Our So-Called Foreign Policy: A Hard Lesson in Gratitude for Obama and Feinstein

Tags

"Torture Report", Alexander Hamilton, CIA, enhanced interrogation, Feinstein, Founding Fathers, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, soft power, torture

According to President Obama (and many others), releasing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s “torture report” will strengthen U.S. national security – by restoring the moral authority that’s a major American asset on the world stage.

The claim seems pretty dotty to me. Of course, all else equal, it’s better that the United States win rather than lose global popularity contests. More specifically, there’s no doubt that what academics now call “soft power” – which involves the persuasive appeal of a country’s economic, social, and value systems – can help U.S. leaders and diplomats influence foreign governments in constructive ways.

Ultimately, however, America’s security and prosperity depend on its hard power – the material wealth and power it can bring to bear on international challenges and opportunities. Moreover, it’s doubtful at best that torture, or enhanced interrogation, or whatever you want to call the CIA practices, have had major effects on the nation’s international standing.

After all, foreign critics have attacked any number of other aspects of U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy. What evidence tells us that torture’s impact as been so exceptional? And does anyone know of anyone thinking of emigrating to the United States, legally or illegally, changing their plans because of torture revelations? Moreover, there’s still the question, which I discussed yesterday, of whether any of these potential, theoretical benefits outweigh the risk created for American government officials, soldiers, and operatives overseas.

But the President and others who favor the report’s release face an even bigger problem. Let’s suppose that they’re right about the diplomatic importance of the nation’s moral authority. Initial reactions, at least, provide little indication that airing this dirty linen is enhancing it – either with foreign governments or with publics overseas.  (Links for the  quotes below are at the end of this post.)  

Germany – which has its own experiences with historical guilt – through its foreign eminister, sounded pleased that “President Obama clearly breaks with the politics of his predecessor. We welcome this new transparency to admit mistakes.” In a separate statement, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government added “Only in this way can we gain credibility for our actions in this fight.”

According to a European Union spokesperson, publishing the study was a “positive step” that convinced the 28-country group of “President Obama’s commitment to use his authority to ensure that these methods are never used again.” More explicitly, Poland’s president predicted that the report’s release would help restore strained trans-Atlantic relations.

But this is where the favorable reactions seem to have ended. America’s closest ally is widely thought to be the United Kingdom, but Prime Minister David Cameron said nothing about the release’s effect on bilateral ties or U.S. Diplomatic effectiveness. France was similarly circumspect.

As for others, China, Russia, and North Korea predictably used the release to make hypocritical propaganda points. UN “Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights” Ben Emmerson urged the prosecution of those responsible for the CIA program. Among those who should be charged with criminal violations of international law, Emmerson suggested, were officials “at a high level within the US government.” This call was echoed by the Financial Times, even though the paper allowed that “It is to America’s credit that it is able to declare its mistakes for the world to see.”

You can look over these and other responses here You’ll see expressions of outrage and cynical resignation, you’ll note reticence from some surprising sources (like France’s Le Monde). But what you won’t see are signs that the torture report’s release is even causing an fundamental reassessments of opinions about the United States, either positive or negative.

Interestingly, some confusion on this point is evident on the part of Dianne Feinstein, the retiring California Democratic Senator who chairs the intelligence panel. In her statement accompanying the report’s release, she argued that “There are those who will seize upon the report and say “see what Americans did,” and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or to incite more violence. We cannot prevent that.” But she also called the release “an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are in fact a just and lawful society.”  

America’s founders, chiefly Alexander Hamilton, recognized that other powers’ foreign policies are rarely motivated by gratitude, as opposed to hard calculations of interest. That’s a lesson that President Obama, Senator Feinstein, and too many others in the U.S. leadership and chattering classes urgently need to learn.      

The foreign government and press statements cited above can be found here, here, here, and here.  

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Initial Thoughts on the “Torture Report”

Tags

"Torture Report", 9-11, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, CIA, Dianne Feinstein, George W. Bush, Iraq, ISIS, Leon Panetta, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Saddam Hussein, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Syria, Taliban, terrorism, torture

I admit it: My views on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Democratic staff’s new “torture report” are biased by my views on the Iraq War and the use of so-called harsh interrogation techniques themselves (whether they fall under some legal definition of torture or not). I was and still am in favor of the former and support the latter. I’m hoping that others who analyze and comment on it will be just as honest.

I can’t yet comment on any of the details or substance of the report, since I have not read either the Majority publication or the Republican staff response. (Hats off to you if you have already.) But I do feel able to write usefully about Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein’s decision to release itself, although admittedly the procedures and the content are not entirely separate issues. And I consider it to be a huge mistake.

The two preceding paragraphs may surprise many who know me either personally or through my writings. Re the former, yes, indeed, I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War, and strongly supported the media’s publication of the Pentagon Papers and Congress’ exposure of CIA wrongdoing during the Cold War. Re the latter, I remain strongly opposed to most of America’s post-Cold War interventions abroad, including attacking Syria to punish its use of chemical weapons.

But I oppose publication of the new Senate report, and have supported the Iraq War and the torturing (from this point I’ll use this term for convenience’s sake, not as a moral or legal judgment) of prisoners in the war on terrorism for a reason that’s straightforward analytically: I never viewed preserving the western orientation of Vietnam or most of the other developing countries that became Cold War battlegrounds to have been vital interests of the United States, or even close. Because it never mattered who controlled Cuba or Vietnam or Guatemala or other poor and weak countries lacking important resources or any other assets, CIA assassination attempts and other misdeeds that supported broader such Cold War policies were in my view completely unnecessary.

By contrast, I consider the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of Al Qaeda to have been decidedly vital interests. You can read my Iraq views here. Regarding the anti-terror campaign, it involves preventing another 9-11 – a threat that’s also raised by the prospect of ISIS consolidating control over large chunks of Iraq and Syria, and turning this territory into the kind of terrorist haven that the Taliban offered Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. If keeping the American homeland safe from attack isn’t a vital interest, I don’t know what is.

So it shouldn’t be too surprising that I support extreme means of achieving this goal, including those used by the CIA to extract information from “detainees.” Would I back even harsher techniques? I still need to think this through – just as their opponents need to think through whether they would forego water-boarding etc to save American lives (or, more pointedly, to save the life of one of their own loved ones).

The empirical evidence would certainly and properly bear on my final judgment. A least according to President Obama’s former CIA director, Leon Panetta, no one’s idea of a Republican or neocon whacko, it’s far more supportive of torture than the Majority report apparently contends.

I’d also be influenced by the unavoidable reality that war inevitably entails agonizing moral dilemmas, tragic misjudgments, and the deaths of innocents. And don’t forget the frequent need to make life-and-death decisions in real time, without remotely perfect knowledge. (Can you imagine the pressure decision-makers felt in those early hours, days, and weeks following 9-11?) The outrage so strongly expressed by torture opponents indicates an equally strong determination to define these complications out of existence.

Lastly, on the matter of substance, I would need to know whether torture had been authorized by both the President and Congress. No representative system of government is worthy of the name unless elected authorities determine overarching policy and guidelines in an area like national security. In immediate post-crisis circumstances, as with 9-11, the executive branch needs to take the lead. But the legislature must be brought in before too long. Of course, in this case whether the CIA ignored or breached guidelines laid down by U.S. leaders is still being hotly debated.

Which brings us to the procedural question presented by the release, and here I don’t see much room for reasonable debate. Whether you agree with it or not, the United States is indisputably engaged in a global campaign against terrorism that’s been prosecuted vigorously now by two American presidents (including Mr. Obama). As a result, it’s been ratified by repeated presidential elections. This conflict is highly unconventional conflict, it’s waged against genuinely shadowy opponents, and American forces are serving in any manner of dangerous positions on many kinds of front lines.

As a result, the prospect that the report’s release at this time could expose them to further risk – as acknowledged by the Obama administration – makes Senator Feinstein’s green light completely unacceptable. When those dangers are past, America can air linen that was dirtied years ago, not smack in the middle of what is very much a shooting war.