Democracy / Torture: Torture / Democracy
Rowan Wolf Uncommon Thought Journal
This work is under a "fair use" Creative Commons License
All other lies for war having failed, the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people and bring them "democracy." Meanwhile at home, the "democracy" has been trampled by forces utilizing secrecy and power one hand, and trashing the Constitution on the other. Mariali has captured this adroitly. The image could be equally true for Iraq or the US.
La Démocratie est en marche en
Irak, 9 mai 2004
Democracy is on the move in Iraq, May 9, 2004
The Bush administration "balance" between democracy and "security" come through clearly in Seymour Herch's latest article Chain of Command (5/10/04, New Yorker).
Amazing as it may seem, the reports of detainee abuse did not go through the usual chains of command within the Pentagon. They did however, go to Myers and Rumsfeld. The attempt was to keep things quiet. As Hersh notes in his article:
"In interviews, however, retired and active-duty officers and Pentagon officials said that the system had not worked. Knowledge of the nature of the abuses—and especially the politically toxic photographs—had been severely, and unusually, restricted. “Everybody I’ve talked to said, ‘We just didn’t know’—not even in the J.C.S.,” one well-informed former intelligence official told me, emphasizing that he was referring to senior officials with whom such allegations would normally be shared. “I haven’t talked to anybody on the inside who knew—nowhere. It’s got them scratching their heads.” A senior Pentagon official said that many of the senior generals in the Army were similarly out of the loop on the Abu Ghraib allegations."
Out of the loop. I have heard that before and recently. Didn't Cheney claim that Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" on terrorism information? The top counter-terrorist official in the Whitehouse was "out of the loop?" It brought back to mind a piece I did last August called Mechanisms of Control. In it I discussed the use of cliques of appointees across information as the sole channels of planning and communication. Thereby, keeping anyone not in the "clique" (or "loop" as Cheney called it) totally in the dark. So, it seems likely to me that Rumsfeld's handling of the abuse and torture in Iraq was Bush clique standard operating procedures.
But the keeping of critical information within the group, doesn't go to the issue of why it happeneded. If Herch's article is accurate (and I believe it is) then the "tone" of the approach to dealing with detainiees also came from the top (emphases are mine):
"No amount of apologetic testimony or political spin last week could mask the fact that, since the attacks of September 11th, President Bush and his top aides have seen themselves as engaged in a war against terrorism in which the old rules did not apply. In the privacy of his office, Rumsfeld chafed over what he saw as the reluctance of senior Pentagon generals and admirals to act aggressively. By mid-2002, he and his senior aides were exchanging secret memorandums on modifying the culture of the military leaders and finding ways to encourage them “to take greater risks.” One memo spoke derisively of the generals in the Pentagon, and said, “Our prerequisite of perfection for ‘actionable intelligence’ has paralyzed us. We must accept that we may have to take action before every question can be answered.” The Defense Secretary was told that he should “break the ‘belt-and-suspenders’ mindset within today’s military . . . we ‘over-plan’ for every contingency. . . . We must be willing to accept the risks.” With operations involving the death of foreign enemies, the memo went on, the planning should not be carried out in the Pentagon: “The result will be decision by committee.”"
Rumsfeld (and most of the rest of Bush's staff) don't like the rules. They don't like the rules of transparency, or accountability, or protocol, or international law (like human rights and the Geneva Convention). The don't like the rigors of checks and balances, or even of drawing on the deep experience of others outside their "loop." The approach is make our plans, keep it inside, and issue the edicts. This is counter to any type of democratic process, and deadly to democracy. It is also lethal as a policy as we see in Iraq.
With the disdain for democracy in the US, can we really expect that constrained description of reflect democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else the boots of the dictators wish to tromp (Haiti for instance)? The Administration's disdain for operating inside the rules, or in a transparent framework combine with a "take what you want and damn the rules" mentality. This was obviously communicated "down the line" and resulted in massive abuse and torture of civilians in Iraq and elsewhere.