushian policies that had wrenched them apart.
To solve the Guantanamo Bay riddle --- how to close the facility while maintaining the promise that not one "terrorist" would be free in America? --- Obama set out five categories of detainees. He was strongest when he spoke of the first category, those who would be tried in the US Federal criminal system: "Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear." And he was forthright on another category, the 21 detainees whose release has already been ordered by US judges: "The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings." He could just about get away with the category of 50 detainees who are not considered dangerous but who cannot be released to those home countries, setting aside the difficulty that no "third country" has yet accepted them.
But on two categories, Obama was vague to the point of contradiction. There are those who will be tried by the revived military commissions for "violations of laws of war". But which of the Guantanamo detainees are in this "war crimes" category? Is it the Al Qa'eda master planners like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, whose terrorist actions do not fit the establshed category of war? Or is it Taliban commanders, who did wage war but did not necessarily carry out the atrocities --- which go far beyond fighting the US --- that are "war crimes"?
In fact, those above groups were covered in Obama's other, and most problematic category: "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people", expanded later by Obama in examples such as "people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans".
Obama's invocation of the category clearly covers cases, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, where the Bush Administration fouled up the possibility of successful prosecution through its mishandling of evidence and use of torture. however, the President's murkiness becomes evident when one notes the inclusion of Taliban commanders. As prisoners of war, they should have been released once the battle in Afghanistan was over, with the downfall of their movement at the end of 2001.
But there's the rub, isn't the it? The war is never over. Not in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, where "Taliban" are still fighting the US. And not beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan where, from Asia to Europe to the American continent, Al Qa'eda is always a menace.
That "long war", even perpetual war, definition is not a relic from the past. Before the powerful rhetoric that initially entranced me, Obama laid the trap:
It was the current President, not the past one, who renewed the declaration of war: "For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan." And it was Obama, and only Obama, who concluded his speech:
This self-constructed admission --- we fight, we continue to fight, and we may always fight --- might explain why Obama's speech sagged badly in the second half as he discussed "transparency" vs. "security". To be honest, he should have left that section --- another attempt to justify both his decision to release the "torture memoranda" of the Bush Administration and his decision not to release photographs of abuse of detainees, his proposals to set guidelines for and oversight of "state secrets" --- at home. Although he may have the intention resolving this complex thicket, he gave the immediate game away when he said, in a time of "war", that he too can always invoke "national security": "Releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war."
More immediately, long/perpetual war ensures that Guantanamo --- maybe with 50 or 100 detainees rather than 240 --- remains open past Obama's initial January 2010. Long/perpetual war has ensured that the tension of "values vs. security" has been taken from facilities in Iraq to other facilities and battlefields in Central Asia. And, even as Obama criticises the "fear-mongering" of the past, he can set up a binary of extremes to justify this middle-ground long/perpetual war:
For me, this is an intelligent President. This is a President with good intentions. But this is a President who errs in his artificial juxtaposition of a misguided "focus on the past" with his preferred "focus on the future". He does so because --- hanging over the past, over the future, and over now --- are the perpetual tensions in his mission to "forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals".
Others like Dick Cheney will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" were right. Others like Obama's military commanders will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" are working. And so --- as Guantanamo drags on, as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan expands, as hope for America turns to hostility against America in other parts of the world --- "national security" will sit along more abuses and more deaths.
Dick Cheney Speech on “National Security” at American Enterprise Institute (21 May)
Halfway through President Obama's speech on national security, including torture, the Guantanamo Bay detention regime, and the tensions in transparency and state secrets, I thought:He's nailed it. Flat-out nailed it.
Obama illuminated with flashes of rhetoric: "“We cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values." He used the setting of the National Archives, with America's founding documents: "We must never – ever – turn our back on [the Constitution's] enduring principles for expediency's sake." He turned inside-out the Bushian cloak of national security and "our boys" when he criticised waterboarding and other techniques of torture:
They undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.
In comparison to this powerful opening, the fear-mongering invocations, the evasions, and outright deceptions of Dick Cheney --- who is speaking as I type --- are not just tired and tiring excuses; they are close to obsolete.
But then, halfway through the speech, Obama got into trouble. Because it was then that he had to move from his powerful abstract of "values with security" to the realities of the Bushian policies that had wrenched them apart.
To solve the Guantanamo Bay riddle --- how to close the facility while maintaining the promise that not one "terrorist" would be free in America? --- Obama set out five categories of detainees. He was strongest when he spoke of the first category, those who would be tried in the US Federal criminal system: "Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear." And he was forthright on another category, the 21 detainees whose release has already been ordered by US judges: "The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings." He could just about get away with the category of 50 detainees who are not considered dangerous but who cannot be released to those home countries, setting aside the difficulty that no "third country" has yet accepted them.
But on two categories, Obama was vague to the point of contradiction. There are those who will be tried by the revived military commissions for "violations of laws of war". But which of the Guantanamo detainees are in this "war crimes" category? Is it the Al Qa'eda master planners like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, whose terrorist actions do not fit the establshed category of war? Or is it Taliban commanders, who did wage war but did not necessarily carry out the atrocities --- which go far beyond fighting the US --- that are "war crimes"?
In fact, those above groups were covered in Obama's other, and most problematic category: "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people", expanded later by Obama in examples such as "people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans".
Obama's invocation of the category clearly covers cases, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, where the Bush Administration fouled up the possibility of successful prosecution through its mishandling of evidence and use of torture. however, the President's murkiness becomes evident when one notes the inclusion of Taliban commanders. As prisoners of war, they should have been released once the battle in Afghanistan was over, with the downfall of their movement at the end of 2001.
But there's the rub, isn't the it? The war is never over. Not in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, where "Taliban" are still fighting the US. And not beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan where, from Asia to Europe to the American continent, Al Qa'eda is always a menace.
That "long war", even perpetual war, definition is not a relic from the past. Before the powerful rhetoric that initially entranced me, Obama laid the trap:
We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
It was the current President, not the past one, who renewed the declaration of war: "For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan." And it was Obama, and only Obama, who concluded his speech:
Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and – in all probability – ten years from now.
This self-constructed admission --- we fight, we continue to fight, and we may always fight --- might explain why Obama's speech sagged badly in the second half as he discussed "transparency" vs. "security". To be honest, he should have left that section --- another attempt to justify both his decision to release the "torture memoranda" of the Bush Administration and his decision not to release photographs of abuse of detainees, his proposals to set guidelines for and oversight of "state secrets" --- at home. Although he may have the intention resolving this complex thicket, he gave the immediate game away when he said, in a time of "war", that he too can always invoke "national security": "Releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war."
More immediately, long/perpetual war ensures that Guantanamo --- maybe with 50 or 100 detainees rather than 240 --- remains open past Obama's initial January 2010. Long/perpetual war has ensured that the tension of "values vs. security" has been taken from facilities in Iraq to other facilities and battlefields in Central Asia. And, even as Obama criticises the "fear-mongering" of the past, he can set up a binary of extremes to justify this middle-ground long/perpetual war:
There are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who...suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means.
For me, this is an intelligent President. This is a President with good intentions. But this is a President who errs in his artificial juxtaposition of a misguided "focus on the past" with his preferred "focus on the future". He does so because --- hanging over the past, over the future, and over now --- are the perpetual tensions in his mission to "forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals".
Others like Dick Cheney will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" were right. Others like Obama's military commanders will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" are working. And so --- as Guantanamo drags on, as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan expands, as hope for America turns to hostility against America in other parts of the world --- "national security" will sit along more abuses and more deaths.
Reader Comments (9)
I think your posting is a whiney diatribe. The fact is that last evening, terrorist albeit stupid ones were found trying to blow up a synagogue in NYC. I wonder how do NYC residents feel about another terrorist being put on trial in their city, doesn’t that make them even more of a target again? As a 30 year resident of the NYC metropolitan area it concerns me that my brother and sister and six nephews and nieces are so close to NYC.
Why not have these trials in Washington DC, Chicago or San Francisco. Maybe when the threat is put squarely in your back yard you will understand that the primary concern of the people that were directly exposed and witnessed previous attacks have concluded. The number one priority of our government is to protect our citizens, just do it!
The fact is terrorist do not have rights. These are not regular soldiers, but for the most part men that violate almost every policy of the Geneva Convention everyday that they fight and ignore basic human rights with summary executions of women and children that do not conform to their strict religious beliefs and use beheadings of foreigners (in many cases press and social workers) as a means of intimidation.
I do not agree with everything that the Bush Administration did, but also do not believe in a president that rules based on popularity rather than common sense. We are at war and all of this business should be debated and conducted behind closed doors. I am not suggesting that a debate should not take place, but publicly we should have a unified face to show our enemies. What we have now is finger pointing and politicizing and it is a disgrace.
Should we be attacked again, Obama we be held responsible and if the attack is half as strong as 9-11, any concern over treatment of prisoners and human rights will be permanently lost.
Ask yourself, if attacked again, do you think this will be an argument that the majority of Americans will care about? Only one issue will be relevant, “how are you going to protect me?” Having this argument publically is beneficial to Obama now to obtaining public support, but subsequent to an attack his very arguments will be used against him and any initiative like closing Guantanamo will be lost permanently. You can use your head or your heart and believe that this is what will happen or not. The truth is that this is the reality and one from which he and his policy’s will not recover.
Who really knows how to fight this war, no one? But instead of working against ourselves and trying to illuminate issues that have more value as political foder, both parties and our elected officials should genuinely try getting the job of protect the American people accomplished.
You can be ultra liberal or ultra right wing, but Middle America who for the most part has rejected both radical philosophies is just concerned with having the government do what is right! The are tired of Gotcha politics and will hold all parties guilty of playing this accountable.
@ Chuck - Terrorists don't have rights? I always thought it was self-evident, that all men were created equal, and that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, but that's just me.
@ Scott - Interesting post, but Obama is now responsible for 300 million lives. That's a heavy burden, and one can forgive him for struggling a bit in transitioning from opposition to governance.
TH, simply the answer is no not the rights which you qoute. I am sorry but we are not talking about Americans citizens, but foreign terrorists. Does our declaration apply to the very people that are trying to destroy what this document stands for – Are you are saying that people who have perpetrated violations against those very “Inalienable Rights” should be given these rights? Remember what these people were doing, I think I articulated this quite clearly earlier. He is a brief reminder, killing of women and children that did not conform to religious fundamentalist views, beheading of foreign nationals. In you need more examples, just search “Jihad” on the internet where I am sure you will find a plethora of examples posted by individuals like these in custody which detail in their own video the brand of justice the deliver, which by the way does not quite follow the ideals set forth in our Bill of Rights.
The full quote is as follows “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness “ - did not see that being given to anyone living under the Taliban did you? We did not take away these rights from these individuals, they sacrificed them through their own actions. It may be hard for you accept, but had they were not been captured on the field of battle, they most likely would not be in custody correct?
TH,
Thank you --- your point is excellent in nailing my conflict (which I think has bothered me since Inauguration Day, when I also posted a "Gut Reaction"). Obama means well, and his general vision is inspiring.
However, I think "the burden of governance" is pushing him not only into political concessions which are complicating if not undermining initial plans but into a rhetoric which is counter-productive. Not only here but in Af-Pak speeches, the fight against Al Qa'eda is going to be a tar baby which drags him (and us) down, I fear.
S.
It's amazing to me how many people get caught up with the abstractions and secondary nuances of a speech. It's sad how people over-simplify and gloss-over facts because they want things to be simpler, so they think they must be, and anyone who "complicates" things is being vague, stupid, insincere, confused or devious.
President Obama made three overarching points:
1. The mess left to him is very complex, so, sorry to disappoint, but there aren't neat solutions that will satisfy any rigid ideology 100%.
2. Don't be an ass and think he doesn't care or is too stupid to appreciate the security risks involved in his decisions. He is all too well-aware and is deeply concerned.
3. Everything he decides and does is based upon upholding the Constitution of the United States of America and the values it is based upon. He understands the Constitution probably better than any president in the past two hundred years of this republic. This is not a popularity contest. He is defending the Constitution and the rule of law.
If you want to be an impractical idealist, dumb-ass cowboy or scare-mongering politician, that's your problem. His job is to protect America and uphold the Constitution, and he intends to do just that. If you can't handle the complex facts, aren't deeply familiar with our Constitution or just plain enjoy childish conspiracy theories that make for entertaining blogging, talk-shows and movies, then either grow-up, get real and get educated, or get out of his way. He knows what he is doing, even if you don't get it. And, no, I don't take that on blind faith.
I've studied our Constitution in depth. I'm very knowledgeable about the Middle East and Afghanistan, and I actually make the time to familiarize myself with some of the complex decisions he is having to make, unlike most fools and dubious politicians that twist his words and gleefully misrepresent him. Reading the deceptive and brazenly manipulative statements of Republican leaders and seeing the cowardice of some Democrats makes me sick. I believe in Obama and trust him....Amazing. I finally trust the President of my beloved country. What a concept.
Scott, that's definitely true, hopefully with time he'll be able to better distance himself (and the vast federal bureaucracy) from the ideas of his predecessor (with that same bureaucracy).
There seems to be a growing consensus among policy wonks and IR nerds that we need to move from the idea of fighting terrorism to one of managing terrorism. Al-Qaeda has said all along that they're trying to bankrupt the U.S. government and cause imperial overstrech, and we shouldn't let ourselves fall into that trap. Hopefully things will be set right reasonably soon.
T.H.,
Would be interested in a couple of example on those proposing the "managing terrorism" approach. By coincidence, just wrapping up an article on Af-Pak strategy (or lack of it) and the concept would be useful.
S.
Ben:
Tell did you trust the last president like you do this one at the same period of his office? If not doesn't your last statement illustrate the same hypocracy you railed against?
I sorry that You feel that your are superior on all issues discussed, quite frankly you arrogance illuminates to me only that one opinion counts or will be considered, your own! You have to excuse me but your proclamations did not sway me, especially given that you did not offer a single opinion or substatistion for your opinion for us lesser people to truly evaliuate and justify if the self portrait you drew for us is accurate. Sent from my ipod, sorry if there are erors in this message.
It might just be that all the books I've read lately touch on it somewhat. I finally got around to reading Mandelbaum's The Case for Goliath, in which he says, "Although [Europeans} had suffered terrorist attacks for years, no single attack killed as many people, and none therefore had the psychological and political impact, as the September 11 assaults did in the United States. Whereas Americans saw the struggle against terrorism as a war to be fought and won by military means, the Europeans regarded the threat of terrorism as a problem to be managed, using political measures and police work."
A better example is the last chapter of David Kilcullen's phenomenal book (I can't recommend it enough), The Accidental Guerrilla. He points out that on a tactical level we already manage rather than combat terrorism (by screening rather than closing travel all together, for example), but that we've chosen to take a zer-tolerance/risk approach at the strategic level. He makes a persuasive argument that it cost Kerry greatly in the 2004 election. Basically the entire last chapter covers it (unfortunately, Amazon doesn't have much of that section available to "search inside," so I think you may have to find an actual copy of the book).
Anyway, don't know if those'll help much, but hopefully they will a bit!