I’m Tortured

I am good and truly tortured by the torture debate.  The constant repetition of appalling practices such as keeping people in cold rooms with loud music and water boarding just does not strike me as inhuman.  All right, if the music is by Brittany they may have a point, but Christina works for me.

Granted, the U.S. should not adopt relative standards: But, where is the same outcry for actual, systemic torture as there is for cold rooms and playing loud Christina music.

The experts that make the point that “we don’t want to torture folks because our people might be subjected to the same thing”, need to come clean.  There is no anti-torture policy that we could adopt that will mitigate the behavior of our enemies’ one iota.  Does anyone really think that Al Qaeda is going to abandon torture because we have; if what we do really is torture?  Does anyone think that repressive, corrupt Middle Eastern governments and quasi governments are going to experience a human rights epiphany due to U.S. leadership on abandoning anything that vaguely approaches mild discomfort? 

Besides, when it comes to torture we’re amateurs.  Al Qaeda, now those guys know how to get down with torture: stoning, cutting out tongues, severing hands and feet, beheadings, immediate death sentences for carrying American currency, starvation, electric shock, well you get the idea.

Come along as we take a short trip down memory lane and revisit the video tape of the Nick Berg beheading.  Yup, those guys have it all over us when it comes to torture, real torture.

While we’re on our trip lets visit Iran, they’re pretty good at the torture thing too.  Human Rights Watch has reported deteriorating conditions for the last few years, every year. 

What is happening in Iran?  They’re number one! Number one in juvenile executions according to Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch in their 2006 Overview also reports:

            “The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents”

            “The Judiciary is responsible for many serious human rights violations”

“Since President Ahmadinejad came to power treatment of detainees has worsened in Evin prison as well as in detention centers operated clandestinely by the Judiciary and (sic) other government agencies”

“In recent years public testimonies by numerous former prisoners and detainees have implicated Tehran’s public prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi and his office in some of the worst cases of human rights violations. Despite extensive evidence, Mortazavi has not been held responsible for his role in illegal detentions, torture of detainees, and coercing false confessions.”

The report continues to document, unexplained deaths, disappearances and all manner of violence.  In the interest of context, the torture in Iran is not typically the result of events such as terrorism or seminal threats. The torture is typically the result of expressing, peacefully, opinions contrary to the government position. Torture is an accepted technique of public intimidation and control.  A warning. 

The typical Iranian approach to tortured victims is to grant them a “parole”.  “Parole” typically includes a couple of days at home after the worst of the torture has rendered the victim barely able to function.  This “parole” is the tangible warning to the immediate population and to the family of the victim of what is in store for them, should they not tow the company line or express resistance to the government’s positions.    

What about Syria?  Syria still operates under Emergency Rule put in place in 1963, yes that is correct 1963, 44 years ago.  Human Rights Watch reports: arbitrary detention, torture and “disappearances”.  Political prisoners are reported at about 4,000.  Torture during detention is endemic.  HRW reports that 2006 passed without any government acknowledgement that Syrian security forces had “disappeared” an estimated 17,000 individuals!

The point is, simply, that there is actual, brutal, systemic, government sponsored torture out there. If only half of the energy our political class has spent over water boarding was spent on publicly castigating the regimes that accept torture as appropriate public policy the domestic debate would be easier to take. . 

Should our standards be higher? Absolutely!

Does torture work? Not so much!

Should we engage in it? No!

However, there is a larger context, if water boarding is heinous what adjective do we apply to describe 17,000 “disappeared” persons?

Doing the 180

It has been my long held opinion that even opponents of the Iraq war on Capital Hill HAD to have reached some empirical understanding of the actual threats and consequences of rapid disengagement in Iraq.  A reasonable reading of open source, objective material delivers you to, a least, a pregnant pause in terms of what the consequences could very easily be.  This observer has long held the opinion that within Washington ending the war was more about political theater and the opportunity to procure power than about threats and consequences to the nation.

While I am absent research assistants to provide fodder for analysis, there has been a fundamental shift  in the position of Democratic candidates.  The predictable move to the middle.

If memory serves, (damn that absent research assistant) we’ve heard all manner of rhetoric from end the war now, end it in eighteen months, stop the money now, stop the money in September, stop the money in March, we’ve lost already and so on. The candidates now have taken the position that it could take their entire first term in office to bring the troops home.  Good for them, I truly applaud the onset of rationality.

Why the most recent change in position?  A few possibilities occur to me. 

Ø      The surge is working.  While the candidates are loath to actually say so, the change in position could be a left handed recognition that it is, in fact, the truth of the matter.

Ø      Assuming the surge is working, there can be no more dangerous position for the Democratic candidates than to maintain their positions of, oh I don’t know, three months ago and have the pace of success  in Iraq become a geometric equation with success leading to more success. Considering the importance of the Iraq issue, actual success in Iraq is a tree branch they would rather not be left clinging to.  The aggressive rhetoric that called for  bringing the troops home starting Noon on January 20^th 2008 has now been abandoned for the five year plan.

Ø      The rhetoric of Congressional leadership is beginning to get uncomfortable.  Leader Reid’s declarations are beginning to be viewed as a repetitive video tape with no consideration for the possibility of changing situations.   

Ø      A fundamental disengagement from the far left wing of the Democratic party has begun.  This disengagement is a strategic imperative for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama as they look forward to the potential dynamics of a general election.  Winning in a general election will be highly questionable if the perception persists that the far left is calling the shots.

Looking behind the curtain as best one can the current position of another five years of troops in Iraq is reasonable, responsible and in all likelihood not much different that Republican aspirations for troop withdrawals. 

The context of the new position is, of course, “we don’t know what we’ll find when we get to the Oval Office.”  OK, fair enough.  But as one who is ridiculed for the number of hours spent with CSPAN radio and TV it occurs to me that the number and breath of inquiries, hearings, debates, statements and speeches related to Iraq may be unprecedented.  Committees on  Intelligence, Military Affairs, Government Oversight, Judiciary, Ways and Means and Veteran’s Affairs to name just a few have tackled the administration on Iraq.  So one must ask what is the possibility that Congress and the candidates will be information poor when they get to the Oval Office? 

There is also another point of context that should not be forgotten.  The candidates have done a 180 degree turn in a very short amount of time. We have in a matter of three weeks gone from the dynamics of  Mrs. Clinton accusing, elegantly, General Petraeus of lying about the dynamics in Iraq and the candidates not distancing themselves from the Move On ad to the admission that it will take an entire first term in office to bring the troops home.  That is a big change in a short period of time.  What other changes in position might be on the horizon? 

The difficulty for Democrats is, at it’s lowest common denominator, that the  worst nightmare is continuing success is Iraq.  That’s is a potentially tough position to be in should that success continue.  How does one run against delayed but eventual success, when that issue has clearly formed the centerpiece of the campaign? 

The Return of Pouilly-Fuisse

Confession:  Back some time ago I decided personally not to engage in purchasing anything I could identify as French.  No movement, no requests of others just a personal decision to vote against Mr. De Villipan and Mr. Chirak with my dollars.  This personal boycott was not terribly difficult as about the only French product I purchased regularly was my favorite wine, Pouilly-Fuisse.

It is a wonderful wine and I missed it.  But now, ahhh but now I am declaring the boycott over and I welcome the return of Pouilly-Fuisse, thank you President Sarkozy. 

I will celebrate the realignment of French policy with the best bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse I can either find or afford.  A celebration is warranted and I will toast the French President. I will toast him because………….

It could be that the inertia inherent in decades of Gaullist attitudes are evolving into a more rational view of what relations with America should and could be.

It could be that France, aspiring to be viewed as the unquestioned leader of the European Union, sees American support for that objective as critical to attaining it.

It could be that the French President has evaluated the dramatic liabilities of an America trending toward frustrated isolationism as a potential result of continued European basing of all things American.

It could be that an objective French analysis of the liabilities inherent in a Middle Eastern centric (sic Anti-American) foreign policy are beginning to reveal more potential risk than reward.

It could be that the very real threats of European based Jihadists are beginning to overtake European political correctness, years of commitment to the Euro Arabian Dialogue (EAD) and the significant bureaucracy associated with the EADit are being questioned. In continental Europe Only Mr. Sarkozy has been consistently positioned to lead on this issue.

Granted, a lot of “it could be” but there is clearly a change in French leadership on a variety of issues.  This change is evidenced by a number of critical changes in French rhetoric.

A clear message to the U.N. by President Sarkozy that appeasement and “lack of courage” is unacceptable.

A reversal of the Chirak position on Iranian nuclear development.

A statement (eventually reversed, but spoken nonetheless) that France would have to consider war against Iran.

Clear pressure on the Germans by the French to balance commercial interests in the Middle Ease with a recognition of the geopolitical risks inherent in the Iranian situation.

Statements against the decades long growth of Anti Semitism in Europe.

Talk of renewed commitment to NATO.

So President Sarkozy, I toast you with my long absent glass of Pouilly-Fuisse which I will now order by the case, lest my abandoned boycott go unnoticed.