First, from the Brooding Persian, whose reaction is triggered directly by Krauthammer. (For a bit of historical perspective on Krauthammer's most recent philosophical ponderings, be sure to follow the first link below to some of Krauthammer's earlier musings.)
I should write this when I am less agitated and more cogent. Although I must confess to finding myself lately yearning for those old-time Western movies: “If you want to shoot, shoot….just don’t talk so much.”
I mean, the whole scam, I often suspect, is intended merely as justifications for (self-validating) assumptions and/or further excuses for not having to listen.
Really, when we reacted strongly to the barbarism of naked, tortured bodies, it was simply because we had women or mother issues and problems with sex and sexuality. If it was the humiliation we objected to, the pro-pain pundits thought it was pride and demanded more humiliation please!
Write or speak honestly, it is a jeremiad. Speak softly, it is whine. Be nuanced, it is pacifism. Question them, it is unpatriotic. Remind them of their history, it is anti-Americanism. Stay, they want to bring the war to you. Go, and you’re the enemy within. Mingle and have a dialogue, its dissimulation. Not mingle, it is ghetto mentality. Have a religion, it is fascism, and not have one, it is secular humanism.
These folks are not going to relent until they get the precise decibel of the QUACK they aim to hear. Or is it a dance they want to see?
And then we have The Lounsbury, who has returned from MENA to the US to recuperate from a nasty illness, leaving him an inordinate amount of free time to sample the pleasures of today's American news media. He zeros in on the same argument I made previously regarding the moves to weaken habeas corpus -- the enormous long-term strategic costs to the US in the loss of "soft power" relative to the hypothetical short-term benefits, in the habeas cases, of avoiding a spot of bother. Despite being seriously under the weather, the Lounsbury remains his cheeky self.
I have followed with some bemusement the 'debates' over torture in the US media.
I have to say, they are fairly grotesque on some level.
[...]
I find it astonishing that so few US commentators understand the profound damage this entire process is doing to the US image and standing. These are not mere trifles, look to the cold hard world of finance, we still care about reputational risk, even if it is more about appearance than fact. Lose your reputation, and your transaction costs skyrocket, to say the least.
The US is losing its brand power, as it were, in the area of government. American society is largely attractive to many, the American story and its socio-economic dynamism (however exaggerated and mythologised, still relatively better than most of the world, including the developed world). However, this brand is being pissed away by bumbling fools who do not understand its importance, and think gross, short termism is strategy.
It is, in short, grotesquely stupid. As Talleyrand (a real favourite of mine, although it was likely Boulay de la Meurthe's phrase) is said to have said, "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder."
However, it is typical of the childish, indeed often Hollywoodish manner in which the Beit Ibn Bush has conducted its affaires.
Regardless, what I found most, well, depressing I suppose, was the plebian ignoramus definitions of "US interests" as if one does not have to continually do business globally. Pure idiot insularity. Now it is well taken one can not let bleeding heart little idjit Leftist protestors who manage to be offended by anything at all dictate one's actions. However, at the same time it is rather trivially obvious that alienating, above all needlessly, large swaths of international opinion not so idiotically and knee-jerkingly opposed to American interests is counter productive.
However, the arguments being bandied about on these "news" programs struck me as rather Bolsheviki in their bizarrely ideoglurghish party line content.
In some sad ways they are perfect illustration of why I have taken to calling a good swath of the American Right, Right Bolsheviks.
Together our two friends point to why these "debates" over treatment of detainees are so immensely frustrating. The deniers/defenders of torture aren't engaged in a debate. They are repeating articles of faith based on assumptions about the way the world works, and about certain groups of people, that are simply impervious to evidence -- evidence that the US is headed down a path that's not just immoral, or a betrayal of the foundational principles of our society, or ineffective, but evidence that it's self-defeating and self-destructive.
We have leaders who are so terrified of losing a skirmish to some shapeless but vast enemy that they fail to see they're giving the game away. And as evidence continues to mount that directly contradicts or undermines the faith of their defenders, the denials get more incredible and the defense simply gets more frantic or, in Krauthammer's case, dismissive. If you think I'm overstating the hysteria from the ranks of torture deniers/defenders, please check out this remarkable example from Andrew Sullivan of, to put it kindly, a clinical case of complete cognitive dissonance.
We in the US have got sucked into this Alice-in-wonderland (or Orwellian, if you prefer) nightmare that passes for "discourse" in our media. Most of the rest of the world, which doesn't find the authority of the office of the President of the United States quite so magical or charismatic, just thinks Americans have gone bonkers!
Addendum: From an anonymous commenter on Lounsbury's post, why soft power matters tactically as well as strategically:
For every person you're able to extract any useful information from by torture, there are a thousand -- or a million -- who would freely give information if America made even a pretense of living up to its ideals. The true power of America is not that it can break people's legs -- any petty dictator can do that. The true power of America is that it represents something people want to cooperate with. By refusing to torture people under any circumstances, you take one small step toward staking out an absolute moral position. The statement "America will never torture people because it's wrong." means America stands for something. America will only be trusted when it will refuse to do some things that are wrong even if they are expedient.
The bottom line here, in case you missed it, Mr. President, is that torturing people will actually lose the U.S. far more vital intelligence than it gains. If you won't stop torturing people because it's wrong, stop torturing people because it's bad policy.
[cross-posted at American Footprints]
The first afoe European weblog awards