Your home for traditional conservatism.

How Long It Took

How long does it take a mild-mannered, antiwar, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, "decapitation" strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?

There's nothing surprising here. As far back as President Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century, American liberalism has been swift to flex imperial muscle and whistle up the Marines. High explosive has always been in the hormone shot.

The nearest parallel to Obama in eager deference to the bloodthirsty counsels of his counterinsurgency advisors is John F. Kennedy. It is not surprising that bright young presidents relish quick-fix, "outside the box" scenarios for victory.

Whether in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the counsels of regular Army generals tends to be drear and unappetizing: vast, costly deployments of troops by the hundreds of thousand, mounting casualties, uncertain prospects for any long-term success—all adding up to dismaying political costs on the home front.

Amid Camelot's dawn in 1961, Kennedy swiftly bent an ear to the counsels of men like Ed Lansdale, a special ops man who wore rakishly the halo of victory over the Communist guerillas in the Philippines and who promised results in Vietnam.

By the time he himself had become the victim of Lee Harvey Oswald's "decapitation" strategy, brought to successful conclusion in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, on Nov. 22, 1963, Kennedy had set in motion the secret counterinsurgency operations, complete with programs of assassination and torture, that turned Southeast Asia and Latin America into charnel houses for the next 20 years.

Another Democrat who strode into the White House with the word "peace" springing from his lips was Jimmy Carter. It was he who first decreed that "freedom" and the war of terror required a $3.5 billion investment in a secret CIA-led war in Afghanistan, plus the deployment of Argentinean torturers to advise U.S. military teams in counterinsurgency ops in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

(Though no U.S. president can spend more than a few moments in the Oval Office scanning his in-tray the morning after the inaugural ceremonies without OK'ing the spilling of blood somewhere on the planet, it has to be said that Bill Clinton did display some initial reluctance. "Do we have to do this?" he muttered, as his national security team said that imperial dignity required cruise missile bombardment of Baghdad in 1991 in retaliation for a foiled attack on former President G.H.W. Bush, during a visit to Kuwait.)

Obama campaigned on a pledge to "decapitate" al-Qaida, meaning the assassination of its leaders. It was his shorthand way of advertising that he had the right stuff. And now, like Kennedy, he's summoned the exponents of unconventional, shortcut paths to success in that mission. Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal now replaces Gen. David McKiernan as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal's expertise is precisely in assassination and "decapitation." As commander of the military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) for nearly five years starting in 2003, McChrystal was in charge of death squad ops, with its best advertised success being the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaida in Iraq.

The phrase "sophisticated networks" tends to crop up in assessments of McChrystal's Iraq years. Actually, there's nothing fresh or sophisticated in what he did. Programs of targeted assassination aren't new in counterinsurgency. The most infamous and best known was the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, designed to identify and eliminate cadres of Vietnam's "National Liberation Front," informally known as the Viet Cong, of whom, on some estimates, at least 40,000 were duly assassinated.

In such enterprises, two outcomes are inevitable. Identification of the human targets requires either voluntary informants or captives. In the latter instance torture is certain, whatever rhetorical pledges are proclaimed back home. There may be intelligence officers who will rely on patient, nonviolent interrogation, as the U.S. officer who elicited the whereabouts of al-Zarqawi says in a recent book that he did. There will be others who will reach for the garden hose and the face towel. McChrystal, not coincidentally, was involved in the prisoner abuse scandal at Baghdad's Camp Nama. (He also played a sordid role in the cover-up in the friendly-fire death of ex-NFL star and Army Ranger Pat Tillman.)

Whatever the technique, a second certainty is the killing of large numbers of civilians in the final "targeted assassination." At one point in the first war on Saddam in the early 1990s, a huge component of U.S. air sorties was devoted each day to bombing places where U.S. intelligence had concluded Saddam might be hiding. Time after time, after the mangled bodies of men, women and children had been scrutinized, came the crestfallen tidings that Saddam was not among them.

Already in Afghanistan, public opinion has been inflamed by the weekly bulletins of deadly bombardments either by drones or manned bombers. Still in the headlines is the U.S. bombardment of Bala Boluk in Farah province, which yielded 140 dead villagers torn apart by high explosive, including 93 children. Only 22 were male and over 18. Perhaps "sophisticated intelligence" had identified one of these as an al-Qaida man, or a Taliban captain, or maybe someone an Afghan informant to the U.S. military just didn't care for. Maybe electronic eavesdropping simply screwed up the coordinates. If we ever know, it won't be for a very long time. Obama has managed a terse apology, even as he installs McChrystal, thus ensuring more of the same.

The logic of targeted assassinations was on display in Gaza even as Obama worked on the uplifting phrases of his Inaugural Address. The Israelis claimed they were targeting only Hamas even as the body counts of women and children methodically refuted these claims and finally extorted from Obama a terse phrase of regret.

He may soon weary of uttering them. His course is set and his presidency already permanently stained the ever-familiar blood-red tint. There's no shortcut in counterinsurgency. A targeted bombing yields up Bala Boluk, and the incandescent enmity of most Afghans. The war on al-Qaida mutates into war on the Taliban, and 850,000 refugees in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. The mild-mannered professor is bidding to be as sure-footed as Bush and Cheney in trampling on constitutional rights. He's planning to restore Bush's kangaroo courts for prisoners at Guantanamo who've never even been formally charged with a crime! He's threatening to hold some prisoners indefinitely in the U.S. without trial. He's been awarded a hearty editorial clap on the back from the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that civilians courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney."

It didn't take long. But it's what we've got—for the rest of Obama-time.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Tagged as: ,

5 Responses »

  1. The Neocons are gloating about how Obama is now one of them. Not that I'm surprised. Here's the Canadian Charles Krauthammer: "If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

    "The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an 'enormous failure.' Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back."

    Of course, Bush wasn't virtuous but a tyrant and torturer, as Obama now is. And Bush's program wasn't "allegedly" lawless, but actually lawless. Bush and Cheney should be put on trial for violating U.S. laws against torture.

    Change you can believe in? Instead: Torture you can believe in.

  2. What a compilation of media myths this article contains. The opening sentences set the stage for the whole pile of nonsense contained herein.

    Anyone who would characterize Obama as a "a mild-mannered, antiwar, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago", is delusional.

    Obama never, for a single day during his campaign, made a convincing pretense of being antiwar. He has never shown any sign of being mild mannered, either. The euphemism "community organizer" should be dropped for the more accurate title of Chicago Machine Agitator, which is what he was, along with being the attorney (and financial beneficiary) for the supreme Poverty Pimp vehicle, ACORN. Let's don't simply swallow this kind of myth whole without examining what we a re being asked to ingest.

    Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist such as Mr. Cockburn has no trouble at all swallowing the myths of "Camelot" (which was never mentioned as a description of the Kennedy regime until after his asassination) and the media myth that Oswald was the shooter in the Kennedy murder. He would like to feed us the myth of Obama as an innocent "community organizer" corrupted by democrat political success. Hogwash.

    On the subject of another myth presented here; Wilson was a radical progressive, Mr. Cockburn, not a liberal. Liberalism in Wilson's day was not the perversion of liberalism claimed by today's democrats. The culprit ideology you are groping for as villain is actually progressivism.

    Progressives have always pushed for violent, simplistic solutions to what they see as problems. We now have two progressive parties in control of our electoral politics; the original progressives are the republicans and the more recently converted progressives, the democrats.

    It's pretty boring to see leftist commentary posted here simply because it's critical in tone of the current administration.

    Open eyes are needed if one is to comment on the passing parade without falling into the reiteration of popular myths. Open your eyes, Mr. Cockburn.

  3. Dear Mr. Roberts,

    Open YOUR eyes. Ever heard of irony? sarcasm? Cockburn even helps one grasp his tenor with his second sentence, "There’s nothing surprising here." Cockburn may not be right-wing, but I couldn't care less. I read for content and logic, not to have my political prejudices stroked.

    Remember, right-wingers (so-called) brought us Reagan, the Belle Aire liberal who bankrupted the country, as Bill Kauffman has called him, and the most thoroughly depraved Oval Office occupant ever, whose baleful influence flourishes to this day.

  4. Dear Mr Roberts,
    in a middleclass community in Belgade, close to two curches and three schools is where we live. US airforce bombers missed the school but our house has gotten a crack. Don't you remember 78 nights of bombardments of mostly civil targets?
    Sixty years ago "carpet" bombardment missed my parents at home by 60 meters. Several thousends victims! No German soldier was killed.

  5. "Open YOUR eyes. Ever heard of irony? sarcasm? Cockburn even helps one grasp his tenor with his second sentence, “There’s nothing surprising here.” Cockburn may not be right-wing, but I couldn’t care less."

    Yes, I've heard of irony and sarcasm. It's a stretch to claim that Cockburn was attempting either in his piece. What makes you think I'm a "right winger", or that I revere the memory of Reagan? Is there something at work in your mind which automatically conflates dislike for leftists as love for rightists? That's the sort of simplistic thinking I would expect from a progressive.

    If you enjoy reading Cockburn's prose, fine. I have seen the way his magazine has carried the banner of Marxism for years, and I haven't forgotten nor forgiven the assaults and smears from him and his editorial partner, Jeffery St.Clair, in his magazine against Southerners who resisted the attempted outlawing of Confederate flags and monuments.

    In my own view, both "wings" of collectivism are repugnant. I see the left vs right dichotomy as a sham. There's no real dichotomy at work there. If Hitler and Mussolini are on the right extreme of that spectrum and Stalin and Mao are on the left extreme, then everything in between is collectivisim.

    Cockburn represents the moderate left area of that spectrum, just as Sean Hannity represents a slightly less moderate space in the right area of that spectrum. It matters not to me that Cockburn's prose is more intelligent or more articulate than Hannity's. What matters to me is that his ideology is collectivist, not how sweetly he can present his collectivist views. To me, he and Hannity are little different in essence. Both are collectivists.

    You also mentioned; "I read for content and logic, not to have my political prejudices stroked."

    If that is true, you wouldn't allow the stroking of your prejudices by Cockburn, who uses his well worded criticism of politicians you dislike to mask the advancement of his collectivist ideology, which is the thrust of his prose.

    Cockburn's deliberate stroking of your political prejudices is likely the only reason you find his writing palatable.