[Allan from Fallbrook]

pablo: I definitely agree with the sentiment that our following certain rules of conduct won’t affect the way al Qaeda treats US or Western POWs one iota. I doubt very much that our admittedly abhorrent behavior at Abu Ghraib was the motive factor behind Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

That being said, I would also say from personal experience that allowing American soldiers to freely use torture and questionable interrogation techniques degrades not only the soldiers involved, but the entire military. Having participated in interrogations, I will tell you that you gain more valuable intel with a pot of coffee and a couple of packs of cigarettes than you ever gain with torture. Are there hard cases out there that won’t give up information no matter what? Yup. And that is where it gets tricky. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent article regarding the approved use of torture in a situation (“the ticking bomb” scenario) where a detainee had information regarding a bomb that would kill thousands of Americans and the only way to get this information is through torture. Hard to argue that one away, but it does put you on the slippery slope.

As of late we’ve seen some pretty deplorable practices used by American personnel to gain information. We pay lip service to “we don’t torture”, but we all know about rendition. I do think it demeans us in the eyes of the world, and rightfully so. However, there will always be certain circumstances where it proves necessary. I’m not smart enough to pretend to know where that line is.

I realize this is more of a non-answer than an answer, but, as a former soldier, it is wrenching to watch we’ve become, what with places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I know we are fighting a determined opponent that does not play by the rules, but I also know the dangers when you start trading civil liberties for “security”. The current climate of “you are either with us, or against us” reeks of a nascent fascism and our inability as a nation to remember the importance of those freedoms we are losing is alarming, to say the least.

I think we close Gitmo. I think we stop renditions. I think we allow soldiers in the field to make decisions regarding interrogations, but give them clear guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable. As careworn and clunky as the Geneva Conventions are, they’re better than no alternative at all.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

pablo: I definitely agree with the sentiment that our following certain rules of conduct won’t affect the way al Qaeda treats US or Western POWs one iota. I doubt very much that our admittedly abhorrent behavior at Abu Ghraib was the motive factor behind Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

That being said, I would also say from personal experience that allowing American soldiers to freely use torture and questionable interrogation techniques degrades not only the soldiers involved, but the entire military. Having participated in interrogations, I will tell you that you gain more valuable intel with a pot of coffee and a couple of packs of cigarettes than you ever gain with torture. Are there hard cases out there that won’t give up information no matter what? Yup. And that is where it gets tricky. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent article regarding the approved use of torture in a situation (“the ticking bomb” scenario) where a detainee had information regarding a bomb that would kill thousands of Americans and the only way to get this information is through torture. Hard to argue that one away, but it does put you on the slippery slope.

As of late we’ve seen some pretty deplorable practices used by American personnel to gain information. We pay lip service to “we don’t torture”, but we all know about rendition. I do think it demeans us in the eyes of the world, and rightfully so. However, there will always be certain circumstances where it proves necessary. I’m not smart enough to pretend to know where that line is.

I realize this is more of a non-answer than an answer, but, as a former soldier, it is wrenching to watch we’ve become, what with places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I know we are fighting a determined opponent that does not play by the rules, but I also know the dangers when you start trading civil liberties for “security”. The current climate of “you are either with us, or against us” reeks of a nascent fascism and our inability as a nation to remember the importance of those freedoms we are losing is alarming, to say the least.

I think we close Gitmo. I think we stop renditions. I think we allow soldiers in the field to make decisions regarding interrogations, but give them clear guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable. As careworn and clunky as the Geneva Conventions are, they’re better than no alternative at all.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

pablo: I definitely agree with the sentiment that our following certain rules of conduct won’t affect the way al Qaeda treats US or Western POWs one iota. I doubt very much that our admittedly abhorrent behavior at Abu Ghraib was the motive factor behind Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

That being said, I would also say from personal experience that allowing American soldiers to freely use torture and questionable interrogation techniques degrades not only the soldiers involved, but the entire military. Having participated in interrogations, I will tell you that you gain more valuable intel with a pot of coffee and a couple of packs of cigarettes than you ever gain with torture. Are there hard cases out there that won’t give up information no matter what? Yup. And that is where it gets tricky. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent article regarding the approved use of torture in a situation (“the ticking bomb” scenario) where a detainee had information regarding a bomb that would kill thousands of Americans and the only way to get this information is through torture. Hard to argue that one away, but it does put you on the slippery slope.

As of late we’ve seen some pretty deplorable practices used by American personnel to gain information. We pay lip service to “we don’t torture”, but we all know about rendition. I do think it demeans us in the eyes of the world, and rightfully so. However, there will always be certain circumstances where it proves necessary. I’m not smart enough to pretend to know where that line is.

I realize this is more of a non-answer than an answer, but, as a former soldier, it is wrenching to watch we’ve become, what with places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I know we are fighting a determined opponent that does not play by the rules, but I also know the dangers when you start trading civil liberties for “security”. The current climate of “you are either with us, or against us” reeks of a nascent fascism and our inability as a nation to remember the importance of those freedoms we are losing is alarming, to say the least.

I think we close Gitmo. I think we stop renditions. I think we allow soldiers in the field to make decisions regarding interrogations, but give them clear guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable. As careworn and clunky as the Geneva Conventions are, they’re better than no alternative at all.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

pablo: I definitely agree with the sentiment that our following certain rules of conduct won’t affect the way al Qaeda treats US or Western POWs one iota. I doubt very much that our admittedly abhorrent behavior at Abu Ghraib was the motive factor behind Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

That being said, I would also say from personal experience that allowing American soldiers to freely use torture and questionable interrogation techniques degrades not only the soldiers involved, but the entire military. Having participated in interrogations, I will tell you that you gain more valuable intel with a pot of coffee and a couple of packs of cigarettes than you ever gain with torture. Are there hard cases out there that won’t give up information no matter what? Yup. And that is where it gets tricky. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent article regarding the approved use of torture in a situation (“the ticking bomb” scenario) where a detainee had information regarding a bomb that would kill thousands of Americans and the only way to get this information is through torture. Hard to argue that one away, but it does put you on the slippery slope.

As of late we’ve seen some pretty deplorable practices used by American personnel to gain information. We pay lip service to “we don’t torture”, but we all know about rendition. I do think it demeans us in the eyes of the world, and rightfully so. However, there will always be certain circumstances where it proves necessary. I’m not smart enough to pretend to know where that line is.

I realize this is more of a non-answer than an answer, but, as a former soldier, it is wrenching to watch we’ve become, what with places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I know we are fighting a determined opponent that does not play by the rules, but I also know the dangers when you start trading civil liberties for “security”. The current climate of “you are either with us, or against us” reeks of a nascent fascism and our inability as a nation to remember the importance of those freedoms we are losing is alarming, to say the least.

I think we close Gitmo. I think we stop renditions. I think we allow soldiers in the field to make decisions regarding interrogations, but give them clear guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable. As careworn and clunky as the Geneva Conventions are, they’re better than no alternative at all.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: The US has always been very adept at “selling” wars to the people.

Was it Randolph Hearst who said: “Give me the pictures, and I’ll give you the war”? That was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the American Century kicked off shortly thereafter.

You mention Tillman and Lynch, I would offer Colin Kelly during the beginning stages of WWII. He was a bomber pilot, and called the “first hero of WWII” for his bravery. The problem was that the events surrounding the story were either outright fabricated or grossly inflated. The US needed heroes, though, so out the story went.

China worries me, too. Beyond the items you cited are: Endemic AIDS in certain parts of the country, a large cadre of former People’s Army soldiers who are fed up with the government, discontent at the widening disparity between wealthy and poor, along with huge environmental issues as a result of their rapid industrialization. Combine that with a virulent and xenophobic nationalism, and it starts to get interesting.

I would think the Beijing Olympic Games will be a showcase for China in both senses of the word.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: The US has always been very adept at “selling” wars to the people.

Was it Randolph Hearst who said: “Give me the pictures, and I’ll give you the war”? That was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the American Century kicked off shortly thereafter.

You mention Tillman and Lynch, I would offer Colin Kelly during the beginning stages of WWII. He was a bomber pilot, and called the “first hero of WWII” for his bravery. The problem was that the events surrounding the story were either outright fabricated or grossly inflated. The US needed heroes, though, so out the story went.

China worries me, too. Beyond the items you cited are: Endemic AIDS in certain parts of the country, a large cadre of former People’s Army soldiers who are fed up with the government, discontent at the widening disparity between wealthy and poor, along with huge environmental issues as a result of their rapid industrialization. Combine that with a virulent and xenophobic nationalism, and it starts to get interesting.

I would think the Beijing Olympic Games will be a showcase for China in both senses of the word.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: The US has always been very adept at “selling” wars to the people.

Was it Randolph Hearst who said: “Give me the pictures, and I’ll give you the war”? That was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the American Century kicked off shortly thereafter.

You mention Tillman and Lynch, I would offer Colin Kelly during the beginning stages of WWII. He was a bomber pilot, and called the “first hero of WWII” for his bravery. The problem was that the events surrounding the story were either outright fabricated or grossly inflated. The US needed heroes, though, so out the story went.

China worries me, too. Beyond the items you cited are: Endemic AIDS in certain parts of the country, a large cadre of former People’s Army soldiers who are fed up with the government, discontent at the widening disparity between wealthy and poor, along with huge environmental issues as a result of their rapid industrialization. Combine that with a virulent and xenophobic nationalism, and it starts to get interesting.

I would think the Beijing Olympic Games will be a showcase for China in both senses of the word.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: The US has always been very adept at “selling” wars to the people.

Was it Randolph Hearst who said: “Give me the pictures, and I’ll give you the war”? That was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the American Century kicked off shortly thereafter.

You mention Tillman and Lynch, I would offer Colin Kelly during the beginning stages of WWII. He was a bomber pilot, and called the “first hero of WWII” for his bravery. The problem was that the events surrounding the story were either outright fabricated or grossly inflated. The US needed heroes, though, so out the story went.

China worries me, too. Beyond the items you cited are: Endemic AIDS in certain parts of the country, a large cadre of former People’s Army soldiers who are fed up with the government, discontent at the widening disparity between wealthy and poor, along with huge environmental issues as a result of their rapid industrialization. Combine that with a virulent and xenophobic nationalism, and it starts to get interesting.

I would think the Beijing Olympic Games will be a showcase for China in both senses of the word.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: The US has always been very adept at “selling” wars to the people.

Was it Randolph Hearst who said: “Give me the pictures, and I’ll give you the war”? That was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the American Century kicked off shortly thereafter.

You mention Tillman and Lynch, I would offer Colin Kelly during the beginning stages of WWII. He was a bomber pilot, and called the “first hero of WWII” for his bravery. The problem was that the events surrounding the story were either outright fabricated or grossly inflated. The US needed heroes, though, so out the story went.

China worries me, too. Beyond the items you cited are: Endemic AIDS in certain parts of the country, a large cadre of former People’s Army soldiers who are fed up with the government, discontent at the widening disparity between wealthy and poor, along with huge environmental issues as a result of their rapid industrialization. Combine that with a virulent and xenophobic nationalism, and it starts to get interesting.

I would think the Beijing Olympic Games will be a showcase for China in both senses of the word.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think Bush is attempting a stepdown from his earlier, and overly bellicose, position.

As much of a nutjob as Kim Jong-il is, I also think he’s crazy like a fox, especially when it comes to playing China and Japan off against each other, and frustrating the crap out of the US.

I think this is best left to South Korea and North Korea to work out, with the support of Japan, China and the US. South Korea could, over time, afford North Korea the opportunity for rapprochement and an eventual unified Korea. China can keep North Korea in line, as can the threat of US action.

I still say the best way to play this is to be Kim Jong-il a liquor store in LA. He likes Jack Daniels, porn and hard cash, so there you go.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think Bush is attempting a stepdown from his earlier, and overly bellicose, position.

As much of a nutjob as Kim Jong-il is, I also think he’s crazy like a fox, especially when it comes to playing China and Japan off against each other, and frustrating the crap out of the US.

I think this is best left to South Korea and North Korea to work out, with the support of Japan, China and the US. South Korea could, over time, afford North Korea the opportunity for rapprochement and an eventual unified Korea. China can keep North Korea in line, as can the threat of US action.

I still say the best way to play this is to be Kim Jong-il a liquor store in LA. He likes Jack Daniels, porn and hard cash, so there you go.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think Bush is attempting a stepdown from his earlier, and overly bellicose, position.

As much of a nutjob as Kim Jong-il is, I also think he’s crazy like a fox, especially when it comes to playing China and Japan off against each other, and frustrating the crap out of the US.

I think this is best left to South Korea and North Korea to work out, with the support of Japan, China and the US. South Korea could, over time, afford North Korea the opportunity for rapprochement and an eventual unified Korea. China can keep North Korea in line, as can the threat of US action.

I still say the best way to play this is to be Kim Jong-il a liquor store in LA. He likes Jack Daniels, porn and hard cash, so there you go.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think Bush is attempting a stepdown from his earlier, and overly bellicose, position.

As much of a nutjob as Kim Jong-il is, I also think he’s crazy like a fox, especially when it comes to playing China and Japan off against each other, and frustrating the crap out of the US.

I think this is best left to South Korea and North Korea to work out, with the support of Japan, China and the US. South Korea could, over time, afford North Korea the opportunity for rapprochement and an eventual unified Korea. China can keep North Korea in line, as can the threat of US action.

I still say the best way to play this is to be Kim Jong-il a liquor store in LA. He likes Jack Daniels, porn and hard cash, so there you go.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think Bush is attempting a stepdown from his earlier, and overly bellicose, position.

As much of a nutjob as Kim Jong-il is, I also think he’s crazy like a fox, especially when it comes to playing China and Japan off against each other, and frustrating the crap out of the US.

I think this is best left to South Korea and North Korea to work out, with the support of Japan, China and the US. South Korea could, over time, afford North Korea the opportunity for rapprochement and an eventual unified Korea. China can keep North Korea in line, as can the threat of US action.

I still say the best way to play this is to be Kim Jong-il a liquor store in LA. He likes Jack Daniels, porn and hard cash, so there you go.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.

History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.

My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.

No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.

I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…

[Author]

Posts