Abu Ghraib – Don't Gel Too Soon

July 25, 2008: BARACK OBAMA and BERLIN: WHAT WE SHOULD and CAN BE

First I got this email from a young friend: "LOVED IT – Just brilliant and I am happy to vote again." Then I watched The Speech again early this morning on C-SPAN and marveled at the reaction of 200,000 Berliners in a city that has been, in recent years, a tough room for American leaders. We've spenta lot of time in Berlin, so I know the city; in my parents' lifetime it was the capital of the most racist country in the world but now it's urbane, cerebral and pretty sophisticated, with a stunning history and a development we've watched throughout the last ten years that is unparalleled. War(and communist)-ruined buildings and just plain ugly ones have finally been replaced by gleaming new market and skyscraper squares, there's fabulous mass transit as well as renewed activity in its two opera houses and many theaters and ballet companies. OH and enough museums to keep you busy for months. Just the kind of place to be particularly hostile to a president like George Bush.

So what did Senator Obama bring that made the difference? David Brooks was pretty harsh in the NYTimes: " Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney." To be fair, I guess it can sound that way. The reality, to me though, is that after eight years of a president of whom we could not be proud and whose policies, war, rhetoric and attitude shoved our allies far from our side, a bit of warmth and solidarity is a legitimate introduction. Beyond that, the most profound thing about the speech, in my view, wasn't Obama but the response to him. Sure, Europe is liberal and politically correct (except, often, about their own immigrants, unfortunately) and a black candidate (even half) for president in the US is attractive, but it's more than that. It looked, at least to me, like Europeans have been longing for a United States they can believe in again; that perhaps part of the reason Europeans have been so angry at us is that beneath the rubble of the Bush years, we still represent a promise and ideal that Europe has been furious that we've abandoned.

Of course, I could be projecting my own heartbreak over Abu Ghraib and the Patriot Act and all the other profanities done in our name; at the horrific lack of inspired leadership both at home and abroad just after 9/11, at the war (How could it happen again – after Vietnam; the same lessons never learned, the same hubris?), at the craven attitude toward energy and life at the bottom end of our economic ladder – at all of it. But I don't think so. Rather, it seems that under all the anger Europeans have manifested toward the United States, they, like us, want an American leader they can believe in. An America they can believe in. And Barack Obama is about as close to that is you can get without moving to another dimension.

The foundation laid by that inspiration will get us, and our old friends newly re-engaged, through the terrible, tough days ahead. Without a leadership of hope and belief, natural allies outside our borders will be lost to us, as they so sadly have been these past years. And as Senator Obama reminded us, we can't afford that. Not now.

BARACK OBAMA, BERLIN, AND WHAT WE SHOULD AND CAN BE

First I got this email from a young friend: "LOVED IT – Just brilliant and I am happy to vote again." Then I watched The Speech again early this morning on C-SPAN and marveled at the reaction of 200,000 Berliners in a city that has been, in recent years, a tough room for American leaders. We’ve spent a lot of time in Berlin, so I know the city; in my parents’ lifetime it was the capital of the most racist country in the world but now it’s urbane, cerebral and pretty sophisticated, with a stunning history and a development we’ve watched throughout the last ten years that is unparalleled. War(and communist)-ruined buildings and just plain ugly ones have finally been replaced by gleaming new market and skyscraper squares, there’s fabulous mass transit as well as renewed activity in its two opera houses and many theaters and ballet companies. OH and enough museums to keep you busy for months. Just the kind of place to be particularly hostile to a president like George Bush.

So what did Senator Obama bring that made the difference? David Brooks was pretty harsh in the NYTimes: " Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney." To be fair, I guess it can sound that way. The reality, to me though, is that after eight years of a president of whom we could not be proud and whose policies, war, rhetoric and attitude shoved our allies far from our side, a bit of warmth and solidarity is a legitimate introduction. Beyond that, the most profound thing about the speech, in my view, wasn’t Obama but the response to him. Sure, Europe is liberal and politically correct (except, often, about their own immigrants, unfortunately) and a black candidate (even half) for president in the US is attractive, but it’s more than that. It looked, at least to me, like Europeans have been longing for a United States they can believe in again; that perhaps part of the reason Europeans have been so angry at us is that beneath the rubble of the Bush years, we still represent a promise and ideal that Europe has been furious that we’ve abandoned.

Of course, I could be projecting my own heartbreak over Abu Ghraib and the Patriot Act and all the other profanities done in our name; at the horrific lack of inspired leadership both at home and abroad just after 9/11, at the war (How could it happen again – after Vietnam; the same lessons never learned, the same hubris?), at the craven attitude toward energy and life at the bottom end of our economic ladder – at all of it. But I don’t think so. Rather, it seems that under all the anger Europeans have manifested toward the United States, they, like us, want an American leader they can believe in. An America they can believe in. And Barack Obama is about as close to that is you can get without moving to another dimension.

SELLING THE PENTAGON, SELLING THE WAR IN IRAQ, SELLING THEIR HONOR

In 1971, when I worked at CBS News in Washington, the network
aired a documentary called The Selling of the Pentagon. The Museum of Broadcasting website says: "The
aim of this film, produced by Peter Davis, was to examine the increasing
utilization and cost to the taxpayers of public relations activities by the
military-industrial complex in order to shape public opinion in favor of the
military." The Congress tried to cite CBS for contempt – it was
a real drama. In his book The Place to Be, my mentor
Roger Mudd tells the whole story better than I ever could – he was the
correspondent on the award-winning program. Despite all that happened,
there was real satisfaction in knowing that the film had made a difference –
that our defense dollars would go to protect and support our soldiers, not a
military PR campaign.

Ah, but like all good news, it was short-lived. Maybe not too short – we
made it to 2008 — but the whole thing is back – and because it’s about Iraq
and Guantanamo this time, not just some recruiting and appropriations
manipulation, it’s far more malignant.

Sunday, the New York Times reported on the courtship of
those military "experts" who show up on the TODAY SHOW and NIGHTLINE
and CNN to tell us the facts behind our country’s military initiatives.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar
fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as
“military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative
and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11
world.

Hidden behind that appearance of
objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those
analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the
administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has
found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic:
Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war
policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever
disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But
collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts
represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives,
board members or consultants.

Of course, this one is a little different – these
guys are consultants to the media, and while the Pentagon enables their
"expertise" and offers the heft of the tours of Guantanamo and classified briefings, their money comes from their lucrative consultancies with military vendors, not from the Pentagon directly. But think about it. If we really
were manipulated; if the arguments for the Iraq war were as flawed as we now believe, then these consultants — follow the bread crumbs — are at least partly responsible for the attitudes that permitted the war to take place and discouraged many of those who might have stopped it
I don’t know about you, but when I hear stories
about Abu Ghraib and the things that
were done in our names, and think of how little I’ve done to instigate change,
resting instead on the actions of my youth. I think about all the Germans who
said the "didn’t know" what was going on. I don’t mean that a
few soldiers, none of whose leaders has been prosecuted and who are taking the
rap for things that went way beyond them — are the equivalent of Nazi
Germany. That would be stupid and facile. What I am saying is that
the horrible things that emerged from this war are on all our heads – and that
these guys whose testimony to us via countless talking head interviews
legitimized what was going on, enabled it all.

The reason I started with The Selling of the
Pentagon is that it’s such a lesson. Whatever change we help to
implement won’t last – Abolitionist Wendell Phillips was
right when he said that "eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty." In 1971 the documentary outraged Americans who
demanded change. Today we still recall the events at Abu Ghraib the same
way – with a deep and painful sense of outrage. Once again, on our watch
this time, bad things have been done in our names.
Once again, dissemblers reign. The consequences of their betrayal,
whether the story is true or not, are tragically visible. Once again —
our hearts are broken. Once again – we must share the blame for what
happened there.

Once again, whatever is left of our better angels
looks warily about, frightened, silenced, sad and ashamed.

OUR SOLDIERS, OURSELVES: RAPE IN THE U.S. MILITARY

Remember Private Benjamin? Goldie Hawn goes from princess to private and grows up. That 1980 film was a combination of feminism, coming-of-age and just plain funny. But that’s not how the U.S. military treats its women. Maybe not then, but certainly not now. In fact, we’re allowing our soldier sisters to suffer at unthinkable rates. It’s beyond shameful. Representative Jane Harman details the horror (no, I am not exaggerating – this is every woman’s version of a horror movie) in this LA Times op ed republished on Alternet. This is from Harman’s piece:

The scope of the problem
was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA
Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw
dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic
say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report
being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued
terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives
have since taken.

Numbers reported by the
Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults
were reported — 73% more than in 2004. The DOD’s newest report, released this
month, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in 2007, but a recent shift from
calendar-year reporting to fiscal-year reporting makes comparisons with data
from previous years much more difficult.

What level of misogyny, anger, or malignant neglect allows this to be the way we treat 20% of our military? It’s an insult to their service and to every American woman and yet another shameful chapter in our relationship with those who would protect us. Does it seem to anyone else that Abu Ghraib and our other abuses of Iraqi prisoners and the abuse of women in our own military both demonstrate a terrible loss of humanity among at least some of our soliders?

I remember reading a book called ABSOLUTELY AMERICAN, about the meritocracy that is West Point. There was a time, recently, when the Army, at least, had moved very far from its less attractive traits and was struggling, by training leaders well, to guarantee that abuses did not happen in the future. I wish I knew what has happened; whether they never got below the surface, whether it’s the fact that so many of our soldiers are National Guard and just not as well-trained, or simply that there’s a surfeit of anger in our military (and out here, too.)

Beyond the acts themselves, there’s not even much punishment. Here’s more of Harman’s piece:

At the heart of this crisis is
an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks.
According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for
sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to
courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military.
Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge,
and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment,"
which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or
received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated,
the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was
because of "insufficient evidence."

Anyone who pays any attention to this issue, or even who’s ever watched LAW AND ORDER knows that rape is a crime of dominance and hate, not a sexual crime. That means that every one of those rapes is an act of rage against a woman — and a fellow soldier. And that in all the years that women have been part of active military duty, we haven’t dealt with that rage. And that if it’s that prevalent in the military, it’s probably still floating around out here in the rest of the world at a hefty rate too. And apparently, however far we’ve come as women in and out of the military, just below the surface is something big, angry and very scary indeed.