Get Used to It.
Article by Gateway favorite Fareed Zakaria
Subtitle: How to Live With It
I’ll tell you how I intend to live with it: the same way radical Islam lives with gays and apostates.
****
Jeff update: The media is preparing us for attacks that they’ll tell us were “inevitable.†That they didn’t happen after 911 under Bush will be proof of Bush’s policy of torture. That they’ll happen under Obama will be a backlash to Bush’s policy of torture.
Get used to it.
****
Mendoucheous TPM bloggers are a fact of life. Treacher’s not getting used to it.
Welcome to Barack Obama’s America.
I’ll get used to living with rampaging jihadists just as soon as they get used to getting blown to pink splatter.
The media is preparing us for attacks that they’ll tell us were “inevitable.” That they didn’t happen after 911 under Bush will be proof of Bush’s policy of torture. That they’ll happen under Obama will be a backlash to Bush’s policy of torture.
Get used to it.
huh, that is not the cover I saw at the therapist’s office this morning. It was all yellow, but I did see Fareed’s name.
oh, it was oooooold just noticed it was hiding the “We’re all Socialist Now” one.
i’m just getting used to sting trying be a bad guy in dune
now this!
Jimmy Carter went down over the humiliation of Iran and the Hostages (as well as a sinking economy). Blaming Bush for future attacks will certainly be made by those on the left, but as time passes and Obama’s ownership of foriegn policy and the economy becomes more defined it will only go so far. Obama will completely own both after a year.
I was no fan of Bush/Cheney’s interrogation policy. I think it caused far more harm than good. But Bush’s anti terrorism policy worked and did keep us safe during his administration. Will it take another 9/11 to focus Team Obama on the task at hand? Even Plugs Biden recognized the danger during the campaign.
Given how things are going, I think I need a good therapist too.
look on the bright side-the way the economy is going we can redeploy all our mall cops
It’s just like the 1970’s and 1980’s when the media told us to get used to detente and a strong Soviet Union. I remember growing up with stories about how the Soviets were smarter than us. And then hearing how awful Reagan was to think he could win the Cold War.
Of course the liberal media would rather us believe that we should just live with radical Islam — they’re weak and can’t stand a fight.
As Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union, we could do the same with the terrorists if the weak half of the country wasn’t running it.
No, I don’t think so. I prefer to have radical Islam and Baracky worry about ME.
oh yeah, I noticed the news story being pushed today was “people are worried about the economy and need help sleeping”
a couple weeks ago when getting my allergy shot I told them I was on Lexapro now cause they always ask if you’re taking new meds and the nurse said, “Honey, who isn’t nowadays?”
Welcome to my world, everybody!
Does not compute.
I was no fan of Bush/Cheney’s interrogation policy. I think it caused far more harm than good.
I was. I don’t.
Sorry Dan, but I followed that chain of links right back to the actual article and–wait a minute, no I didn’t. The article’s here. Complaining about the cover is sort of ridiculous. From the article itself:
American values will triumph because they’re superior? He hates America! Wait, wait a second . . . you just want to make happy cry, is that it?
Zakaria wouldn’t have written that two months ago, Scott. That’s what’s troubling.
I don’t want to live with radical Islam, Scott. Which is fine, because the feeling’s mutual.
National Lampoosweek it is, then.
Yes, a $900 million booster shot to Hamas would make Fareed tingle methinks.
So “Radical Islam is a fact of live, live with it,” and “Radical Islam will tire itself out eventually,” somehow reconcile in the universe of leftism?
“We don’t have to accept the stoning of criminals.”
Oh we don’t? what do they know?
so when can the democrats start killing gays
It’s amazing the way radical Islam’s just burning itself out in Darfur.
But whatevs, Baracky’s dirty socialist economy will have the sliver lining of hastening the death of Mr. Zakaria’s musings in carbon.
What’s this, meya? A little lecture on freedom of conscience?
Yes, Turkey is having a bit of a fling with the good old fundamentalism these days, o, and I think he’s more preparing the battlespace for the anti-Afghanistan talking points.
Surrender your wet creamy dreams of sweet alien torture. Our great economy’s implosion is more than the enemy could hope for.
Sweet.
Child rape is a fact of life
(how to live with it)
I am not buying that, but for waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, we would have been attacked again. Those are the three al Qaeda members the CIA waterboarded.
Then there was General Miller’s tenure at Gitmo. I know that issue was overblown by the press, but I am not buying but for those early interrogations we were better off.
Most of the other harsh interrogations were in Iraq and Afghanistan and were done under Rumsfeld’s “taking off the gloves policy.” That blew up in our faces when contracted interrogators asked the night crew at Abu Ghraib to tune some detainees up (apparently forgetting to tell them not to take digital pictures and share them with their friends on the web). There is a reason Gen. Petraeus never adopted those techniques himself and banned their use under his commands, they were counter productive.
The best thing Bush did was taking the fight to the enemy. I love him for that. The recent intelligence break throughs in Iraq, which helped break the insurgency, were not due to torture or interrogation, but due to better on the ground intelligence and anti insurgency techniques of General Petraeus.
As for interrogations, the best way is systematically breaking down the subject without torture. I am going with Col. Herrington on this one (and no he is not some Daily Kos Diarist). Herrington was an Army interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq (when he was called in after Abu Ghraib). He has done thousands of interrogations. Waterboarding does not shock my conscience (especially for scum like KSM who should be boiled in oil as much as I personnally care), but it is not necessarily the best way to get information.
The Nazis Party is Here to Stay
(How to live with it)
“Our great economy’s implosion is more than the enemy could hope for.”
Yes. And your deal leader will hasten our demise whilst stimulating Hamas. You should feel proud.
Satan Has as Much Right to Be Here as YOU Do
(how to get along with him)
Dash, you called Obama our “deal leader.” Not far from the truth.
Comment by Joe on 3/2 @ 9:58 pm
Thank you for confirming my suspicions, Joe.
Doesn’t anyone but me see the irony of attempting to disarm American citizens at a time when Jihadist’s could be lurking in every 7/11 dumpster, and college science lab. Soon we will all be defending ourselves with nothing more than waterboard’s.It’s certainly an Obamanation of our red blooded way of life.
Believe what you want, Joe. I don’t believe the “established truth” that “torture” (and again, do a site search for a big discussion on that subject) doesn’t work. That’s become a useful fiction.
Fact is, it isn’t done because we have sadistic interrogators who get off on it. It’s done, I’d venture, because somebody is getting results with it.
As to the rest — particularly I ask this of Newsweek’s headline writer and SEK, and to a lesser extent Zakaria — what’s the threshold for “just learning to live with” radical Islamism and reaching the point where it makes sense to fight back, particularly given its, oh, I don’t know, 7000 year history?
Presumably, 3000 bodies doesn’t reach the magic number. So I’m just curious.
Actually, no I’m not. I don’t much care what these people think. In the end, it all boils down to rationalizing kicking the can down the road.
Why would the jihadi people be in the dumpster?
Cynn, you’re still an ignoramus, so there’s that.
i’m smelling a teen magazine cover
with such articles as
bomb blasts-what mohamhed meant
headless chickens-is your boyfriend a terrorist
how to wear shrapnel-the do’s and don’ts
how to pick out the best lesbian lawyer [ugly is in]
Sorry, Jeff. Torture is anticlimatic, as it were. It’s supposed to scare people; prove to me it works. It’s a bully bluff that I see persistently used in that phoney hurley burley wrestling franchise; except one party isn’t in on the ruse. It’s utter bullshit.
how to face mecca after acid has been thrown in your face
hint- the sun is warm
a promise ring finger-what it means
please
stop me!
O! brave anonymous. Please supply us with details of your own life so that we can all play this game.
What the fuck do you care, Satan worshiping Marxist?
The best concealer for your “accidents”
“I don’t believe the “established truth†that “torture†(and again, do a site search for a big discussion on that subject) doesn’t work. That’s become a useful fiction.”
Yes, this. You might get someone to say anything, but with a crushed Habanero up his ass*, anything will certainly include the good stuff.
* the “Ring of Fire”
how to submit-online
american money-it’s easier than you think
terrorist boy bands-how to stand out in the line of virgins
i’ll stop now…
but maybe one more…
“It’s supposed to scare people; prove to me it works.”
Well, the first clue that it works is that the usual sort who thought that Uncle Joe was just a nifty fellow don’t like it.
One poturtle, two poturtle?
I can’t be bothered with that shit right now. You want to play, man? Ante up.
“There’s a Tea Party in my pants, let’s see if you find it.”
By “tea party,” do you mean a belated Brazillian “Carnival?”
how to face mecca after acid has been thrown in your face
hint- the sun is warm
You must be referring to the “kinder, gentler” Radical Islam.
SEK:
You’d be hard pressed to persuade me that it isn’t “wearying” primarilly because it’s persuit comes with people wearing the same uniform I do persuing them for doing so.
That stands the truth on it’s head. The reason for turning to violent Islam is because of the lack of answers to the modern world’s problems. It’s a form of escape that includes heroism for being faithful–ultimately so even. Until they can have a world view that that can satisfy, some portion will continue to turn to radicalism.
Prove to me it doesn’t (after you define “torture”).
People I know who’ve been subjected to things like waterboarding assure me it does. Whereas your proof is….what, exactly?
Ignore the anonymous trolls, by the way. I’m just going to delete their shit anyway.
That particular troll is old sinister trampoline. Also Mari and a host of other names. Why these people feel the need to hide so consistently is anyone’s guess.
I confess I don’t get the whole “professional wrestling” dig. But then, I’m not the kind of person who spends time trolling website under fake names, constantly changing my IP, either.
A lifestyle difference, I suppose.
First, Cynn, will you agree that there is a deep deep divide between the actual practice of “torture” and what has been depicted in movies and television? That Jack Bauer with a 110v power source ain’t it?
Just a FYI, but “muslim socialist” is meya (she’s been on the polygamy thread telling me was Australia does is none of my business)
meya is a fascist, not just a socialist, and I bet she’s lying about the muslim part. Lying fascist.
I don’t think it’s meya.
This guy mimics and uses a host of IPs. But his oeuvre going back months has now been removed.
Sinister trampoline’s jottings are next.
It just tickles me to know that with a few clicks I can make all that time spent worthless.
“waterboarding” isn’t torture- “submarine-ing” is torture. And 110v makes you break your teeth and kills the shit out of you.
Are you volunteering to be waterboarded? Since you think it’s bullshit, why not?
SEK
You labor under the delusion that history proves you wrong time after time … that while individuals may be attracted to modernity, the lust for absolute power coupled with the general tendency of groups to devolve to the lowest common denominator doesn’t hold much hope for the “let’s stick our fingers in our ears and let jihadists have their way until they fall of their own accord”
When you have an upcoming UN conference on “racism” chaired by Libya and co-chaired by Iran and Cuba, then you cannot except the risible claim that Islamism is going to “burn itself out” all by its lonesome.
argh “labor under A delusion, that history has proved you wrong”
SEK argues for the sake of argument. It’s all academic practice.
If he wants to pay me to spar, fine. Otherwise, no thanks.
Hey Jeff G.- Did you ever find a handgun that suited your needs? I just purchased an XDm in 9mm for my girls to add to the arsenal. Seems to be a pretty good system.
Will check that out, thanks.
Waterboarding is torture in that it triggers physiologic terror of drowning in the subject. Is it the same as pulling out fingernails–hell no. Does it work? I am sure it gets the subject to talk to make it stop. I am not sure it is better than careful systematic interrogation. I know that FBI agent got Saddam to disclose a lot by just being the son he never had. We supposedly waterboarded KSM once and he broke in two and a half minutes (a minute and a half longer than anyother subject ever lasted). Did that alone save us from attack? Did that alone get him to spill everything he knew. Maybe, but I rather doubt it.
If that is what you are talking about Jeff, fair enough, that is a policy argument worth having on a national level. Personally I doubt torture is worth it. I am not naive though. I assume in the right hands when you know enough to test the veracity of what is being said, it works. But my guess is to make it work on a regular basis you have to be willing to do some fairly unsavory things. We live in a dangerous world and occasionally the circumstances might justify it. I suspect the CIA has been doing this on a limited basis since it was founded. But I disagree we should make torture an official part of our interrogation program.
“In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path”.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with us KILLING so many of them?!
“Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That’s the most powerful weapon of all.”
I see: so ignoring all those wars of conquest waged by Muslims down through the ages (starting with what led to the Crusades in the 10th century) right through 9-11 (and beyond in the 21st century) clearly shows that, any minute now, radical Mulsims are going to throw in the towel on this whole ‘violence to attain all our goals’ thing because “people weary of its charms very quickly”? On what? A geologic time scale?
Is this fucking guy really this naive/stupid and/or disingenuous?
Zakaria: “Fears abound that this means women’s schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence.”
“But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.”
So stoning gays and women without blood relative male escorts is okay, merely a matter for local fears, so long as it stays local? Does this mean that slavery was okay in some of the several States prior to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments?
I guess Zakaria is an apologist for slavery. No, I am sure of it. The Left has bought into culturally sanctioned apartheid, and you can only pray your locality won’t change its “traditions.” Multiculturalism is the literal equivalent of servitude and enslavement.
I was no fan of Bush/Cheney’s interrogation policy. I think it caused far more harm than good.
You don’t have the data to make that evaluation one way or the other. You don’t know what was revealed by the harsher questioning techniques, nor do you know how many ops were broken up because of the intel.
Furthermore, the “harm” from the interrogations was more a result of Our Faithful Media’s hysterical exaggeration over the issue than anything else. You just watch: O! will do exactly the same thing and they’ll keep mum.
It’s supposed to scare people; prove to me it works.
Gimme a minute while I decrypt these classified files containing the results, then I’ll send them on to ya!
They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do.
Boy, talk about ethnocentrism! Yes, some Muslims dig what we have to offer, but a disturbingly large number of them are deep into their honor/shame culture. The success of the Great Satan and Satan the Lesser has caused the Warriors of Allah great shame. Listen to them talk: they mention restoring the honor of Islam quite often.
And the only way to remove the shame is to either humiliate or destroy the party that causes your dishonor, NOT to assimilate yourself into their culture (otherwise known as submission to the enemy, which is, hey! even more humiliating!).
How mentally healthy do you supposed a culture is where a large number of their children are sexually molested, both male and female? Shame is the name of the game in the darker corners of Islam: don’t underestimate how badly it can distort the soul and how desperate they are to rid themselves of their burning, humiliating, relentless shame.
Oh, and:
They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women.
They are NOT modern men and women. Nor do they want to be. Geez.
“You don’t have the data to make that evaluation one way or the other. You don’t know what was revealed by the harsher questioning techniques, nor do you know how many ops were broken up because of the intel.”
Thor
Your comment throwing dicentra’s comment back was as useful as this one.
More proof that Bush/Cheney’s policy of torture caused more harm than good.
Though if you ask how an islamic terrorist attack on a busload of Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore as they travel to the stadium to play the Pakistani cricket team can be linked to that policy, I’ll have to get back to you.
You know, flesh-eating bacteria tires itself out eventually. Either at the toes or the scalp, or both.
Well, perhaps we could have used the other possibility under the Geneva Convention and started blowing each of the cocksuckers heads off in front of their fellow cocksuckers. We’d be well within the paramaters of the conventions, after a while the live ones would talk, I’d get the happiness of knowing there more dead muslim fanatics, and Joe and his buddie’s could be happy we followed the rule of law, or they could squeal like a pig (Barney Frank on a particularly hot, steamy evening in his Georgetown Townehouse). For Fuck’s sake.
Um, that would be “Barney Frank STYLE”.
They got Newsweek in my probation officer’s lobby. Seeing as how I’m the only one who can read, I get my fill there.
72: Even when thor gets the point, he misses the point.
A simple thought excersise for some of the posters on here. Let’s just assume that the United States engages in the worst type of torture possible. Let us just assume we cut off limbs, hands, and stick shock devices down our detainees peeholes. Supposedly some of you here think this would have all the Islamic guys in the world foaming at the mouth and storming the ramparts right? If you believe that then how the fuck do you explain the fact that every totalitarian regime in the area reguarly uses these practices, including the jihadist themselves?
I read Scott’s latest diversion-twaddle and came to the same conclusion. That and al’s at #75.
Yeah: But how does one possibly reconcile being in a position to influence others with an ego given, one has no choice but to presume, to bullshitting them?
Also answering myself at #81, you call Juan Cole?
I know right, because the average Islamic person is just such a great lover of human rights there is nothing that will piss them off more than allegations of torture and abuse. There is nothing else in this world that pisses them off more. God forbid that we ever put the guys in a soccer stadium and execute them that would just be the end of the world.
If one American soldier’s life or civilian’s life was saved by the ‘nuanced’ torture we’re guilty of (waterboarding? HA! I’ve spent time in kayaks, rolled over, under white water, for freakin’ fun; there’s nothing more visceral than drowning panic..but they lived, and unscarred) then it was justified.
Stinking jihadists swore their lives away when they joined up and swore by an oath of death. What’s coming to them, and all of that.
I do not assume torture has Islamics foaming at the mouth. They assume everyone does it because they do it. We could fully adopt practices of the Soviets, ChiComs, NoKos, Balkan states, but that does not mean it is a correct policy for our country to follow.
That said, the Abu Ghraib blow up helped fuel the Sunni insurgency. But that was less about actual torture (although there were some examples there) than wierd sexual humiliation (which is more explosive in Arab cultures). Even Bush said that was his biggest mistake in office.
I also know we, going back to George Washington, denounced it. Now granted it happened on occasion over time, but it was never really part of the U.S. system. We did not officially engage in it in WWII. Are the KSMs of the world so much more fanatical than say, Japanese Kamakazis? So what has changed that demands we have to do it now? And what is it you propose, just waterboarding? Is that it, if you get that things will be so much better? Or are more “tools” needed?
And I am all for killing these bastards every chance we get. Waterboarding is for pussies. Just shoot them in the head and move on.
“Even Bush said that was his biggest mistake in office.”
Huh? So Bush ordered a couple low ranking enlisted on a night shift in Abu Gharib to stack prisoners in pyramids and snap cell phone pictures? Wow……
Yeah, stoke ’em up with a mega-dose of Viagra and lock ’em in a cell with Helen Thomas impersonators. And, other cooperative sows.
If a known terrorist is caught in the act or after an attack, and he knows when the next attack will occur, and he is waterboarded, but “nobody” is there to hear him scream, does he make a sound?
Joe,
“That said, the Abu Ghraib blow up helped fuel the Sunni insurgency. But that was less about actual torture (although there were some examples there) than wierd sexual humiliation (which is more explosive in Arab cultures).”
I am curious about your dealings with Arabs – can you expound. I want to know more of whence this comes.
Proof that Joe doesn’t know torture from sadism.
I should have used the word “squeal”. Sorry for the confusion.
Joe’s proabably not worth engaging on this topic. He’s bought into the garbage talking point that Abu Gahraib had anything to do with policy.
I want someone to explain to me how people get the opinion that everyone in the Middle East is a characiture cookie cutter Islamist. When I was there the kids were selling “freaky freaky” DVD’s full of some of the most hard-core graphic porn, including beastiality, I had ever seen in my freakin life. Hell one of them involved a freakin ant eater.
“In the end, it all boils down to rationalizing kicking the can down the road.”
AKA Bill Clinton Syndrome.
What was the anteater’s character? Copier tech? Fedex guy? Escaped con?
RTO I hate when I hear people yap about Abu Gharib. I know one of the witnesses and worked out of the same office as Karpinski for a while. I heard about the congressionals a full 2 months before the crap hit the papers. It had not one thing to do with any policy put out by the 800th or anyone higher. According to the stated policy of the 800th, plastered all over every other wall in their office and directed down to the units running the prison, was that every prisoner was to be treated according to Geneva.
The ant-eater was a poolboy al.
Seen it.
So, um, where exactly where were the ants?
N. O’Brain @8:02 am.
It is the good old Kissingerian style of realism. Detente, meetings, spheres of influence, etc. It is lovely how the left has adopted the policies of old Hank, Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft, etc.
Comment by LTC John on 3/3 @ 7:47 am #
Joe,
I have been to most Arab countries, such as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the Emerates. Lived in Egypt for several years. Been to Israel a lot. Been to Gaza and the West Bank many times. Been to lots of other Muslim countries in Africa and Asia.
I am all for unleashing massive and deadly firepower on our enemies. I think sometimes the military is too cautious about collateral damage because I think the safety of our troops in harms way comes first. I do not think military leaders should be seconded guessed on the battle field (for example I have no problem whatsoever with Lt.Col. West’s mock execution of an Iraqi to protect his men).
But I think when you take prisoners into custody you do not torture them. If you consider waterboarding legitimate, fair enough, make that point. Waterboarding was supposedly done on only three al Qaeda detainees. If that was it, we would not even be discussing this.
The early Iraqi occupation was a cluster fuck. Rummy thought he could beat the growing sunni insurgency down by beating the shit out of Iraqi men picked up in the streets (assisted by Shia troops). Guess what, it backfired. Abu Ghraib definitely helped fire that insurgency up. Was most of that stuff at Abu Ghraib torture, no, most of it was bullshit.
It was only when Bush stopped listening to Cheney and put Petraeus in charge that things turned around. Guess what they gave up first? Beating detainees. If I am suspect because I happen to believe what General Petraeus believes, then fuck it.
And our sadistic pals in al Qaeda of Mesopotamia helped too. Those sick fucks managed to alienate every Iraqi Arab tribe they dealt with. Zarqawi was too much for even Zawahiri. As as pointed out by various sources, the US developed a counter insurgency intelligence model, not based on harsh interrogation, but based on systematically targeting enemy leaders through technology and through on the ground intelligence and then targeting them for late night Predator missile enemas.
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk;” however, what the individual says may be of questionable value…
In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also human beings.
You guys are right, he is such a fucking pussy.
“Rummy thought he could beat the growing sunni insurgency down by beating the shit out of Iraqi men picked up in the streets (assisted by Shia troops).”
WTF
Mr. Pink, you missed that? In the early stages of the Iraqi insurgency, there were general round ups of young Iraqi Sunni men who were sent to Abu Ghraib. There were thousands rounded up. In fact, most of Ms. England’s subjects were of that class of detainee. They were kept for a week or two, roughed up a bit, and then released. I am sorry, but if I was neutral and picked up in that manner, I guarantee you being forced into a naked pyramid or walked on a dog collar would make me more sympathetic to the opposition.
Who has so tortured you Joe, that you must in turn torture the questions and arguments made here, even going so far as to attach yourself like a pilot fish to David Petraeus, who at the time KSM, Zubaideh and al-Nashiri were captured and waterboarded was what, a divisional commander?
Cite?
Sometimes I just throw my hands up and figure I could waste my time in much more productive ways, such as analyzing naval lint.
When Petraeus was a divisional commander in Mosel he banned torture under his command.
If you guys think waterboarding is so friggin great, well great. Support it. I disagree.
I am somewhat glad Yoo’s exapnsive executive powers did not happen, because Obama would be wielding those same powers now against his…enemies. They have lists and you can be sure we are all on them.
Joe, I’m hearing ya, but what are some techniques that can be used, that aren’t considered torture? I think the first thing that needs to be defined is the word torture. I’m positive we have it defined. Don’t go beyond it, unless there may be a ticking timebomb scenario, and I think I’d be fine with that. BTW, I don’t think waterboarding is torture. But, that’s immaterial.
As for Fareed, SEK and like minded non thinkers. Um, there has always been, and always will be radical Islam. Once, bin ladenism is forgotten about, a new brand will arise. Why? Because they are all just strains of Muhammedism. We can’t expunge the terrible truth of the original Islamist. This has nothing to do with engaging in an more foreign wars against these cockroaches, either. But, the absolute naive suggestion of waiting them out is ludicrous and anyone that advocates this position should be laughed at and ridiculed. They are here to stay.
Pablo, since you asked: Here is a decent paper on the subject of detentions in Iraq.
“I am somewhat glad Yoo’s exapnsive executive powers did not happen, because Obama would be wielding those same powers now against his…enemies. They have lists and you can be sure we are all on them.”
I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying that Obama would liken us to border line lunatic members of a very large death cult? Do you think Bush would have gone after domestic political enemies?
Granted, I’m no expert in interrogation techniques. However, I can’t imagine if there’s no real fear of physical harm, there’s any good chance to get the information, unless the person is already susceptible to ordinary interrogation techniques. Its like the old joke about police in Britain who don’t carry guns. They spot a perp and they yell
“STOP ! Or…. I’ll yell STOP again…”
Stick is important and I have no problem whacking any jihadists with whatever stick is available- hopefully it will save lives and if it doesn’t, well I don’t have alot of sympathy for terrorists.
“When Petraeus was a divisional commander in Mosel he banned torture under his command.”
Jesus christ man where are you getting this from?
Who said waterboarding is great Joe? Anyone? Most here who seem willing to tolerate it in very limited and particular use (meaning with a full and complete understanding of the circumstances of its use by the men and women who will use it, what they expect to get out of it, why they are using that method, rather than another, with the same complete grasp of its use by the superiors who will authorize it under those circumstances) appear to me to do so as a grim necessity, far from a technique to be thrown about willy-nilly. In the event, the three men who were subjected to waterboarding were all high level al Qaeda operatives with particular knowledge of details involving attacks on the continental United States. And all that before the attacks on Iraq had even begun. Waterboarding had nothing to do with Iraq, in fact, was never a question involving Iraq, so throwing Petraeus out there is something of a misdirection, I think. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why you would want to latch on to David Petraeus given his now iconic status among military commanaders. But it is not to the point, is it?
Well I was never under Petraeus’s command so I was one of the hundreds of thousands of uniformed servicemen who never heard of such an order prohibiting torture. Most of my personal torture took place right after chow in the morning, but sometimes I got carried away and would conduct the torture at night in the barracks with all the lights our and noone was looking. Sometimes I would torture 3 or 4 times a day if the mood struck me. My favorite place to do it in Iraq was in a Don’s John with a Maxim because the showers weren’t private enough and the tent would always have people in it. I thought everyone tortured WTF?
Thanks for your
service, erm, levities in these downbeat times, Mr. Pink. I can still laugh at the unexpected, which counts for something, I guess.No problem Sdferr. If you ever want to take up torture let me suggest you start torturing to Vida Guerra. You should be able to do this since you were not under the General’s command. Go ahead torture away.
http://cache.foxsaver.com/thumbnails/2008/05/12/249157270l.jpg
Mr. Pink. I occasionally have had to “torture” myself at times. At least in Egypt there were occasional German and Italian tourists, Israeli girls in Eilat, and the occasional naughty Egyptian lass. Nevertheless, we have all been there. Becareful you don’t go blind. Thank you by the way for your service in Iraq.
Here is Col. Herrington’s op-ed on interrogation
Here is an article on Petreaus’ involvement in re-writing the Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Manual currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sdfrr, you miss the point. You are right, waterboarding was not the issue in Iraq. The CIA was doing that. Rumsfeld, ever the bureaucratic infighter, got mad George “Slam Dunk” Tenent was getting all the kudos from Bush and Cheney. So Rumsfeld instituted the “taking off the gloves” policy in Iraq, which was for the most part an unmitigated disaster.
I think waterboarding is a refined form of torture, but it is torture nevertheless. I would have preferred this did not become a central issue but if we are going to adopt it as policy then Obama should own it as much as Bush. Frankly waterboarding is preferable to rendering to Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt like Bill Clinton did.
No Joe, I don’t think I do. But then, I like to distinguish distinct matters rather than cloud them up with hand waving.
Joe,
I think your read on the impact of Abu Ghraib and the Sunni insurgency is a bit exaggerated. It was useful propaganda alright – but aimed at the West. I don’t know what a Morroccan or Israeli Arab might think of it – my only experience has been with Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and UAE dudes. Otherwise it has been Afghans, Paks and Kirghiz … all non-Arabs who would laugh at something like that being a reason to fight. They always knew enough reasons otherwise….sigh.
And often enough to make me sick to my stomach, aimed at the West by the media and the left parties of West, LTC John, doing the propaganda job of our enemies for them.
As to the rest — particularly I ask this of Newsweek’s headline writer and SEK, and to a lesser extent Zakaria — what’s the threshold for “just learning to live with†radical Islamism and reaching the point where it makes sense to fight back, particularly given its, oh, I don’t know, 7000 year history?
Jeff, my point is that the cover ain’t the article. Zakaria isn’t talking about “living with” radical Islam, but finding effective was of countermanding its spread. He writes:
Targeted opposition to particular groups and working with governments instead of indiscriminately bombing foreign soil. The use of force where necessary but understanding that in some places the show of force might be counterproductive in the long run. In other words, the article itself is inoffensive pablum, whereas the cover’s designed to sell articles.
To address your other point:
reaching the point where it makes sense to fight back, particularly given its, oh, I don’t know, 7000 year history?
I’m assuming you’re talking about the threshold here, not Islam, to which I can only say: Christians no longer fight Crusades. Also, the notion of “fighting back” is a bit vague. Do you mean “bomb every country with radical Islamic elements”? Or do you mean “attempt to undermine radical Islamic elements within countries”?
That stands the truth on it’s head. The reason for turning to violent Islam is because of the lack of answers to the modern world’s problems. It’s a form of escape that includes heroism for being faithful–ultimately so even. Until they can have a world view that that can satisfy, some portion will continue to turn to radicalism.
RTO Trainer, I don’t claim to have the definitive answer to whether the egg came before the chicken or vice versa here. But I do know that turning what could be a series of local skirmishes half way around the world into a global conflagration won’t help matters. (Especially when the U.S. becomes the bogeyman.)
You labor under the delusion that history proves you wrong time after time … that while individuals may be attracted to modernity, the lust for absolute power coupled with the general tendency of groups to devolve to the lowest common denominator doesn’t hold much hope for the “let’s stick our fingers in our ears and let jihadists have their way until they fall of their own accordâ€
I don’t think that first sentence means what you think it means, but I think you mean “History always proves Scott wrong.” If so, that statement’s wrong—with the Crusades being example Number One. As for the second bit: Zakaria’s arguing that the U.S. should deal with the power-hungry at the local level. That doesn’t amount to finger-stuck ears.
When you have an upcoming UN conference on “racism†chaired by Libya and co-chaired by Iran and Cuba, then you cannot except the risible claim that Islamism is going to “burn itself out†all by its lonesome.
Because Cuba’s at the forefront of Worldwide Communism? I think that’s the point Zakaria’s trying to make: systems that don’t work die. They may teeter on, but they do so as cults of personality—Castro and Chavez—not as functioning socialist regimes. As for Iran, it only became radicalized recently, so talking about it as a 1,000 Year Reich would be a mistake. (“The U.S.S.R. will live forever,” said some guy in 1978.)
I read Scott’s latest diversion-twaddle
While talking about the substance of the article in a post complaining about the cover might be a diversion, I don’t think it’s a bad one.
One example of that practice would suffice I suppose, but I can’t think of even one.
Unless you’re referring to Hamas’ with regard to Southern Israel? Or Pakistan’s Taliban/ICI nexus vis a vis Bombay? Or Russia shelling Georgia? Or a strap-on female bomber in an Iraq market? Hezbollah rocketing Northern Israel?
No.
You are suspect because you believe things that aren’t true.
The early Iraqi occupation was a cluster fuckRummy thought he could beat the growing sunni insurgency down by beating the shit out of Iraqi men picked up in the streetsBush stopped listening to Cheney and put Petraeus in charge that things turned aroundGuess what they gave up first? Beating detaineesNo he didn’t. You can’t ban what isn’t there. Further any order he may have given in regard to torture would not have originiated with him, but been a restatement of current orders and policy.
Yeah. I don’t care for the current administration either, but, dude, your paranoia is showing.
You’d be better off peddeling this crap on USENET.
That isn’t what I asked, Joe. I asked where you got the idea that “Rummy thought he could beat the growing sunni insurgency down by beating the shit out of Iraqi men picked up in the streets (assisted by Shia troops).”
Interesting. Dodge by cliche.
You used to be much more satisfying to disagree with. You don’t even try anymore.
Unless you’re referring to Hamas’ with regard to Southern Israel? Or Pakistan’s Taliban/ICI nexus vis a vis Bombay? Or Russia shelling Georgia? Or a strap-on female bomber in an Iraq market? Hezbollah rocketing Northern Israel?
Talking to you is useless. If you can’t imagine what it’s like to be a Pakistani civilian whose relatives were killed by a US attack against suspected Al Qaeda operatives then you’re living in a world ruled by unicorns and rainbows. Seriously, Zakaria’s point isn’t that collateral damage shouldn’t happen, but that it’s inevitable—but that because it’s inevitable and has unfortunate propagandistic effects, perhaps the U.S. should shift its focus to methods that don’t involve so much collateral damage. You act as if there’s only one way for the U.S. to wage war, and that not supporting it is tantamount to “living with radical Islam.”
Interesting. Dodge by cliche. You used to be much more satisfying to disagree with. You don’t even try anymore.
If you find humility that interesting, I suppose it looks like a dodge. But I didn’t invoke the cliché to dodge your point so much as indicate that I, in my infinite and Obama-granted wisdom, can’t trace the tangled thread of hatred back through the last century to find its definitive source. You know, the one that means that all this ethnic and religious is That Guy’s Fault. At this point, anyone with a realistic perspective recognizes that there have been atrocities enough committed by both parties—that’s not moral equivalence, just a simple recognition of actual complaints—that one side demonstrating to its own satisfaction that the conflict’s the other side’s fault will have absolutely no positive impact on the situation.
Risking being labeled as lacking realistic perspective, no. Might be intersting to know also what two parties you see at interest here. I place that number a lot higher.
And that is moral equivalence. Or it easily becomes so when you conflate the interests to Group A and Group B.
Fault here is, of coure, purely academic anyway. Fault never had any bearing on who won a war.
oooooor, as William A. Galston and John Nagl suggest in separate essays, re-create the U.S. Information Agency to better fight the other side’s propaganda.
Here is another pussy against torture. Here’s some more of that pussy.
Now Pablo. I like your comments a lot. You are not an ignorant guy. But if you think Rumsfeld did not authorize “taking off the gloves” I have to question why you would think that.
There was a policy when thousands of Iraqi sunnis were detained in Iraq by US forces. Most of the detentions were short term (a few days) but many of them were beaten, roughed up and then let go. Do you really think Rumsfeld did not know about that? Is Michael Yon a pussy for criticizing that?
This shit hurt Bush’s Administration, hurt the Iraq war effort, and those failures helped elect Obama.
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY
Oh, Good Allah.
Risking being labeled as lacking realistic perspective, no. Might be intersting to know also what two parties you see at interest here. I place that number a lot higher.
As do I . . . which is my point, and Zakaria’s. Seriously, there’s no shame in agreeing with me when I say sensible things. Saves us all this useless back-and-forth in which it turns out we agree.
Fault here is, of coure, purely academic anyway. Fault never had any bearing on who won a war.
I was, as I admitted, interested in the Beauchamp conversation because I was teaching a course on war journalism that focused on Vietnam when that story broke. If you’ll remember, my take on the matter was that “in war, shit happens,” and that we shouldn’t judge soldiers for doing what was required to survive. Yes, everyone jumped on me because I thought soldiers sometimes did horrible things to stay alive . . . and yes, idiots here still mock me for believing that Beauchamp might’ve witnessed and/or participated in something that people who were in Vietnam have written about. But to claim that I wasn’t then, nor are now, supporting troops I’ve known since elementary school; to claim that I’m only here to win an argument; that’s rank insulting. Not “you called me a dirty word” insulting. Not “you said terrible things about my parents” insulting. That’s “you’re assuming I spit on the graves I stand beside” insulting. That’s “I’m the only Jew at this Jew’s funeral and why the fuck are they talking about Jesus” insulting.
If you want to call my reaction to the deaths of people I’ve known since I was a toddler “academic,” go ahead. But if you do, all I can say is this: Fuck you, you fucking piece of shit. But even though you’re a fucking piece of shit, I don’t wish upon you the deaths I’ve had to deal with . . . but that doesn’t mean you’re not a fucking piece of shit.
Your fault here is, well, you’re a fucking piece of shit. I’m just an academic and my dead friends, they’re just dead. So go fuck yourself.
With whom? People picked up for simply being Sunni? I’ve seen no evidence of that, and that was what you claimed.
and Eddie I miss you more than all the others
If you can’t imagine what it’s like to be a Pakistani civilian whose relatives were killed by a US attack against suspected Al Qaeda operatives then you’re living in a world ruled by unicorns and rainbows.
You know if my neighborhood were taken over by Stormfront or the Klan or somesuch that were killing folks and forcing us to live in fear all the time, and a few of my neighbors got caught in the crossfire when the government ran them out, I think we would blame the Stormfront fuckwads. But we are just a lot smarter than those Pakis. They are brown, you know.
and Eddie I miss you more than all the others
this one is for you, my brother
what was all my friends!
Now if recognized by your hypothetical Pakistani civilian, that looks pretty discriminate to me. And since when did collateral deaths in a limited, well focused and successful (may we add) attack by Maverick missile become “indescriminate bombing”? Oh, that’s right, since the Pushtun tribesman who can neither read nor write got to define the term for us. Yes. Well. Next we’ll have him designing US strategic interests.
Your fault here is, well, you’re a fucking piece of shit. I’m just an academic and my dead friends, they’re just dead. So go fuck
Wow. Your indignation is greatly overclocked. You’re making assumptions and finding offense wehre none was given.
If you don’t read into what I write, I’ll endeavor to return the favor.
Conclusion 20: Elizabeth Proctor is a Witch.
SALEM TRIBUNAL INQUIRY INTO WITCHCRAFT, 1692