StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Obama bows to... reality

Submitted by Simon on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 1:01pm

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.

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 4 guests online.