Obama Reversal on Torture Photos:
Is He Afraid they would Destabilize Iraq?
President Obama has reversed himself on his earlier determination not to oppose a ruling by a Federal judge that remaining photos of the torture and abuse of prisoners by the US military in Iraq. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of US troops in Iraq, appears to have made the decisive intervention with Obama on this issue.
I share Joan Walsh's dismay at this reversal.
I'm trying to think what is behind it from Obama's point of view, and I have a hypothesis. You could imagine a conversation going this way between Odierno and Obama (am rubbing my chin and that hokey wavy dream special effect is coming up on the screen):
' Odierno: Sir, with all due respect, the release of these photos will endanger US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You must oppose the judge's ruling.
Obama: I've already made my decision on that issue.
Odierno: I thought you wanted a clean withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
Obama: Yes. And . . ?
Odierno: If we get a new wave of JAM and al-Qaeda attacks coming off outrage at those photos, Iraq could become unstable enough to delay the withdrawal timetable.
Obama: You're saying you might not be able to get out of the cities by July 1 of this year, or might not be able to get combat troops out by September 1 of next, if these photos are released?
Odierno: It is a real possibility.
Obama: I want our combat troops out of Iraq on the current timetable.
Odierno: I'm not sure it is realistic, sir. It sure as hell isn't if those pictures rile the Iraqis up. '
If that is the way the conversation went, and this is pure speculation, it would make some sense of Obama's reversal. That is, he really doesn't want to do anything to send Iraq back into insurgency and tie down US troops there.
If this consideration did drive the reversal of position, I think it is unfortunate. The US is more likely to get past the mistakes it made 5 years ago if it comes clean and seeks reconciliation than if it goes on trying to cover up the past even though everyone knows what happened.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/14/2009 01:07:00 AM
|
Facebook
23 Comments:
Rumsfeld testified just before the release of the Abu Ghraib photos that he also saw pictures of murder and rape. Those were never released and the American propaganda machine never repeated Rumsfeld's statement.
It seems very reasonable then to conclude that the release would force the reopening of legal proceedings which Obama is against, despite being a lawyer. There would also be an uproar louder than Abu Ghraib 1.
I wonder whether this is a cancellation of the release or merely a postponement. I disagree with the first, but would reluctantly understand and accept the second.
Motives ultimately can't be determined, and they ultimately don't matter. Only actions matter, and the willingness to invent benign secret motives for reprehensible acts is the point at which analysis ends and worship begins.
We may console ourselves by looking to the other parts of Obama's agenda, the parts we like, but if we are willing to worship Obama unconditionally, what pressure is there on him to the right thing?
.
In Iraqi culture, respect is pretty important. Family honor, protecting the reputation of the extended family group (clan) and personal dignity are as central to understanding behavior there as making money is in the US.
In June 2006, a team put together a proposal for the US State Department, offering to convene a US Commission on Civilian Losses in Iraq. Their charter included setting up offices in more than a dozen cities across the country, and allowing Iraqis to come in and file reports of the human and property losses they had suffered since 2000, or even before, whether at the hands of Americans, the Iraqi government, terrorists, or unknown. The Commission offices would be staffed by Iraqis who would collect reports and enter them into a database.
The Commission was not going to conduct investigations, nor admit responsibility, nor pay reparations. Perhaps some other organization might look into those possible courses of action. The only purpose of this Commission was to acknowledge and write down the names of those killed or injured, and the description of property damaged or lost. The idea was to show respect for those harmed. Toward that end, it might have created the foundations for a national census and for a comprehensive database of real property records.
Once a month, three Commissioners would meet in Baghdad to review the work of the Commission. Several prominent Americans had been invited to serve, and a couple, including Andrew Bacevich, had tentatively agreed.
The entire effort was to be completed in a year, costing around $10 Million.
It wouldn’t have accomplished much. But it would have countered the declaration of the CENTCOM Commander who led the invasion in 2003 that “we don’t do body counts,” meaning that Iraqi bodies didn’t count as human losses.
The proposal went to Ambassador David M. Satterfield, the principal Advisor to Secretary Rice on Iraq. He rejected it as too indulgent of Iraqi concerns about how they suffered under our liberation, distracting attention from all the good that had been accomplished.
On 3 November 2006, an official wrote to me on State Department letterhead:
“The creation of a high-level commission, as described in your proposal, is an inherently governmental function which cannot be contracted out. … Accordingly, your proposal is deemed not meritorious.”
There was no discussion of the merits of the proposal, and there has been no effort by the Department to accomplish what the Commission was designed to do. As before, Iraqi losses still don’t register with the US government as human losses.
The Bush Administration was determined to deny the humanity of Iraqi victims. That has prolonged the war, and strengthened our opponents. That intention was manifested in the suppression of the Abu Ghraib photos. It was manifested in how the American General, accused of crimes against humanity for the way the Division under his command abused civilians in the early part of the war, was elevated to become the top 4-star General in Iraq.
President Obama owes me. While I didn’t vote for him, he promised all of us Change. In particular, he promised Change in International Relations. The USA would treat Iraqis and Afghanis and other people of color as human beings, if only he got elected. Implicit was the promise to replace Generals who don’t uphold the core values of this nation. Well, time to stand and deliver.
Instead, he suppresses these photos on the advice of the accused war criminal General. Mr. President, you are faced with the challenge of ethical leadership. Please quit dodging the challenge and man up. If you could fire General McKiernan for underperforming, surely you can fire General Odierno for the harm he has done to this country, our reputation, and our prospects for a good outcome in Iraq.
a student who expected better
.
"If this consideration did drive the reversal of position, I think it is unfortunate. The US is more likely to get past the mistakes it made 5 years ago if it comes clean and seeks reconciliation than if it goes on trying to cover up the past even though everyone knows what happened."This purpose could be achieved by making the photos available for viewing only, by appointment. This way, no agency could claim coverup, but neither would the photos go viral.
The way Obama is caving on everything from torture prosecutions to bailing out corporate pigs I imagine the conversation is more like as follows:
Unnamed Republican Heavyweight: Hello again President Obama. ot some more of those lovely photos of yu and that girl scout...
Obama: I thought you said you'd destroy all the copies after the last favor I did you!
URH: You know - if you look at it from THIS angle, she almost looks older than 15...
O: OK OK. I won't release the photos! What the hell else do you want from me?
URH: We'll let you know...
I can also imagine that despite being President, Obama is seeking to gain his generals' trust and respect -- and at least in the early days of his presidency is trying to accommodate their views. I agree that it is disappointing, and another reason I am disappointed is that it might indicate that he wasn't able to persuade his generals to see another point of view.
Other speculations: Obama's nominee to take over operations in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, previously commanded troops that have been accused of abusive treatment of detainees. I believe the accusation regards troops in Afghanistan and not Iraq, but nonetheless, the release of photos of abuse would still re-sensitize the public (and, most importantly under this speculation, the US Senate) to the issue of abuse in general, and so perhaps endanger General McChrystal's confirmation. To my mind, if this speculation contains any merit, that is a reason to doubt Obama's choice of McChrystal rather than to doubt the value of open and transparent governance.
The photos will leak out anyway--keeping the lid on these things permanently is impossible--and then the Administration will have to deal with the effects of the images plus the embarrassment of having tried, and failed, to keep them secret. As so often, it isn't the crime--which can be blamed on Bush-Cheney et al.--but the coverup, which will be in Obama's lap if he tries to maintain it.
The release of the photos could result in new investigations, an no one today would be satisfied with blaming this on "a few bad apples." The specialists and sergeants would turn on their superiors who would turn on their superiors, etc, and everything would quickly race right up to the vert highest levels. And that is the key, here. Those are the troops who would be put in danger - not of attacks by terrorists, but of prosecution.
Once a prosecution begins, it will go beyond the ability of the politicians to control. Once a prosecution begins, the whole house will crumble. Releasing these photos would almost certainly result in a new investigation, or an appeal from one of the previously convicted soldiers. And that can't be allowed to happen.
I think this decision shows that Obama has no intention of ever investigating these crimes.
The Administration may have managed to combine the worst of two alternatives: everybody knows the pictures exist, and if they are not disclosed, everybody can make up her own worst idea of how godawful they are -- and some, at least, of these ideas will be worse than the real thing.
But God knows best.
Happy days.
On the other hand, if the photos are released AND OBAMA publicly moves forward with torture prosecutions, the US will turn the corner on these war crimes.
Bury the photos doesn't make those crimes disappear. Instead, it helps to create two bad situations. The war crimes themselves, and the following perceived cover up.
Obama is making a big mistake here. Superficially Obama's reversal could look somewhat reasonable. But Iraqis pretty much know the kind and amount of torture meted out by their American protectors. That kind of stuff gets around. So the protection Obama refers to is more to protect the cozy comfort of the American public than for the safety of American troops (with the guns, tanks, body armor, airplanes, and concrete), on the chance that Iraqis might become even more incensed and do things even more aggressive than car bombs etc (oh, they already are doing that). Dishonesty and lack of forthcoming by Obama on this will be injurious long term. I can go online and see stacks of Polish, Jewish, and Gypsy bodies constructed by the Nazis. I can find photos of the stacks of skinless Japanese bodies arranged by not one, but two American nuclear weapons. Photographic archives of stacks and piles and onsies and twosies of dead bodies from around the world by many governments are not hard to find, and Obama is not suggesting that we stop looking at those historic photographs. The issue here is that the torture photos show Americans in a bad light, make them lose face, show them as dishonest, show them as less than what they purport themselves to be as the bringers of freedom, liberty, and security, show the American military and governmental systems as allowing, assisting, and ordering actions that any sane person would term evil, even as they pillory their enemies for the same acts, and show them, most particularly, as willing to go beyond merely killing someone, to the barbaric stage of keeping them alive so they can inflict more pain for the purposes of political gain. This is a criss-cross of ugly scars on the face of America. Ignoring it won't remove the scars. Reconstructive surgery will be painful and not rapid for Americans. But they will wear those scars until they put themselves to the surgeon's knife of public disclosure. I hoped for clarity from Obama. Hope is what he sold during the campaign. He is not delivering on some critically important issues, this being but one. When, if ever, will be the epiphany that sets his presidency apart?
Another hypothetical conversation, taking place in front of a unit of Sunni Fighters, who are currently not attacking US soldiers in Iraq:
Angry One: We need to start attacking the Americans again.
Moderate: No, we shouldn't, this guy Obama is not bad like Bush, give him a chance to remove US troops.
Crowd: Ya, give the new guy a chance.
Angry One: He's just the same, Bush claimed he didn't torture, but did. Now this new guy claims to not torture, but he is still covering up what happened, we can't trust him, he's lying too.
Crowd: We need to strike now!
Odierno : “I'm not sure it [orderly withdrawal of American military occupation forces] is realistic, sir... if those pictures rile the Iraqis up.” fwiw, I can think of a number of reasons why this would not be their rationale, Juan — not the least of which is the undercurrent of concern, implicit in this line of thinking that the General ~ or for that matter, anyone else at the general staff level ~ actually give a damn what happens to ‘IRAQ’. Indeed, the strategic key to an orderly withdrawal is quite clearly IRAN, which has, and will continue to ensure that singular, southern, land-based supply / troop route to Basra-Kuwait: so long as neither the Americans nor the Saudis/Arabians empower the Sunnis, quid pro quo. To be sure, in my humble opinion this "everlasting last image legacy" is all about US, and our real, shared shame: that robbery of any shred of Old Glory delusion, Over Here ~ not any allusion to some unreal military jeopardy, Over There.
O, yes, "mistakes". Like waging criminal wars (torture is but a part of it). And it is NOT a past, it is going on NOW. Obama is guilty no less than Bush, of course. Exactly because of it he does not want us to see all the evidence of the crimes.
RE Obama's prisoner abuse photo reversal
The well connected Tom Ricks at foreignpolicy.com is also reporting that Gen. Odierno provided primary pressure on the WH to delay the photos release.
Aside from the 'don't fan the violence' argument, a brew-up of Iraqi discontent over photos and prisoner abuse could impact a national referendum vote on the Withdrawal-SOFA early this Summer. But whatever drove the Team Obama reversal and delaying action, the ACLU-FOIA suit won up thru Appeals, and the Supreme Court may not agree to hear a 'new' legal tack, an argument of 'overiding national interest' that was deemed unproductive by Team Bush lawyers.
Gen. McChrystal's JSOC-manhunter history and pending confirmation to 4-star command of the growing Afghanistan war could also drive the timing on Obama's reversal. McChrystal's appointments have been blocked in Congress over prisoner abuse issues before. Delaying release of hard info on which units were documented in the ACLU-FOIA case might be critical to his current promotion.
But, following that line of reasoning, wouldn't the surest way to prevent such attacks be to prosecute the US torturers?
Conrad
Maybe Obama went along with Odierno because he knew the photos would eventually be released by the action of ACLU and the courts, and he would not be blamed.
"I'm trying to think what is behind it from Obama's point of view,"
Juan Cole you sweet naive man. What is happening is first someone from the Bush Admin (Cheney Rove ect) makes a pest out of themselves. Then to shut them up the Obama administration threatens to release something or other. First the torture memo, now the pictures. Once something is released it can never be used for extortion purposes again. Not to mention we are no where near the next election cycle.
"and I have a hypothesis." The only thing I can say is :)
I do not believe they ever intend to leave Iraq, and I do not believe they ever intend to bring the rapists and torturers and murderers to justice.
.
at 9:11 AM, Chris mistakenly suggested that Obama might be seeking to gain his generals' trust and respect.
The problem with that construction: Petraeus, Odierno, and several more of the other 100 or so top tier generals are actually George W. Bush's generals. They got their noses brown by ingratiating themselves to Bush. They are loyal to Bush before they are loyal to this country.
Just as Bush reached down into the lower (2-star) ranks to promote these political generals who worshiped him and swore allegiance to him, Obama can do likewise.
Better yet, he can promote generals who put the nation's interests ahead of their own political careers.
Just as Bush called Schoomacher out of retirement, Obama can summon Abizaid or Fallon back.
a student of political hijinx in the top ranks (Moseley, Myers, Ashy, etc.)
.
Juan, you can stop fronting for Obama any time you choose. You know he's not stupid. Obviously, if he publishes the pictures, he has to investigate and prosecute. Simple as that. Iraq has nothing to do with it. If he publishes the pictures and still refuses to 'look back' - well then, yeah, of course, Iraqis would go ballistic. But that's just simply not a possible choice. Publish and investigate/prosecute, or suppress and avoid 'looking back'. We already know what Obama plans to do there. He's made it clear over and over and over again that there will be no consequences whatsoever for torturers and other Bushevik criminals.
I wonder how people who have been tortured, people who have been falsely convicted, and others who will be in the future because Obama has refused to break the precedents that Bush established, I wonder how all those people feel about what a nice guy Obama is to torturers.
Post a Comment
<< Home