Don't About the Forget the Future Wars

Time Magazine today analyzed David Petraus’ promotion to head CENTCOM:

Gates has made clear that wants commanders able to carry out the messy, irregular kind of combat championed by Petraeus that the Defense Secretary envisages the U.S. fighting for years to come. The promotion reinforces the message he delivered to young Air Force and Army officers on Monday, when he criticized their leaders for devoting too much time and effort to future potential wars, and not enough to the real wars now under way.

While our military should adopt tactics that will provide military advantage in Afghanistan and Iraq, exclusively focusing on these conflicts endangers our national security. The enemies America fights in the “War on Terror” will never possess the resources to inflict catastrophic harm inside the United States. By contrast, a future war with a country like China easily could result in unprecedented domestic destruction.

Instead of a myopic focus on today’s conflicts, the military should engage in a two-tracked policy that defends the U.S. and our allies against Islamic extremism while at the same time protects America from more serious future threats.

-Law Dude

It's Not About Winning, but How you Win

Hillary’s Argument: "Obama really is highly vulnerable in a general election, so vote for me if you want a Democrat to win in 08."

This is the argument she presented to PA and this certainly is the argument she presents to superdelegates.

But if she wins the nomination, she will be far more of a weakened general candidate than Obama. There is virtually no way for her to win the nomination with the most popular or pledged votes. If she wins the nomination on the back of superdelegates, a coalition of young voters and African Americans will see their will overturned. Not only will these Obama supporters be disinclined to support Hillary, but will potentially sit out the election or even engage in 1968-style Chicago convention protests. Given these potential outcomes, it’s difficult to see how Hillary would be any less of a flawed general election candidate as Obama supposedly is.

-Law Dude

Revisiting When it's OK to Torture

During his tour through Europe, John McCain distanced himself from Bush policy by recognizing that waterboarding was torture and declaring that the U.S. would not engage in any similar practices during his Presidency. With this declaration, it is clear that the next Presidential administration will not permit techniques which much of the world would view as torture.

Given this forthcoming change in torture policy, let's revisit past academic defenses of torture. Most commonly, torture is defended in situations where it would be used to prevent mass loss of life. This lesser of two evils/ utilitarian approach was famously articulated in Charles Krauthammer Weekly Standard article, “The Truth about Torture.”

Under Krauthammer’s view, torture is justified in two situations—1) in the “ticking time bomb” scenario where a terrorist who has information that can prevent an imminent terrorist attack refuses to talk; 2) in the “slow-fuse time bomb” situation where a high level detainee like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knows, but refuses to disclose, plans for future terrorist attacks. In both situations, Krauthammer recognizes the moral abhorrence of torture, but views torture as necessary to save lives.

This approach is flawed, not because it is inappropriate to apply utilitarian principles to determine whether it’s appropriate to torture, but because of the assumption that there are only two ends of the scale—the immorality of torture vs. the number of lives saved by torture.

Instead, there are additional costs of torture that Krauthammer fails to recognize.

1) Evidence of the U.S. torturing detainees will be used as a propaganda tool to recruit more terrorists. Without question, images from Abu Ghraib have been a recruiting boon to extremist organizations that seek to recruit foot soldiers willing to attack American interests.

2) U.S. policies that at least tacitly approve of torture harm U.S. alliances.Widespread reporting of the U.S.’s extraordinary rendition program has chilled U.S. allies’ willingness to support the U.S.’s “war on terror.”

Moreover, 3) evidence derived from torture may not be reliable. Although the CIA may disagree, the FBI does not view information derived after techniques like waterboarding as particularly reliable.

Given these costs and the dubious value of evidence derived from torture, torture should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstance. Under the hypotheticals posed by Krauthammer, torture should only be applied in the most clear “ticking time bomb” circumstance—where the government has removed almost all doubt that massive lives will be lost without torturing a terror suspect. Applying torture in other situations, including Krauthammer’s “slow-fuse time bomb” scenario has undoubtedly dealt a blow to America’s future interests in fighting the “war on terror.”

-Law Dude

Am I reading April Fools Op-eds? Because these guys can't be serious...

A NY Times op-ed argues “The West needs to change its approach to Mr. Mugabe. Years of isolation and ineffective sanctions, with which he has fueled his propaganda campaign, have only driven Mr. Mugabe downward.”

Really? Maybe the author should have tried to get this article published before Mugabe got trounced in the elections. Because the only “conversation” the West should have with him should be about respecting the results of a democratic election and stepping aside.

. . . .

This op-ed does not deserve a response other than the observation that Republicans must really want Hillary to win the primary. This article appears to be a Republican's attempt to weaken Obama by continuing to discuss Wright and taking advantage of people who didnt see the Obama speech by bringing up "sensational charges about white racism." For someone who saw his speech, it's hard to say that Obama's discussion of white racism was "sensational."

-Law Dude