Midnight on the Forecastle

The Power of Nightmares

It's an old BBC documentary that you've probably already watched, but I'm posting it again because I've found that there are many, many people who haven't seen it. Over the years, I've thought about this film a great deal. There are some points herein that are possibly dead wrong, or that fail to assimilate countervailing influences or misdiagnose the causal effects of others... however, the film is an important and provocative contribution. I hope you watch it: The Power of Nightmares.

Justice Deferred

How long does it take to turn an ally into an enemy? Or an enemy into an ally? In the lives of nations, the answer to both of these questions is anything but universal. Once a restful and cooperative relationship is established, there are no guarantees that animus won't reemerge like the plague to lay waste to even the most vigilantly monitored peace. Conversely, the most volatile conflicts have been known to cease with a single sunrise or the scrawl of a single signature. (This, anyway, is a generalized lesson of history.) None of this, however, provides sufficient cause to throw up one's hands and declare "anything is possible"; abdicating our responsibilities to pursue favorable outcomes would be flatly immoral as well as abjectly stupid.

And yet. How can anyone possibly look at America's involvement in Iraq without contemplating the dominant role of happenstance and unforeseeable causes in the long-term? If the past in any indicator, war will not end as a result of our efforts. Conversely, the absence of our presence will not bring everlasting peace. Or will it? These are, admittedly, large questions that appear too abstract, perhaps, for the context of day-to-day decisions and suchlike. Nevertheless, people don't willing martyr themselves (or submit themselves or their families to the "ultimate sacrifice") for short-term gain. It is the grander, more broadly envisaged future that raises the stakes in such matters. Americans have been told time and time again that we "can't afford to lose" in Iraq. Well, the longer we're there the more likely it will be that both pro-war and anti-war advocates will be vindicated.

And that's a winning strategy for a neo-con dreaming of salvaging his or her legacy. If events in Iraq (or otherwheres related) continue to appear to fluctuate between victory and defeat, the history of our times will never be definitive. Whatever happens hence will be the only story anyone will have ever known, and it never would have happened if the dogs had not had their day. And so the villains will have found their loophole.

U.S. Praetorian Guard

Thanks to "back-door diplomacy by the Bush administration," Blackwater will remain in Iraq indefinitely. Predictably, all the avenues of recourse for those with grievances against the company are being systematically and methodically closed:

Some Iraqi leaders called for the Blackwater guards to be tried in Iraqi courts, but U.S. officials in 2004 granted its private security contractors legal protection from prosecution in Iraq and the United States.

I'm too exhausted by this to even research it. "U.S. officials" can apparently just snap their fingers and a whole group of unaccountable mercenaries have a license to kill. There's another sickening exposé in this month's Harper's by Daphne Eviatar detailing (for the millionth time) the hideous "business practices" of Blackwater. This issue looks the same irrespective of the angle from which it is viewed – it's a disgrace. Here's a telling footnote from Naomi Klein’s “Disaster Capitalism: The New Economy of Catastrophe” in the October 2007 Harper’s:

One of the most alarming aspects of this industry is how unabashedly partisan it is. Blackwater, for instance, is closely aligned with the anti-abortion movement and other right-wing causes. It donates almost exclusively to the Republican Party, rather than hedging its bets like most big corporations. Halliburton sends 93 percent of its campaign contributions to Republicans; Fluor, 78 percent. Is it far-fetched to imagine a day when political parties will hire these companies to spy on their rivals during an election campaign – or to engage in covert operations too shady even for the CIA?

I don't think we need to imagine anything. They're already doing it. Here's the text from Blackwater's own mission statement:

To support national and international security policies that protect those who are defenseless and provide a free voice for all with a dedication to providing ethical, efficient, and effective turnkey solutions that positively impact the lives of those still caught in desperate times.

There it is. They're an armed militia dedicated to a specific political philosophy. They subjectively arrive at an interpretation of a particular "policy" and then set about defending it – with guns. If they don't like the policy, or disagree with the politics, they won't participate. The military can't do that. The police can't do that. Only Blackwater can do that.

UPDATE: The incident. One can only hope that we're reaching a tipping point after which a dry declaration of innocence issued by a faceless official will no longer stay the execution of justice.

UPDATE No. 2: The Market for Force.

All v. Nothing Fallacy

Jon Stewart dealt with this already.  Let’s continue considering it.  Those who refuse, rightly, to declare with certainty that the Iraqi political structure will achieve a functional political structure by a specific date have no problem whatsoever guaranteeing a holocaust of violence and chaos if the U.S. military pulls out.  Often, these are the same people who argue that if we hadn’t invaded that country in 2003 Saddam would still be in power.  This is both theoretical and ludicrous.  It posits that our options are either to (a) apply overwhelming military force or (b) do absolutely nothing.  Furthermore, it deliberately disallows the necessity of game theory, which correctly acknowledges the reality that there are a multitude of players who have – and will apply – influence in the outcome.  None of these factors preclude speculation, only certainty.

That the U.S. will continue to exert influence in Iraq is, at this point, beyond dispute.  One need only look to our history to reach this conclusion.  We’ve been actively tinkering with that region for decades.  The CIA successfully instigated regime change in Iran (with long-term consequences that proved disastrous).  They tried to do the same in Syria (with long-term consequences that proved disastrous).  For decades we’ve been pouring money and weapons into the region, and we continue to do so.  Nothing in the current debate points to any change in this pattern.  It’s grossly disingenuous to suggest that a major pull-out of troops from Iraq is synonymous with complete disengagement, and yet this is exactly what is being suggested.

Why was the Iraq Study Group so flippantly dismissed by the administration?  Frankly, because it put forth a creative and detailed alternative between the current situation and the fictional one of utter abandonment.  In many ways, the rejection of this compromise is not unlike the rejection of immigration reform by hardcore conservatives.  The problem in both situations is, of course, the emotional appeal of ideological certainty.  There is good and evil.  There is legal and illegal.  There is right and wrong.  Ironically, the application of ideological policies inevitably results in a frightening willingness to tolerate serious breaches of the ethics so forcefully championed by the advocates of such policies.  Pat Robertson condones assassination.  The phrase “take the gloves off,” a blatant endorsement of illegality, becomes a rallying cry for proponents of a law-and-order mindset.  Those who cry for the imprisonment of illegal immigrants simultaneously support extraordinary rendition by the CIA.

As a country, of course, consistency in such matters has never been our hallmark.  Confusion has.  That’s one thing that is in no danger of changing anytime soon.

Patraeus' Cotillion

Gen. Petraeus began his testimony today amid a barrage of praise for his credentials, credibility, accomplishments, sobriety, seriousness, and gravitas.  While there were some critical comments on the internet (and in the hearing) regarding the political history of his positions, the lion’s share of airtime devoted to “debunkers” was devoted to the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times.  Yglesias’ comment rings true to me:

… when I saw [the ad] this [morning] it looked dumb.  But not nearly as dumb as the House Republicans look endlessly harping on it at the hearing.  This war is serious stuff -- literally a matter of life and death -- and here they are screwing around like children.

Exactly.*  These are important issues and they need to be dealt with.  Which is why I grew increasingly irritated with the deference paid to Petraeus’ intellectual and military bona fides.  There are two fundamental problems I have with this.  First, like any competent commander he has no greater obligation than his current mission.  This is what makes the politics of the war relatively easy for him to navigate.  Whatever the mission, it is his obligation to pursue it [the mission] to the best of his ability.  To that end, he is charged with advocating for its success – even if only tacitly.  Additionally, his responsibility is to the facts… and this is less of a challenge to a military man than to a skanky politician.  Ergo, he can (and has) adroitly acquitted himself.  This would be the case irrespective of who held the position he holds (i.e., someone who’s pedigree was extensively vetted by Congress).  Second, (and this is what really rankled) among certain members of Congress there appears to be a double standard of galactic proportions when it comes to lauding expertise.  Where was the syrupy willingness to yield to the assessments of scientific authorities on the issues of global warming, stem cell research, mercury emissions, lead poisoning in children, reproductive health, workplace safety and nuclear weapons?  To be fair, lawmakers are held to a different standard on these issues – one that is ultimately answerable to voters.  Which brings me to my final problem with today’s hearings.  Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, testified that the continued deployment of troops to Iraq would require an enormous amount of resolve from America.  He’s probably correct.  In order to persevere we’ll probably need too wage a long-term war with uncertain results.  Where does he think this resolve is coming from?  Regardless of the personalities and politics of the lawmakers he was addressing, Americans want this thing to end.  Now.  They realize that they were duped into supporting the invasion in 2003.  They’ve lost faith, and simply asking for it cannot generate faith, as fickle and insubstantial as it is.

*Last Friday John McCain finally pushed my last button.  When Harry Reid and the Democrats said that “all options were on the table” with respect to Iraq, McCain said (through a smug smile) that he thought this meant that the Democrats’ position was weakening.  Unbelievable.  This is the Right’s position: the only circumstance under which one enters into dialogue is if one has “superior” strategic positioning.  This is a man running for President.  This is a life-or-death issue for many Americans.  This is not leadership.  If someone extends a hand to help solve a problem (particularly a fellow American) you take it.  John McCain is persona non grata to me.