« "Natural Growth" | Main | Playing the Middle Against both Sides »

June 05, 2009

Comments

"Cheney won the debate"? Really?

"Cheney won the debate"? Really"

Opinion polls around the following issues are depressingly tilted toward the Cheney argument:

-Closing Gitmo
-Moving prisoners to the US
-Torture

The debate's not over, but Obama should heed Lind's advice.

Silly Eric, how are we going to get them to love us if we can't torture them?

I certainly hope the debate is not over. I think the Cheneyites are fighting a losing battle.

If only spineless Democratic congresspeople could bring themselves to publicly laugh at Republicans' equating "bringing detainees into supermax prisons" with "releasing superterrorists into Our Neighborhoods", instead of turning into puddles of rancid jello...

kvenlander: Agreed that the Dems need to meet this head-on. Which is what Lind is saying.

BTW: If you click on the link, he provides specific advice.

"If given the choice between a policy that makes our enemies stronger and us weaker, or a policy that makes our enemies weaker and us stronger, I'll take the latter 10 out of 10 times."

I believe Cheney defines "us" differently. He is fighting two wars: the foreign war against terrorists, and the domestic political "war" against the Democrats. For years torture was effective for his side -- in the latter war.

If only spineless Democratic congresspeople could bring themselves to publicly laugh at Republicans' equating "bringing detainees into supermax prisons" with "releasing superterrorists into Our Neighborhoods"

Why would they laugh at something they agree with?

It's a mistake to think that the torture supporters (Democrats and Republicans) are amenable to reason. It's not about whether it works or doesn't work, makes it easier for our enemies to recruit foot soldiers (cannon fodder)or whether it's moral or immoral. Or even about wanting to win.

This is about belief, not facts. Their core belief is that you can and should beat people in doing what you want them to do.

You can't talk them out of it. They would rather lose than question their belief.

"You can't talk them out of it. They would rather lose than question their belief."

We're not trying to sway the minds of the die-hards. But rather, the movable portion of the American population that is not committed.

Another important point Lind didn't get at is that effects on the moral level are much longer lasting and more difficult to reverse than the lower levels. Failure or success on the moral level carries over into future conflicts.

For decades to come preventing the torture of our captured troops by our enemies is going to be monumentally difficult and the brass know it.

"Specifically, it revealed that Obama and his advisors are ignorant of military theory."

That's a bit of a leap, I disagree that Obama failed to make the points suggested, but even if he had, you could hardly know that the omissions were made out of ignorance. In fact, you'd be on firmer ground assuming the opposite (that he felt the argument wasn't persuasive or it prematurely ceded the framing to his opponent, etc.)

But as I said, Obama has repeatedly made the point that, the moral choice is self- justifying, that it also carries with it the tactical advantage, is a bonus. Cheney may have won the news cycle, but the foundation of falsehoods he built his case on is already crumbling. Cheney will slowly twist and bleed out while Obama goes about his business in a house of bricks.

"That's a bit of a leap"

Agreed. I think Lind pushes too hard on that point. But they were, at best, too reticent about pressing the relevant military theory.

"But as I said, Obama has repeatedly made the point that, the moral choice is self- justifying, that it also carries with it the tactical advantage, is a bonus. "

It needs to be made with more force, precision and volume. Obviously, if polls are to be believed, it has not yet sunk in. And the press sure isn't playing along. Yet.

I disagree with the " Moral Aspect" of winning war. We won WW2 by targeting civilians in Dresden and dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan with the clear intention of killing civilians. Although I support those actions lets not claim they were moral. Now those who want to male moral arguments against torture thats fair but those who claim torture doesn't work are not students of history or never pulled their sisters pig tails until she told where mom hid the Christmas presents. Read Medal of Honor winner Leo Thorsness book about his torture in Vietman. He said it worked.

Sean, since signing the Geneva accords in 1949 Americans have been tortured in the following events
1) Korean War
2) Vietnam
3) USS Pueblo incident ( Korea again)
4) U2 Spy Pilot Francis Gary Powers
5) Iraq in the Gulf War
6) Lebanon CIA Chief William Buckley
7) Countless unreleased incidents of CIA agents who have been tortured.

There simply is no evidence that maintaining non torture policies keeps Americans safer when captured. None.

Another important point Lind didn't get at is that effects on the moral level are much longer lasting and more difficult to reverse than the lower levels. Failure or success on the moral level carries over into future conflicts.

For decades to come preventing the torture of our captured troops by our enemies is going to be monumentally difficult and the brass know it.

Posted by: SeanH | June 05, 2009 at 04:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.