Torture

As Americans we like to pride ourselves that our country was founded on integrity and a firm set of moral and ethical principles. Principles such as the right to free speech, the right to elect our leaders, and all the other good ole' fundamental American values. People in power, however, often neglect and violate these principles, which isn't too surprising. One issue that came up in class and which has been given some attention in the media in the past is the issue of torture. The very word invokes the image of some kind of Stalinist, dystopian, oppressive government where people live in fear rather than in freedom, but the fact is the United States is a nation which practices torture. Aside from it being a fundamentally un-American concept, I don't think it's possible to ever justify torture nor does it make sense from an intelligence gathering perspective.

Ignoring the dozens of moral objections one could raise about torturing people, I see three major issues with the practice. The first is to me there seems to be a serious contradiction with the presumption of innocence, the second is that it is an unreliable and ineffective means of gathering accurate intelligence, and the third is that it creates a sort of sand-trap where once you begin torturing people you can not simply release them based on their innocence or not. I'll elaborate a bit on each of these.

Firstly, one should establish exactly why presumption of innocence exists. It is not to protect terrorists, or murders or any other species of criminal. The concept is to protect us - the innocent. If we believe in this idea of  "innocent until proven guilty", then we must believe in it wholeheartedly, regardless of how severe or revolting the crimes of the accused may be, or how obvious their guilt is. We can not pick and choose when to apply this principle, and to whom, otherwise the entire concept falls apart. No one argues that it is OK to torture innocent people - this is obviously wrong. However, the argument has been made that it is justifiable to torture terrorists and people associated with organizations like Al Qaeda because these are the "worst of the worst", and the idea seems to be that if you're bad enough, then torture is acceptable.

This type of argument is based on the assumption of guilt however, and directly contradicts the concept of presumption of innocence. If one is assumed to be innocent, then how is it justifiable to torture him? Further, if one is only allowed to torture the "bad guys", and we torture people to extract confession of crimes, we are torturing innocent people by definition - because they have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing. This argument goes as far to show that it is illogical and contradictory to torture people in order to extract confessions, so long as we uphold our legal and most fundamental principles and ideals. One may make the case, however, that once someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be a "bad guy", then it is fair to torture him. I think I can provide arguments to show that this too is absurd.

If one is torturing someone to obtain intelligence and information about other people, there is no reason to believe any confession or revelation will be truthful. The person being tortured has but one goal - to say whatever he can to make his tortures stop. This could mean betraying his comrades, or it could mean lying and proving false information - typically either blaming innocent people or inventing stories. There is no motivation for someone being tortured to tell the truth, only to say what he believes will be the quickest route to ending his suffering. This fact makes any information obtained from torture completely suspect and of very little credibility. Essentially torture defeats its own purpose, if that purpose is to obtain information.

The third issue I raise has to do with people who truly are innocent. The American government can never admit it tortures people - not unless it has to. The status quo will always be to deny the use of the torture, especially if they've stated in the past that they no longer torture people. Further, they especially do not want it revealed what methods and means they use to torture people. So what happens when the C.I.A. disappears some innocent Afghan by either mistaken identity or bad intelligence? They subject him to torture, and realize he's not the right guy - then what?

Are they going to just release him so he can run to the nearest media outlet and tell them what he's been through? Are they just going to say "sorry, our mistake"? No, they simply aren't going to release him, despite his innocence. We now have a situation where people - innocent or not - disappear into these black holes and can't ever leave. We are setting up these institutions which essentially are functioning as gulags, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Not only is torture a violation of American principles, the law and of our sense that America is supposed to be better than the rest, but it is an erosion of the rights and freedom of innocent people and it serves no useful purpose, save perhaps to satiate the desire of some to punish their captives - but that is what the legal system is for. There simply is no excuse or justification to be torturing people, even if they "deserve it".

Pakistan and Afghanistan's Future

The situation in Pakistan is an interesting one, at least as interesting as it is dangerous. Pakistan is a nation whose military's sole purpose seems to be to prepare and wait for the next confrontation with India, and whose slimy intelligence agency - the ISI - seems to justify anything by always relating it to India.The ISI seems to never tire of playing both sides of the fence, and the military seems completely reluctant to stem the growth of Jihadist movements within its borders... and this is our ally in the region...

The whole situation is a complete mess. On the one hand the stability of Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan - we rely on them for trucking routes, to help provide intelligence and as an important political ally in the region. Yet, they almost seem to undermine every American effort... it seems that we need Pakistan, and it seems that the real enemy is Pakistan.Things might not be so complicated if it weren't for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is controlled by an unstable government which is now facing a rising insurgency of its own... and in the background looms India and the never ending Kashmir dispute, a weak economy and a population who is largely impoverished and prone to radicalism.

I really don't think America can have its cake and eat it too. It seems to me that so long as Pakistan remains a safe haven for the Taliban, one which they can freely  cross into and gain access to weapons and a continual supply of recruits, we will never be able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan to be able to leave. And so long as the war continues, there is little hope of economic recovery and development within Afghanistan, which means the Karzai government will remain weak and fragile and completely dependent on America to pay for and manage its armed forces. At the same time, the ISI continues to support the Taliban so as to stamp out any possible influence from India in the country, and the knowledge that the military is unlikely to move against them in Pakistan boosts Taliban moral all the more.We cannot secure the border on our own, and even if Pakistan could, they would never be willing to deploy large resources on their Western border with big bad India to the east.

It seems as time goes on, the Taliban position only gets stronger. The longer the Americans stay, the more civilian casualties will occur and the more hatred for America will exist in Afghanistan. This not only strengthens the Taliban, but it is crippling to the Karzai government who at this point seems hopelessly unable to assert any true authority over the country. It seems at this point, America is simply staving off collapse of the Karzai government and hoping to God that Pakistan remains stable and is willing to accept what meager support they offer. There have been talks of negotiations with the Taliban, but at this point it almost seems like they have the upper hand - which is not good for us.

What America really needs is a stable Pakistan who is willing to fight against the Taliban on its side of the border and one who is willing to actively work to dampen the Islamist movement by providing the things its people expect of it. This doesn't seem like it can ever happen though so long as India remains the sole obsession of the military and the Kashmir remains an issue. I believe that our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan and to see the country rebuild its self is directly dependent on support from Pakistan... support which we are not recieving. If we were to withdraw with things as they are, I have no doubt that the Taliban would quickly defeat the Karzai government and re-gain power, and we'd be back to 2001, or perhaps back to 1992 in the midst of another civil war. In addition, without aid from America there is a real possibility that Pakistan may find its self in a civil war against the Pakistan Taliban, and the stakes are much higher there than in Afghanistan.

I don't think its possible for America to leave this region any time soon. Even if we get Afghanistan sorted out, we are too tangled up with the mess in Pakistan that some American presence is going to be needed for a long time, and many billions more are going to need to be spent. If defeat of the Taliban is the goal, we're never going to leave. If nation building and the solidification of the Karzai government is the goal, we're going to have to work out a deal with the Taliban, and still American presence and money is going to be required. There just aren't any quick ways out...

Zero Accountability

I remember when I was younger, sometime around 2003 when America was gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, hearing about this strange news organization called "Al Jazeera". It sounded suspiciously like "Al Qaeda", and indeed some people, including Donald Rumsfeld, were actually comparing it to some kind of propaganda engine for the terrorist organization. Somehow, no one seemed to correct this flat out lie, and that impression stuck with me until years later when I finally realized that not only was Al Jazeera a credible, world-wide news organization, but that it was less biased and had a far better depth of coverage than any American news outlet. I had forgotten about this act of demonization, but was reminded by it while reading a news story today about the refusal of American cable companies to carry Al Jazeera English on their networks.

This makes me wonder - in this "age of information" where knowledge is freely available to anyone - at least to anyone in America - (if not through the television networks, but through the internet) how is it possible for people like Donald Rumsfeld to go on National T.V. and blatantly lie, and no one seems to hold him accountable? The American public I can understand - most people rely on American broadcast news stations or their local newspapers to get their information (if they are interested in the news at all), and I believe the American media does a horrible job of holding our politicians and government to any kind of scrutiny, but what of the informed people in America? Have they no voice in the mainstream media? It appears they do not. As another example, this one more recent, the story of the so called "Kill Team" that have been accused, and so far at least on person already convicted of, murdering innocent Afghan civilians for sport. It took a German newspaper to break this story, and weeks later and I've seen very little of it mentioned in the American media - but the latest person voted off American Idol is a headline story. Where is the outrage? Why does it seem that no one is demanding the military explain why it took a German Newspaper to reveal these atrocities, and question had this story not been broken would the American public ever had known about these events?


And further, where is the accountability? The accountability of the military, of our government and of our media. It seems to me sometimes, that given enough time when attention spans have waned, there is none. Former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter gave a talk at my school a few years ago, and one of his topics was this very same issue - of holding the government accountable for its actions and failures. I asked him how one is supposed to do so, and his answer I think was both realistic and honest - by simply being informed. Its easy for Donald Rumsfeld to go on T.V. and claim Al Jazeera is a terrorist news station, or point to a map of some amourphous shape which you're told is Iraq, and say "WMDs are here, here and here." if his audience cant even find Iraq on a map. To try the same trick on someone who was informed about Iraq at the time or a reader of Al Jazeera, however, would have been completely absurd. Politicians, the military and the government can never be held accountable if the average person is too ignorant to even realize that they're being taken advantage of.

This is where the American media fails so miserably. Although, I have to question whether "failure" is the correct term, because often I feel the media intentionally neglects to point out when the government lies, or when our troops commit horrific crimes, or when its blatantly obvious that there is more to be said than has been. This is what really baffles me, and its something I don't quite understand. Is it that the American people just dont want to hear about these kinds of stories, and its a ratings issue? Does the government pressure the major news outlets not to cover these stories, or cable companies not to allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast on their networks? Does the media ignore these stories for their own agenda? I really don't have a clue, but it is incredibly frustrating to me at times, and I suspect it is some combination of the three. I've personally give up watching CNN or any other American News station - that's my way of holding them accountable for their lousy reporting - I won't give them any ratings - but it seems that many people don't share my feeling of dissatisfaction as these news channels get huge ratings.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the American public - maybe they are more well informed then I assume, after all my peers are mostly dumb twenty year olds who mainly rely on facebook banter for their source of news (and I will gladly lump myself in with the dumb twenty year olds part), but honestly I don't think I'm all that far off. Of course, a lot of what I am reacting to comes from reading Rashid, and I have the benefit of hindsight and informed sources telling me about how things really happened but still, are people not accountable when they lie and manipulate the American public, regardless of whether they are currently in office or not, and when we learn of past lies and untruths, should we not be wary of our current officials and hold them to an ever higher standard?

Hair-trigger

"Terry Jones says the “Braveheart” film poster in his Florida office gives him spiritual sustenance." - NY Times

This is a caption from a  NY Times article about the Floridian pastor whose actions have apparently sparked violent protests in Kandahar which have resulted in at least ten deaths and nearly one hundred people wounded so far. The pastor has apparently "supervised the burning of a Quran", which provoked the wrath of Afghans all over Afghanistan. This seems like a bit of an over-reaction on the part of the Afghan people at first, after all why should they care if some idiot from Florida burns a Quran he likely got from a local Barnes and Nobel? I think it's clear though, that these protests have really very little to do with this particular event, and much more to do with the pent-up anger and frustration the Afghans are feeling following ten years of occupation, and killing by American forces in their country.

This is, so to speak, simply the straw that broke the camels back, although in this case it seems that this camel had its back broken long ago. I think these recent events are a grave indication of just how far we are from "winning" this war. The reports mention people running through the streets waving Taliban flags and shouting anti-American slogans - and this is in Kandahar, the chosen capitol during the Taliban rule. Have people forgotten the brutality and prison of fear they lived in during the time the Taliban were in power, or has America so badly mismanaged this war and its relationship with the Afghan people that they would choose to go back to the Taliban rather than to suffer any further American occupation? My guess is people haven't forgotten.

I think events like this force us to seriously consider the likely hood of ever wining over the "hearts and minds" of these people, who if they have forgotten what life was like under the Taliban, have certainly not forgotten the actions of the U.S. military. Things like these, far more than any opinion poll, really highlight the deep hatred and anger many Afghans have for the U.S., and personally I am doubtful that we can ever repair our image in Afghan eyes. If in the future it turns out that more and more Afghans find themselves in favor of the Taliban, the underdogs of the Afghan civil war and who are Pashtun and more importantly deeply Islamic - how can America ever compete with that? In one hand, I feel as though America owes it to Afghanistan to help rebuild the damage we have done, but on the other hand, and events like this are beginning to sway my opinion in the opposite direction, and perhaps we'd be doing them a bigger favor by just leaving and preventing further harm.

It'd probably be cheaper to simply supply the Afghan government with foreign aid and let them work out a settlement with the Taliban, and let Afghans sort out the problems of Afghanistan. Of course, in the past this has simply led to interference from Pakistan and other neighboring countries and to civil warfare. I suppose my reaction to these recent events is simply this: If there is any possible progress to be made in Afghanistan, it doesn't appear as if we're making it, and I have to seriously question what is going on in the minds of the men whose job it is to manage this war, and what our motivation for continued occupation is.

Econmonics for Afghanistan

Some of the huge figures that are tossed around when discussing the war in Afghanistan are hard to really appreciate. How does one put into context a sum on the order of trillions of dollars? One has to wonder - how could costs have gotten so high? Does anyone in Washington really care about the long-term effects of spending such ungodly sums of money? Imagine what could be accomplished if that money were spent on constructive endeavors, instead of on bombs and killing people...

The military claims to attempt to cut costs by outsourcing certain services to contractors. These contractors in turn, sub-contract these services - often hiring local groups and paying them a small fraction of the contract amount, and then simply pocketing the remainder as profit. This makes me strongly question why the military bothers at all with these middle men - why not simply hire Afghans to help re-build Afghanistan? This was something that was touched upon in the film we watched in class "Re-thinking Afghanistan" but I think there's a lot to be said about this issue. It seems that we - America - are perfectly content with being taken advantage of allowing war profiteers to get rich off the blood and sweat of other Americans. We really must re-think how the spending for the war is managed.

It's understandable (though not necessarily forgivable) that the military would spend money carelessly - after all it really isn't there money. Congress is just as much a guilty party here as any for not putting restrictions on the spending power of our war machine, but rather than focusing on whose incompetence is greater, I'd like to just tie this issue in with something I've brought up before - economic growth in Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the rise of terrorism, militantism and islamism is directly related to the desperate economic conditions in the region. It's understandable why people would be angry with America, and even hate America, but being willing to take up arms and die fighting America is an entirely different thing. Che Guevara's revolution failed because he could not motivate enough of the lower class to fight - and the reason being was they had too much to lose. They may have been poor, but they had food and land and homes - guerrilla warfare stems from desperation.

This is not the case in Afghanistan - there is plenty of desperation to go around and that means plenty of young men willing to risk their lives fighting the Americans for what meager pay the Taliban would offer them, or simply because they feel they must do something to change their situation. There are more factors involved here than poverty however - fundamental ideological differences between the Islamic world and the West make Western occupation of Afghanistan a very difficult pill to swallow, and the sense of wanting revenge for past and present crimes against the people of Afghanistan, however, I feel the ultimate motivating factor is economic. Give people jobs, a chance to support their families and a sense that their lives have some worth, and I think one would find it is much more difficult to convince people to take up arms and run off the mountains.

And with all the money and resources being wasted on contractors and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, we could be helping to provide jobs for the Afghans, by hiring Afghans to construct wells, build roads, and provide security. The added benefit is it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to pay an Afghan - who would be happy to work for a tenth of what an American would - to do the same job as an American, and at the same time you have just eliminated one enemy combatant with zero loss of life. It is a win-win situation. Of course, there is still a need for some American presence to oversee reconstruction, manage funds and recruitment, provide training and supplies, and all the other administrative duties - but that would be far less costly than managing a full war. It just doesn't make any sense to continue spending billions on fighting and killing people, when we could probably solve our problems in Afghanistan for a fraction of the cost, and of greatly reduced loss of life to both Americans and Afghans - and secure a stable future for the country which has been left in ruins following thirty years of warfare.

I sometimes wonder if as an institution the military purposely perpetuates warfare so as to ensure it's own survival. That's probably not true, but it sure feels like that sometimes. I think what we really ought to do is fire most of our military commanders, and instead bring in some economists to manage Afghanistan. It's clear the Afghan people are not pushovers, we can not bully them into submission, which means we are forced to work with the Afghan people - not impose upon them a solution which is convenient for us. I could be wrong, but this is the type of solution that seems to be needed - not drone attacks or special operation forces. I just hope that the damage isn't so great that Afghanistan isn't doomed to forever be a failed nation...

Myopia

In the discussion today one issue was briefly mentioned which I think is a huge problem in American politics and highly relevant to the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq - the reluctance for politicians to see the bigger picture, and to base their decisions on the long-term rather than the short.

One can find examples of this everywhere, but in keeping this relevant to the war you could look at the Reagan Administrations funding of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion, and their subsequent "abandonment" of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. The short term-goal was to cause problems for the Soviets, which we did. No thought was given to what affect arming rag-tag militias might have on the long-term, and when the Soviets left, no thought was given on what was to become of Afghanistan. Where there are no short-term gains, it seems America is reluctant to act.

Even in the present decade, the focus of Iraq and the under-focus on Afghanistan by Donald Rumsfeld showed extreme short-sightedness. Going beyond the scope of this discussion, alternative energy, investment in scientific research and development, improving education and many other issues with great potential for enormous gains over the long-term are often pushed aside for the more expedient ones. The private sector understands the long-term, the government seems to not. That's really not that surprising though.

When a President, or Congressman enters office, one of the things that must constantly be on their mind is to do all they can to help ensure their re-elected in the next four or two years. From the moment they step into their position they are in a short-sighted mindset. This is an inherent feature of the way our government works, and it certainly is major oversight, in my opinion, by the architects of our country. From an economists point of view, there is almost no motivation for a President or Congressman to support a policy or legislation which does not have any short term gains, or worse yet may have short term losses, despite how great the gains may be in the long-run. Apart from running the country, Congress and the President must also constantly be nurturing their careers, and that means focusing on public opinion now not thirty years from now when, with clarity of hindsight, people may look back fondly on their foresight.

I really don't believe that the American government is stupid, and if I can reason about the long-term than so can they. They do, however, have to make conscious choices about not only how their decision affect the country, but how they affect their own careers. For example, suppose Bush was able to see that invading Afghanistan may result in a huge mess (this is, however, extremely unlikely although I'm sure people around him did) ten years down the road. A man who is only motivated by the interests of the country might reassure his people, who are calling for blood, and attempt to convey the difficulties involved, despite the enormous criticism he may receive. A man motivated by self-interest, however, would see this as an opportunity to show himself as a strong leader and gain large popular support, despite the damage is may cause after he's long gone from office.

This is a problem to me. It's not a problem with the people in government - it is only human nature to want to preserve your own interests - but it is a problem with the structure of the government its self. I suppose the idea originally was prevent the emergence of monarchies and rule by succession that had dominated Europe for hundreds of years, but these things are almost entirely a thing of the past in western society. Is it reasonable to assume that a system which was designed to address the problems of the 18th century will remain adequate for the modern world? I don't think so, and I would propose modifying the way we think about terms and election to address the weaknesses that are beginning to show themselves as the world around us changes.

I would propose eliminating consecutive terms, and merging a president's term to a single term of eight (or possibly ten) years, with no chance for re-election. This really has no disadvantage over the current system (except for keeping bad presidents in power longer, but it seems that two consecutive terms is a growing trend, regardless of actual performance). This at least liberates the President from having to worry about his immediate political future and perhaps some incentive to take political risks which may pay off in the long run. I would propose the same sort of idea for congress as well.

It may be naive to assume that this would have any real effect, and I'm certainly not claiming that my simple suggestion is all it would take or is the only possible solution, but what I am firmly saying is I feel that this is a real issue in American politics, and one which seems to be responsible for many of crisis we face in the coming years (terrorism, climate change, oil and energy, our technological superiority, and the list goes on...), and a blatant example now of the failure of foresight is Afghanistan. The lessons of history are there to be heeded or ignored, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail.

We Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists

We've talked in class about how the most likely resolution to the war in Afghanistan will be some sort of political settlement following a negotiation with the Taliban. We also discussed how presidential politics can influence the conduct of the war and a presidents decisions regarding it. So I wonder, where, when and how are these two facets of the war going to meet? Allow me to elaborate.

In the beginning, the Bush administration wanted to paint a direct connection between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which may or may not be fair, but I believe they also took it a step further and tried to paint the picture - or at least strongly imply - of a direction connection to the Taliban and the September 11th attacks, which of course is ridiculous. Since that time the American public has remained largely ignorant of who the Taliban are, the history of Afghanistan and the events of the war it's self. If asked who the Taliban are, I think it's fair to say, most people would say "terrorists", or something closely along those lines. (I called my sister up and asked her this question and she responded as I expected). If this is the general perception in America, how is it going to look when we try to begin talks with these "terrorists"? Which President is going to be the guy who "gave up" as will certainly be the impression the opposition partly will attempt to paint?

I think by vilifying the Taliban and labeling them as essentially the same as Al Qaeda, it makes bringing the conflict to an end significantly more complicated. The war in Afghanistan remains unpopular, but not nearly as much as Iraq was, and I think generally most people forget we're even there in their day to day lives. I don't feel that there is any real pressure for a President to seek a quick end to the fighting at the expense of dealing with the shit storm certain people will stir up over the thought of negotiating with these radical jihad waging muslims. I can only begin to imagine the headlines FOX news would begin coming up with. With President Obama already having been accused in the past of  being sympathetic to the Muslim world (which many Americans, ignorant as they may be, group broadly as an enemy of the United States with little distinction between countries), I don't see how he could ever realistically offer some kind of deal to the Taliban and ever have a chance of being re-elected.

I may be misjudging the American public, but to me it seems that negotiations with the Taliban will put a very bad tastes in the mouths of people who've for ten years have learned very little about Afghanistan and mainly rely on the U.S. media which generally doesn't make any distinction between the Taliban and a true terrorist organization. Even if you accept the Taliban aren't terrorists, still many people take issue with their treatment of women, their brutality toward the Hazara and other genuinely horrific acts they've committed. It seems we're stuck fighting an enemy we can't defeat militarily, and whom we can't compromise with politically. It's a very tricky situation.

An ideal solution would be if we could begin to withdraw and let the Afghan government handle the talks - in that way the American leadership would be somewhat shielded from accusations of caving to the Taliban or something along those lines. In order for that to happen though, it would require that Afghanistan build up a strong army capable of maintaining the government in the event of continued fighting - otherwise if America withdraws the Taliban would have little insentive to negotiate if they sense they can defeat the Afghan government - in which case we've come full circle back to the civil war of the mid 1990's.

So while the fighting continues on the ground, and all of the vast challenges that face Afghanistan, it seems if America wants to end its involvement there soon we have to not only find a way to begin talks with the Taliban but perhaps more challengingly find a way to make those talks politically palatable at home. Nothing is easy about Afghanistan...