Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, ... I hereby order ... [that t]he detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
. . . .
s/BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.
That was then. This is now. What's worse, the mistaken decision to close Guantanamo, or the inability to implement the decision?
The problem Obama created for himself was setting a deadline.
The idea of closing Gitmo is not a bad one, and in my view is proper, assuming of course that those held there are dealt with. He set the year deadline, and now he has political egg on his face. The good news is, he has adjusted to the facts on the ground...
Politically, this is going to look bad, though.
He never clearly identified...
He never clearly identified any real reason for closing Guantanamo other than, essentially, "we campaigned against it." He never offered any good reasons for why it would be better for the U.S. to house those individuals on American soil or rend them back to other countries (with fewer due process protections than we offer even through the military commissions). All of his explanations, as I recall, were along the same vague lines of "improving our image," when if the true facts were known, Guantanamo itself would not actually have an image problem. He wanted to close it as symbolism, nothing more.
If you go back and read the Doonesbury archives from the late 70s, you will find a treasure trove of comic skewering of an American President focusing on symbolism rather than substance. There was a Secretary of Symbolism and everything. Hmm.... maybe he could make some easy money by taking a few month off and running his old strips lambasting President Carter's many inanities.
Well, I think it was bit more than symbolism. There is evidence
that the image of Gitmo has been used as a recruiting tool. Now one may not think that warrants closure, but I think the argument was a bit broader. BTW, Bush and McCain also made statements advocating its closure.
There's no doubt it has been
There's no doubt it has been used as a recruiting tool, Rafique. However, I don't know anyone who is active in the region who thinks that closing Gitmo and bringing the detainees (unlawful combatants, though they are) to some facility on American soil is going to mitigate that effect much (if at all). Ask yourself if you think the irhabists are more likely to respond with: (1) "Well, our brothers are in legitimate American prisons facing legitimate American judicial proceedings... Clearly, no injustice is being done to them..." or (2) "The evil American imperialists have moved our brothers to a different prison, but they are still being tortured, disrespected, and mistreated by those who reject the one true God." . . . In terms of influencing the Arab and Muslim words, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference whatsoever, even among their more moderate and liberal constituents.
I do think, however, that it will score us some points with the Europeans and other Western nations who are less conspiratorial, have greater faith in the American judicial institutions, and believe that we are resolving the matter in a manner consistent with their interpretation of international custom. Moreover, in terms of domestic political dynamics, there's no doubt that many liberals detested the very concept of Guantanamo, viewed it as a symbol of the Bush Administration's evil, and will be pleased to see it closed-- even though their transfer to other facilities on American soil, on its own, confers no different status, legalistically, for the detainees and really doesn't change whatsoever our challenge to figure out what we're going to do with (unlawful) combatants from a conflict that won't be ending in the next generation... Personally, if that's the price that must be paid to secure the support of liberals in the multi-generational struggle against irhab, then I think it's an easy call. (Now if it doesn't help to secure liberal support for the effort, well, then it's all a moot point).
But as with so many things in foreign policy, one must look beyond the immediate effects to see why we are taking a particular action, because not everything is always as it seems.
--Bobby
True enough, Bobby, I certainly don't expect the jihadists to
stop hating us if we close Gitmo, but I do think it can send a meaningful message to those who want to work with us, and yeah, maybe symbolism is a small part of that. This assumes of course that a fitting substitute for Gitmo is put in place to deal with the terrorists held there.
But as with so many things in foreign policy, one must look beyond the immediate effects to see why we are taking a particular action, because not everything is always as it seems.
Yeah.
Irhab?
Bobby, I don't think I've heard that word before, "irhabists." By your usage, sounds like a similar to jihadists, but I'm suspecting that it has a more detailed meaning in Arabic. I do understand that many Muslims use jihad with a peaceful connotation, to refer simply to the internal battle one must always make with the devil and temptations of sin. Does irhabist more specifically mean violent struggle against others?
On Irhab
Back from a weekend partying like a rock star in Las Vegas...
Irhab is simply the Arab word for terrorism, though it has the connotation of the illegitimate use of violence in the name of Islam (which, of course, is what that brand of terrorism represents). If we're engaged in a multi-generational struggle against the most radical strains of Islam that wish to overthrow or harm the Western way of life through terrorism (as, I believe, is almost universally accepted), and you accept that it is mathematically impossible and politically unacceptable to destroy or contain those strains by simply destroying the entire region (as, I believe, is is even more universally accepted), then the defeat of terrorist sanctuaries within the larger Islamic world requires (among other things) that the larger community rejects and refuses to allow the terrorists to operate within the midst of their greater population... This will require significant public diplomacy and strategic communications, ultimately casting the terrorists as being contrary to Islam, and many of us just don't believe that we're going to get them to do that so long as we refer to it as jihad, which (as you note) has a specified role and is viewed not just as legitimate but necessary within Islam. But the Muslim rejection of the terrorists as irhab is essential to that victory.
There's no reason to let the terrorists lay claim to something that the population they purport to speak to would not (and should not) recognize as legitimate. It would be like if we had let the Communists in, say, Eastern Europe lay claim to being popularly supported and the representatives of the people... when, in fact, they merely masked their totalitarian objectives in popular rhetoric.
--Bobby
Thanks, Bobby...
Excellent points, of course. I will endeavor to use that word from now on. Pity the government can't do a better job of getting the word out about something like that.