Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Occhidiangela]

Right. And when we're staring down the maw at the three-billion strong army ready to smash down civilization,

If you wait that long, you've already failed.

PS, you read it wrong. What you appear to accept is that weakness is a sufficient defense, due to your position of moral framework X being its own virtue, which when applied will imitigate its opposing ideologies.

Sorry, my "let me make this clear" didn't make it clear, and again, my recollection of the aftermath of 9-11 from you was you, personally, being very supportive of your neighbor to the sourh, and of "them dudes is wrong."

That doesn't change the problem of, time elapses and events play out as they do, the mistaken belief that only pure means/ends matching suffices.

Occhi

[Jester]

Sorry, my "let me make this clear" didn't make it clear, and again, my recollection of the aftermath of 9-11 from you was you, personally, being very supportive of your neighbor to the sourh, and of "them dudes is wrong."

I'm really not clear, so maybe you're right. Did that post get edited between when I wrote my reply and now? Or am I just staying up too late and drinking to much Guinness?

If your assertion is that I do not believe in or support 'the modern world', or believe in its 'wrongness', or would somehow prefer Islamist fanatics to blow it up or take it over or something, then all I can say is you've misread some pretty gigantic aspects of my personal beliefs. I can't imagine anything I believe less than that proposition. I love the modern world. I love science and technology and the freedom to do as I please. I would rather live now than at any other point in history, and in the free world over any of the various dictatorships, fundamentalisms or oligarchies of the middle east.

What on earth would make you think otherwise?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I'm really not clear, so maybe you're right. Did that post get edited between when I wrote my reply and now? Or am I just staying up too late and drinking to much Guinness?

If your assertion is that I do not believe in or support 'the modern world', or believe in its 'wrongness', or would somehow prefer Islamist fanatics to blow it up or take it over or something, then all I can say is you've misread some pretty gigantic aspects of my personal beliefs. I can't imagine anything I believe less than that proposition. I love the modern world. I love science and technology and the freedom to do as I please. I would rather live now than at any other point in history, and in the free world over any of the various dictatorships, fundamentalisms or oligarchies of the middle east.

What on earth would make you think otherwise?

-Jester

Let me try this another way, I was not at my most eloquent.

It is important first of all to win. The "modern world" is a mix of things, but if it doesn't win, then we move backward.

Once we win, it is well to look back and see what we could have done better, or less imperfectly. But you only have that luxury when you win.

In the meantime, you gotta make the winning omlette, which means ya gotta break a few eggs.

I disagree with the standard that you hold the leadership of the modern world to. No, Jester, the terrorists don't win if we kick a few of them around here and there in our pursuit of the win. That is an issue I suspect you and I may never see eye to eye on.

The demand of perfect morality in pursuit of the win gets in the way of the win. In hockey terms, I don't care if we now and again get a two minute minor, or an occasional high stick call.

The win is the key, it is the aim, it is the goal.

Occhi

[Jester]

It is important first of all to win. The "modern world" is a mix of things, but if it doesn't win, then we move backward.

Once we win, it is well to look back and see what we could have done better, or less imperfectly. But you only have that luxury when you win.

In the meantime, you gotta make the winning omlette, which means ya gotta break a few eggs.

Proportionality and realistic risk assessment are important. This is not the worst the modern world has faced. It's not even close. It's not even close to close. Bringing every dubious tactic to every fight is not only unnecessary, it is damaging to your reputation, which already teeters on the brink in many parts of the world. The fight against Islamist terrorism is a fight that could have been handled with well-organized international police and intelligence action. By "breaking eggs", the Islamic world has been further alienated, allies of the US have become tepid, and the big neutrals like Russia and China are clearly noticing that the US is becoming less and less popular. That's what treating every problem as if it were the end of the world gets you.

I disagree with the standard that you hold the leadership of the modern world to. No, Jester, the terrorists don't win if we kick a few of them around here and there in our pursuit of the win. That is an issue I suspect you and I may never see eye to eye on.

I believe it was actually Pete that took a line of argument similar to that one in this thread, that we must keep ourselves moral because otherwise we abandon our civilization, which is what makes us the right side. While I agree with him, my argument has been more pragmatic. Being willing to "break eggs" and "do the deed" and "get the win" might be fantastic macho posturing, but it doesn't seem to actually give particularly good results.

And no, we're almost certainly never going to see eye to eye about this, and compromise positions start to evaporate mighty fast when you start throwing around not-so-veiled implications that I am somehow anti-civilization, or sympathetic to Islamist terrorism, or something else (I never did quite get what you were accusing me of).

The demand of perfect morality in pursuit of the win gets in the way of the win. In hockey terms, I don't care if we now and again get a two minute minor, or an occasional high stick call.

I do. Much of the rest of the world certainly seems to. You can disregard those opinions as you please, but you can't pretend they have no consequences.

The win is the key, it is the aim, it is the goal.

There is such a thing as a Phyrric victory. We may very well be in the process of winning one.

-Jester

[Nastie_Bowie]

OK, let's try a different tack.

What is torture? Where do you draw the line?

Turning an enemy upside-down and forcing water up his nose? Putting a snarling german shephard 6 inches from his face? I don't feel this is torture. No damage, only psychological.

Burning digits off with a blow-torch is torture.

[--Pete]

Hi,

OK, let's try a different tack.

What is torture? Where do you draw the line?

Turning an enemy upside-down and forcing water up his nose? Putting a snarling german shephard 6 inches from his face? I don't feel this is torture. No damage, only psychological.

Burning digits off with a blow-torch is torture.

If you're going to participate in the discussion, you need to read as well as write. All you say in his post has been said, and said better, in previous posts in this thread. Support, attack, bring up something new. Reiteration is dull.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is important first of all to win. The "modern world" is a mix of things, but if it doesn't win, then we move backward.

I agree completely, we must win. But I wonder just what the victory conditions are? Do we attempt to subjugate the whole world and force them to our way? Do we even have the power and ability (much less the national toughness) to even attempt that? Do we attempt the Roman model expanding and, eventually, integrating?

How do we know we've won unless we know what we're trying to win and what the victory conditions are?

In the meantime, you gotta make the winning omlette, which means ya gotta break a few eggs.

At what point do you look at how things are going, realize that the omelets you've made so far are really just scrambled eggs, and try another tack?

The demand of perfect morality in pursuit of the win gets in the way of the win. In hockey terms, I don't care if we now and again get a two minute minor, or an occasional high stick call.

Nice analogy, but flawed, I think. Geopolitics is not a hockey game. In hockey, your teammates take a break in the penalty box. In geopolitics, your teammates first sit out, then join the opposition. You have to persuade them to rejoin your team. If you fail, if all you've got left is a goalie, it's too late, you've lost.

The win is the key, it is the aim, it is the goal.

Granted. But what is the condition for a win? If the goal of our enemies is to destroy our culture, and we beat them by destroying our culture, then Pogo is right and we've lost by winning.

We've become a very warlike nation, with our wars against poverty, against drugs, against crime, against terrorism. Hell of a shame is that we haven't bothered to define objectives in any of these wars that are objective, measurable, and pertinent.

So, what are our goals? Why do they matter? How do we achieve them? And how will we know if we do?

And, in all that, is the insignificant (and doubtful) tactical advantage of torture worth the strategic cost?

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Being willing to "break eggs" and "do the deed" and "get the win" might be fantastic macho posturing, but it doesn't seem to actually give particularly good results.

It is hardly macho posturing to play to win. Your attempt at a dismissive ad hom is reconized for what it is. As to results, the win is the prime result. Style in not unimportant, but its importance is secondary to the win. (This relates somewhat to "should the A bomb have been used in pursuit of the win" arguments, which was a matter of style. )

I do. Much of the rest of the world certainly seems to. You can disregard those opinions as you please,

And I tend to, since
1. all opinions are not equal, nor equally valid, and
2. Discussion about political issues are discussions about power, since politics (at the action level) is about power, and who wields it
3. Power is that is at stake here.

My nation is a Power. Capital P. Your nation is allied to Power, via NATO and other treaties, and as such is part of a Power bloc. The rising to status as a Power of China, and India, is changing the balance of power weekly, monthyl, and annually.

The Islamists want to be Powers, or a Power bloc, depends on who is doing the talking.

Whatever it takes to forestall that is in the interest of modern civilization, which you (and I) are a part of and advocate for ... but to you, based on your rhetoric, style is more important than substance in the struggle.

I'll go a step further, and suggest to you that a significant portion of the Islamic world is not Islamist, and are also interested in Islamists not becoming Powers, since there is a yearning to participate in the modern world -- I'll wager the current government in Pakistsan and many of its people feel that way.

There is such a thing as a Phyrric victory. We may very well be in the process of winning one.

I'll take the win, even if it's winning ugly. The alternative is uglier than what you are griping about, in terms of means.

Back to the topic at hand: should the Bush administration gone as far as they did in establishing a new MO, openly supported from the top how we go about battling the new warrior class that does not owe allegiance to a nation, but to a cause whose ends are used to justify means you and I agree are unpacceptable? I am certain we both agree that walking into a Baghdad market with a bomb under your burka or coat, and blowing up yourself and a few dozen others, is something neither of us considers good in any way, shape, or form.

Was the risk of political damage, in the world of images and symbols, worth taking?

Don't know.

Was any attack forestalled with those methods as key factors?

Don't know. Based on what I have read over the past five years, and in the past three weeks as more of the veila has been removed, there is sharp disagreement among the people actually involved.

We may never know. The insiders have argued both sides: both from the interrogator level and from the policy level. This judgment runs into the same problem with measuring the effectiveness of a safety program: how do you measure non-events? How do you attribute causal relationship between a non-event and a predicted event? You can sometimes show correlation, and that may be as far as you can go. (For example, most driving accidents are not drunk driving accidents.) How do you know how many accidents you avoid, in aviation, when you change a rule or policy? I've seen a lot of careless analysis that attributes to cause a policy, when said policy isn't the driving factor. One then has to try again when the accidents spike, a few more die, and back goes the policy formation, accounting for more factors. Attempting to isloate the "torture" factor strikes me as potentially self deluding, as potentially self deluding as the firm belief, held by senior members of the Bush administration, that coercive means was just what was needed to get what they needed and wanted. I am of the opinion that to at least some extent, they talked themselves into that, the CIA director Mister Tenet among them.

To relate this to the matter of taking members of guerilla cells and fifth column cells, as these terrorist cells operate, and pretend that they are like in kind to regulars of a national and dispiplined force, is to go out of one's way to fight the wrong war the wrong way. One of the few good justifications for the coercive methods is that actionable intel is often perishable, in time. There is a time constraint to the value of information some sources have. Do I need to restate for you the Al Zarqawi problem? The patient method took over two years to find him. In those two years, the blood of well over a thousand Iraqis can be attributed to his efforts, probably more. Are those thousand worth losing for your principle?

Probably so, given the interrogators (go back a couple of years, Atlantic Magazine, for a fantastic article on that case) don't think they'd have gotten the info they did any other way. So, put yourself in a similar position for a moment. You'll hold your principle sacred, and let your own people bleed, by the thousand, until you maybe or maybe don't get what you need to act.

Your conscience up to that, Jester? Your inaction leading to your own people dying? Maybe it is, but if you put yourself in the position of a polician, who has to be seen to be acting to correct this bleeding, your choices may change.

As you and Pete have gone over, and as any interrogator will likely know experiantially, there is the risk that use of coercive means yields something other than what you are looking for. There is the risk that you drive the subject mad, or unhinged and incoherent. There is the risk that he doesn't know what you think he knows, and that you may lose other useful intel in the process of trying to find a particular body of information. (Talk about a waste of time, and effort)

All of those are risks. Should they have been taken? I have mixed feelings, since this policy ideation contaminated my profession, in terms of what was allowed in the command climate in OIF. In time, the decisions on coercive interrogation came before the Iraq war began. While the core problem at Abu Ghraib was one of failed leadership and under resourcing, combined with both contractors and other agencies being involved in a military detention facility/prison, it is my opinion that the command climate was infected by the attitudes in Washington that amounted to rounding up at least all of the usual suspects, and leaning on them until someone talks.

That attitude may not have been the intent. The intent may have been that selected high value targets, in the intel sense, could be squeezed. The outcome, thanks to a gross failure in leadership at that prison, from General Sanchez on down to the officers and seionr NCO's in charge there, led to a lax enough environment that the soldiers on task not only got sloppy, they got both unprofessional and criminal in the process.

I will remind you that the prison abuse there was first discovered, investigated, and prosecuted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his defense department. Whatever the policy was, a strand of the chain recognized something very wrong and charges were filed. This was in the fall of 2003. You and I didn't find out about it until those so charged released the photographs of what they'd been doing, spring of 2004.

That's right, the criminals in this case, those charged with maltreatment, were the source of the information used to attempt to discredit the US. Pyrrhic victory, is it?

I suppose, in that the Department of Defense found and punished some (in my opinion not enough at the right ranks higher than sergeant) members who were out of line. That is a fine victory for the rule of law, one of the cornerstones of modern civilized society, which by the way is referred to in the title of this thread.

That victory led to a local political disaster, and a defeat in the informational element of that war. That it didn't lead to defeat in November of 2004 is, IMO, of more than trivial interest.

Look at the timeline again, Jester. Rummy, the much revlied (and for a lot of good reasons) was "doing the right thing" in prosecuting that case. He won. The courts martial returned convictions.

And he lost. Maybe that is due to being late to the game, or to eggs not being unbreakable.

You enjoin the Americans to "do the right thing" as you see it.

Is that standard worth suffering a loss for?

How big a loss are you willing to suffer before you'll change your mind. See my comment above on "too late" when the three billion are coming. How much of your own blood, my moral and upright, pacifist friend, are you willing to shed for your principle? (IIRC, you are from previous discussion a pacifist, but if I have that wrong, I am sorry, memory foggy)

Occhi

[Jester]

Insofar as the excesses and wrongs committed (partly in pursuit of information, partly due to the breakdown of discipline) have been identified and fixed by the system itself, then that reflects well on the system. In almost all cases, the rule of law still governs the US, and both your country and the world is better for it. But if you say often enough that exceptions are going to be made, that this particular enemy, for whatever special pleading reason requires going beyond the rules, the rules will quickly cease to mean anything. This is not how the US has proceeded internally, and that is to their credit, even if the initial actions are not. I agree, not enough disciplinary action was taken, especially higher up the chain. If it is made clear that the only people who will suffer are the poor shmucks who do the dirty work, then that removes all credible deterrent for the brass not to order it, or not to look the other way when it happens.

What goes on through rendition in places like Uzbekistan is another matter. The CIA is apparently willing to cross lines that the military is not. It would also be much more reassuring if they didn't have convenient "accidents" over potentially key pieces of evidence needed to review their conduct. It's one thing to cross the line in a crisis, it's entirely another to try and cover up that fact long afterwards.

I do not believe torture has provided much useful intelligence. Almost all of what we know about Al Qaeda, or its Iraqi namesake, has been obtained by other means. You are correct, the reports are contradictory. We will slowly know more, but probably never know all. My sense is that the realists have long since admitted that very little of use was obtained from torture. The defenders of the program are either ideologues, or people closing ranks to protect themselves or their friends. But so long as enough information is classified, any bluff is an effective bluff.

I'm a pacifist in approximately the sense that Russell was, although I don't agree with him about everything. Ends which can be accomplished without violence, should be. Ends that require violence can only be justified on grounds of necessity. There are situations where violence can be necessary, from individual self-defense all the way up to world war two. But any time violence is unleashed, the most important thing to understand is how likely it is to have consequences far beyond control. As you say, eggs will be broken, and putting things back together again is always much harder than breaking them apart.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Thanks for those links Skan.

To the first, regarding democracy and dictatorship, I would echo his point made at the end; "The problem is not that Chavez is some regional menace who threatens real American interests, but that he is and ought to be almost entirely irrelevant to how we shape Latin America policy, but for some reason he has become a central figure in Washington’s approach to the entire continent." My concern is not that any one of these brutal thugs is a danger to the US, other than that we elevate their importance and help to validate their movement. I see the whole tug of war more as a mental struggle, rather than a physical one. The modern press who salivate to interview the Castros have quickly forgotten that these were men who showed no restraint in lining their political opponents up for firing squads. For me, to legitimize the Castro regime would be to defile the memory of thousands of victims whose only crime was resisting Castro.

To the second, when the President goes out of his way to repeatedly say things like, "I know there have been difficulties these last few years, I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam." Meaning that when you couldn't trust us when we said that before, now because of Obama you can trust us when we say it.

The final article seems more to be making the argument that the question of torture is murky at best. It leaves me wondering where he really stands. I'm still pretty close to "never", but if there was that one slight chance of preventing a nuke from incinerating NYC, well, then, in that case I would keep my mouth shut. It's that same gut feeling I have about shooting an intruder meaning to harm my family, in that, it probably would never be the case that conditions would exist where I would need to do that, but would it be the case that it was the correct thing to do, then I would not hesitate to protect them with any means possible.

[kandrathe]

...does not mean torture is automatically on the table, which appeared to be what Kandrathe was implying.

Just to be clear. I would only look at it to possibly be on the table if there was something worth acquiring by setting aside your morality. Sort of like, "Is there such thing as a justifiable homicide?" or "Can fighting a war be moral?" In those cases, the protection of lives and property justifies the use of lethal force. Again, though, I fear the slippery slope, in that what starts out as "only in the rarest of circumstances" becomes common place. In that regard, I vote for "never".

[Jester]

For me, to legitimize the Castro regime would be to defile the memory of thousands of victims whose only crime was resisting Castro.

I'm not really a huge Fidel fan, but in any revolutionary government, there are thousands of people killed whose only crime was resisting the new government. This includes the USA. At some point, the risk of 'defiling the memory' has to give way to an acknowledgment that sometimes governments change, and the process isn't always pretty. Time flows forwards and not backwards.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I knew this would be one justification. The, "he does bad things too", argument. You really don't see a difference between the Castro regime with sanctioned firing squads, and the US government at any point in its history? I'm trying to think of the worst thing that a US president did to his own people, even during the Civil War, or the Revolution. The POW camps were pretty awful for both sides. I can't really find an episode that is comparable.

Let's say there was sometime when the US government rounded up all the political opposition and had them killed. I guess the closest example I can think of would be the treatment of the indigenous populations. As I tell my children, "two wrongs do not make it right". Can I not resist the tyranny in my own government, and that of Castro at the same time? I don't really need to dilute my morality and declare everyone square. For example, we've had like eight or nine different Presidents during the Castro regime. Were they all morally bankrupt? What specific incidents come to your mind perpetrated by the USA that are comparable to murdering political prisoners?

[Jester]

I knew this would be one justification. The, "he does bad things too", argument. You really don't see a difference between the Castro regime with sanctioned firing squads, and the US government at any point in its history? I'm trying to think of the worst thing that a US president did to his own people, even during the Civil War, or the Revolution. The POW camps were pretty awful for both sides. I can't really find an episode that is comparable.

You don't need to stretch your imagination, I'd readily concede that the United States government has never domestically reached the level of the Cuban government, even at it's worst.

Let's say there was sometime when the US government rounded up all the political opposition and had them killed. I guess the closest example I can think of would be the treatment of the indigenous populations. As I tell my children, "two wrongs do not make it right". Can I not resist the tyranny in my own government, and that of Castro at the same time? I don't really need to dilute my morality and declare everyone square. For example, we've had like eight or nine different Presidents during the Castro regime. Were they all morally bankrupt? What specific incidents come to your mind perpetrated by the USA that are comparable to murdering political prisoners?

Again, nothing. But nobody is proposing hugs and kisses for Cuba. You don't have to forget your history, or declare everything square. In fact, please don't. But this is just basic diplomatic relations, roughly open borders, and maybe a loosening of the embargo. You have that level of relations (or much better) with dozens of countries with similar records of oppression. The only difference here is that Cuba was supposed to be a quasi-colony, and, say, Uzbekistan wasn't.

-Jester

(Edit: I suppose there aren't many countries with "far worse" levels of overall oppression than Cuba.)

[kandrathe]

Again, nothing. But nobody is proposing hugs and kisses for Cuba.

I'm not really for normalizing relations, or letting up on the embargo either. It's bad enough that Castro siphons off 10% of the funds that Cubans in the US send to help their families. I'd end that too, except it would most hurt the wrong people. Most people don't realize that the US backed Fidel in overthrowing Batista, and only after the revolution did we realize the mistake. So, we turned around 20 years later and did the same darn thing with Saddam in Iraq. I don't have a problem with extending the embargo to the other thugs in the world either.

With all these arrogant 3rd world thug bosses, it's that toss up between playing the diplomacy game while waiting for them to wither and die or driving them into the arms of our enemies. It appears that Obama will perhaps do the former, and may even go for the hugs and kisses. I just hope the thugs of the world don't mistake the Obama administrations prostrations as American weakness, because that is what will get us into the next war. At least Reagan had that lovable way of conveying strength, kind of like the threat from your old grandpa. The last Bush administration was more sinister with the whole "you are either with us or you are against us...".

[Kevin]

I'm not really for normalizing relations, or letting up on the embargo either. ...... I don't have a problem with extending the embargo to the other thugs in the world either.

I'm a little divided on this. I'm with you on embargo on the thugs on the world, I know that they affect the average citizen of that country harshly but to be callous most of those citizens are bad enough off without the embargo that the practical difference to them is very little, but it does have an impact on the thugs. Unfortunately it's a very long term strategy and since they haven't been employed to the needed extent too often, the effectiveness of changing the hearts of the people after the thug is gone is still hard to measure.

However you have to lift the embargo at some point and I think now might be the time with Cuba. Since Fidel is technically not in charge after transferring power to Raul in Feb of 08 we are dealing with a different leader. Since Fidel is still alive and still wields a great deal of power we can't be completely sure what Raul will want to do and so normalizing relations until he proves to be a thug doesn't seem like a completely bad idea. I'm not fully sure about that, but I think that is what the thinking is.

You apply the pressure and penalty where it needs to be and then you remove that to show people that, we'll deal with you if you are reasonable. This is why I'm all for treating other thugs the same way. Show them that we won't deal with that, but if the thug is gone we'll work with you. Yes it's a recipe to start civil wars and coups but it's often been stated that democracy doesn't work unless the people take it for themselves. I'd vastly prefer non violent methods (and they have happened. Liberia isn't the perfect example but it appears they have mostly gotten onto the track of a truly free democracy without a lot of bloodshed, though they weren't starting for the same point.

I just hope the thugs of the world don't mistake the Obama administrations prostrations as American weakness, because that is what will get us into the next war.

It's too early to pass judgement on what Obama is doing in my mind. My belief is that he is thinking about 4 or 5 years down the road with some of his actions, maybe even longer term. This game can not be won in the short term you have to play it out to the long term. In ways I'm glad Bush was as nuts as he was because there might be a time when we really do want someone who is that ready to just attack people. We didn't need it while he was in office and I don't think he handled much well, but since I like to see silver linings, showing the world that we can be that way and that we can also change if we want to isn't really a bad thing.

What I hope for is that some punk does try to attack us and that the Obama administration clearly thwarts it and hits the attacker with strong repercussions to help solidify that while we are being nice we aren't push overs. Nice does not equal weakness though not everyone understands that.

[Jester]

The problem with this is that dictators do not need a large number of resources to remain in power. What they lose in absolute wealth can be made up in expropriation. Castro has not remained in power *despite* 50 years of embargo. He has remained in power *because* of 50 years of embargo. How long did Saddam Hussein last during his embargo? His country was blown to smithereens, and yet, his dictatorship hung on by its fingernails for a decade as he slowly went bananas.

When was the last time any dictator was brought down by an embargo? Dictatorships feed on suffering and desperation.

-Jester

[Kevin]

The problem with this is that dictators do not need a large number of resources to remain in power. What they lose in absolute wealth can be made up in expropriation. Castro has not remained in power *despite* 50 years of embargo. He has remained in power *because* of 50 years of embargo. How long did Saddam Hussein last during his embargo? His country was blown to smithereens, and yet, his dictatorship hung on by its fingernails for a decade as he slowly went bananas.

When was the last time any dictator was brought down by an embargo? Dictatorships feed on suffering and desperation.

-Jester

It's not a matter of the dictator losing power. It's a matter of the dictator losing power and the people wanting something other than a dictator. Yes I'm aware it's not the greatest premise, but the people of Cuba seem to want a change and as has been mentioned in the Somali case the people must want change. So while Cuba has had several attempts to get rid of Castro we decided to not back them after the Bay of Pigs failure. We are trying a different tact to get rid of a dictator and we fully expected it wouldn't happen until he died.

Raul has purged some of Fidel's people, he has lifted sanctions on the people and so we are working with him. We've accepted around 1 million Cuba refugees since the 60's if I did the math right. We have been offering food and other necessities for decades though that aid was not accepted until 1993 by the Cuban leadership. Now it's possible this is just Raul trying to keep power as long as he can but we might be on the way back to a democratic Cuba which for a time had a better GDP per capita than Italy and Japan before Fidel ran it into the ground.

So what do you want? As mentioned there haven't been a lot of embargo attempts to remove someone from power there aren't really a lot of data points to look at. We tried it, we didn't really do the best, I'll admit and Canada and Mexico backing out in the 70's may have actually hurt the process or they may have been correct and it's never going to work.

We could try the military option and get a lot of people killed and hope the country will stay in tact afterwards which we've seen doesn't work in other places. We could have not had an embargo and hoped for another civil war since the people would have supposedly been better supplied, but when Saddam wasn't under embargo the people were still pretty much living as poorly as they were during the embargo. Fidel killed a lot of people, but the total loss of life in this longer process could very well be less than other wars, and while the outcome is still undecided a democratic Cuba could still emerge from this and other thugs will see that we won't help prop them up. Of course that would require that we stop propping up the thugs we currently are. Yes I understand we send mixed messages on this policy which is why I want a consistent policy as I mentioned in my other post.

I'm not sure it doesn't work, because as mentioned it hasn't really been tried before.

[Jester]

First, when the embargo was introduced, nobody thought it was going to last for half a century. The US government was trying just about the full range of methods from exploding cigars to the Bay of Pigs to even practicing for an outright invasion, and the embargo was just one part of the policy: remove Castro as quickly as possible. He was supposed to die, or be overthrown, or exiled, in the next handful of years. The constraint on this policy was nuclear war with the USSR, not a deliberate decision to bleed the government slowly.

Second, I wouldn't lionize 'democratic Cuba' too much as a foil to Fidel. Castro didn't overthrow a democracy, he overthrew the Batista dictatorship, which in turn had overthrown Cuban democracy *with direct American support*. By the point of the revolution, all effective opposition parties (or perhaps more cynically, all ineffective opposition parties...) had ceased to function. The Autenticos had been suppressed, and the Ortodoxos had their leader blow his brains out during a radio broadcast. All that was left was some ragtag urban insurgent groups, the communists perpetually waiting for Moscow (and Godot...) and the 26th of July Movement.

Third, if you're wanting to replace a dictator with something other than a dictator, the absolute last thing you want to do is tighten the economic thumbscrews. As I said, a dictator will expropriate to preserve their own power, and this means eroding any other competitive power base. The more deprivation, the more the dictator becomes the only one with any wealth or power. Then, the only ways to overthrow them involve the one thing they can't do without: the army. The people aren't going to rise up, they're too busy making ends meet, and in any case, the army has more and better guns. But if you're trying to start a military coup, then you're not going to end up with a democracy, you're going to end up with a junta. Like I said, has this policy ever had the effect you're hoping for? It's not like it hasn't been tried. I mean, how's North Korea doing these days? When cut off from the world, dictators just establish oppressive autarkies, and sustain themselves at the expense of their people.

What does seem to work, at least some of the time, is openness. Information about the outside world leaks through. Things get better, and people with some measure of power get used to that, and no longer accept the dictator's fiat in the way they used to. Pressure for change builds up. Interest groups form who aren't directly subjugated to the government, who can then support reform, or even support revolution. The dictator loses their powerful symbolic ability to decry 'the great enemy'. That's an argument Fidel has driven for millions of miles, the rhetorical version of an old classic 1950s car; it may be outdated, but it still works. So long as the US policy is just to bluster about wrongs done half a century ago, all Fidel has to do is follow suit: he just has to mention the Bay of Pigs, the embargo, the Platt Amendment, and people get the point, that America is responsible for their problems. It's not really true, but it has enough truth in it to work.

Perestroika and Glastnost killed the Soviet Union. It's not deprivation that transforms dictatorships into democracies.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm a little divided on this. I'm with you on embargo on the thugs on the world, I know that they affect the average citizen of that country harshly but to be callous most of those citizens are bad enough off without the embargo that the practical difference to them is very little, but it does have an impact on the thugs. Unfortunately it's a very long term strategy and since they haven't been employed to the needed extent too often, the effectiveness of changing the hearts of the people after the thug is gone is still hard to measure.

For me, I just look at it from the point of view of "with whom you do business?" By entering into business with these thugs you enrich them at the expense of their people, and yes, when you do not do business with them both sides lose. Personally, I don't buy stolen property either. It's a moral question.

However you have to lift the embargo at some point and I think now might be the time with Cuba. Since Fidel is technically not in charge after transferring power to Raul in Feb of 08 we are dealing with a different leader. Since Fidel is still alive and still wields a great deal of power we can't be completely sure what Raul will want to do and so normalizing relations until he proves to be a thug doesn't seem like a completely bad idea. I'm not fully sure about that, but I think that is what the thinking is.

The leadership might be shifting to Raul, but the regime has not changed. Fidel was always the figurehead with most of the passion and pomp, while Raul "The Prussian", handled the business of state from the background. Don't think that Raul is something new, because he was there at the beginning running the death squads and has been Fidel's lifelong silent partner. I would wait to reward Cuba with normalized relations once they hold free elections, and make some concessions to becoming a more open and less oppressive state. They need to make the public spectacle of burying the hatchet, then the US can consider doing the same. Politically, the US needs some justifiable reason to end the embargo and shower Cuba with glasnost and perestroika. I still see Raul continuing the belligerent fist shaking defiance of the US, which while quixotically romantic is wearing thin and getting tiresome. If I were Kim Jong Il, or Raul Castro, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Daniel Ortega, or Hugo Chavez, I'd push Barrack around a little to see if he is another Bill Clinton. If you don't think so, well I've got unlimited bandwidth on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 I'll sell you. For now, they probably see no need to get soft when we seem to be the ones with rubbery knees.

You apply the pressure and penalty where it needs to be and then you remove that to show people that, we'll deal with you if you are reasonable. This is why I'm all for treating other thugs the same way. Show them that we won't deal with that, but if the thug is gone we'll work with you. Yes it's a recipe to start civil wars and coups but it's often been stated that democracy doesn't work unless the people take it for themselves. I'd vastly prefer non violent methods (and they have happened. Liberia isn't the perfect example but it appears they have mostly gotten onto the track of a truly free democracy without a lot of bloodshed, though they weren't starting for the same point.

I don't view it as the cat and mouse game that you portray. I think you make a list of all the objectionable practices, and thugs in political office and once they have been eliminated, then you can start the negotiation for better relations.

It's too early to pass judgment on what Obama is doing in my mind. My belief is that he is thinking about 4 or 5 years down the road with some of his actions, maybe even longer term. This game can not be won in the short term you have to play it out to the long term.

I think this is wishful thinking on your part. 6 months ago he was still the partial 1st term Senator from Illinois. He is still a political babe in shark infested waters.

In ways I'm glad Bush was as nuts as he was because there might be a time when we really do want someone who is that ready to just attack people. We didn't need it while he was in office and I don't think he handled much well, but since I like to see silver linings, showing the world that we can be that way and that we can also change if we want to isn't really a bad thing.

Here is my Bush retrospective; He came to office just as the Tech bubble burst, and then a few months later, was 911. Clearly, Greenspan and all the wizards of wall street did put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall, just poorly glued together and ready to crash again in 2008. So, for economics, I need to give Bush a C. If you look at the shambles of the economy, you'd probably think F, but I need to give the F to Congress who engaged in the behavior of ignore and ignorance that allowed for these tragedies to happen in the first place. Domestically, I think again, he gets a C. He made some reforms, but little progress was made. For foreign policy, I think F. He did step up and go after Al Queda in Afghanistan, and start to build a coalition against the terror networks, but then stupidly bungled all his political capital on taking out Saddam. Now, it might be that Saddam was on the cusp of becoming the rogue state (like Iran and the Taliban run Afghanistan), but possibly another year and a ton more evidence would have helped his case against Iraq. Putting Iraq on the main stage took most of the energy of our nation for the past eight years. I think the US under Bush just as has been done by prior administrations has mostly ignored the genocide and excessive bloodshed in Africa. Obviously, ideologically, and relationship wise we've lost ground in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. So overall, Bush gets a D or D- in my book. But I tend to grade all politicians harshly.

What I hope for is that some punk does try to attack us and that the Obama administration clearly thwarts it and hits the attacker with strong repercussions to help solidify that while we are being nice we aren't push overs. Nice does not equal weakness though not everyone understands that.

I believe that the attackers are emboldened and have redoubled their efforts to infiltrate and attack. I believe they would be thinking that they have the opportunity to test the mettle of this President, and want to see what opportunity might be in store for them over the next eight years. If you look at the nature of Al Queda attacks, they are coordinated across international boundaries and meant to break systems. 911 was not merely a symbolic attack on "World Trade", it was meant as a direct blow to Wall Street and designed to stress or break our financial system. So, you hit their stronghold in Afghanistan, then they just move it to another susceptible or agreeable state like Iraq, or Sudan, or Somalia. Iran has a single minded focus on destroying Israel, and so while a haven for terrorism, only supports a limited brand that keeps it from getting in trouble with the greater world. How do you fight a war when the terrain happens to be wherever the ideologues live at that moment? Stateless war? So are these soldiers or criminals? Geneva conventions out the window? 19th and 20th century rules no longer apply.

Here is another problem; Obama says, "... we are not at war with Islam". But, as forwarded by the fanatics, it appears that Jihadist faction of Islam is at war with the western ideologies and the nations that practice or allow them. So, we are at war with the Jihadist fanatics, but not their ideology? It is their twisted ideology which propels them, and about 150 million misguided Muslims to continue to hurl themselves strapped with explosives against any available soft target. 150 million is a big number, and like it or not it is a growing number. The west nations are constantly asking "What am I doing to drive these young people to embrace this fanatic ideology?" I think the answer is, "Very little." See Schmoozing With Terrorists. How do you stop the endless waves of bombings without addressing this islamofascism? Yes, I believe the Jihadist movement is in ways akin to the Nazi movement, in that prior to the rise of the Reich, you had a fairly desperate diaspora of Germanic people who believe themselves to be good, and worthy of power. I haven't heard of any Mullah, Ayatollah, or Jihadist spokesperson ever claim that their aims are other than global domination of every nation, and to rule the world with sharia law. So now we see across the entire diaspora of the Islamic world self appointed mufti interpreting the Koran to suit their world view and recruiting scores of young people to their murderous cause. Every prosperous, or hell hole Islamic nation is worried, at risk of destabilization and ready to be toppled by these Islamofascist revolutionaries.

The US is in a way in that Catch 22 scenario; Act nice and the Islamic world will see us as effeminate, unworthy, and call us the great Satan or act tough and the Islamic world will call us a bully, abusive, and the great Satan. I believe they will find a way to hate us no matter what demeanor we take other than to capitulate to their will. The way to win is to be steadfastly who we are, work with the moderates who don't want us dead, and to continue to give terrorism no safe haven and establish international cooperation in all nations to root it out from their soil. We need to have a consistent tough position on this, and not pull the crap that our politicians do with the pardoning of people like Orlando Bosch, or the FALN terrorists.