Ministry of tact

Obviously taking a page from noted Diplomat Col Tom Parker, and what he supposedly said about Elvis — “Good career move.”

Public Diplomacy is PR. (As such, its messengers might be expected to place a greater emphasis on hearts and minds than the real diplomats.) Regarding Graffy’s comments, I’d say it’s a sign of a rattled team when they stop playing and start trying to commentate.

Earlier this year, on the BBC:

ANDREW MARR: Looking at all this coverage, friends of the United States, on the same side as the United States, would say that Guantanamo Bay has been one of the biggest PR disasters America has ever suffered. And it should really be closed down as quickly as possible.
COLLEEN GRAFFY: That’s absolutely correct.

These suicides have also been described as “an act of war”.

It seems to me we have taken a further discrete step in the process of mental degeneration, though I lost my bearings some time ago.

Welcome to Guantanamo Bay, where the army of liberty imposes absolute freedom on the minions of Antichrist with courage and compassion, though they deploy their antisymmetrical capacity for suffering with the subhuman cunning of the damned.

Well if you think about it so many of the LGF persuasion have this huge problem with ‘suicide bombing’ (as opposed to our own bombing, which, being the complete opposite, is presumably ‘homicide bombing’). This is the latest in the jihadists ploys, to actually omit the ‘bombing’ part and just go straight to the ‘suicide’. Luckily, we in the West look as if we are going to stand firm against their brutal campaign of suiciding and starving themselves to death. Phew.

It’s certainly not asymmetrical warfare. As bitchphd points out, Harris is perfectly well able to respond in kind.

==> These suicides have also been described as “an act of war”.

I could almost feel sorry for the Jihadis. When, in a fit of depression, one kills himself and as many bystanders as possible, he is referred to as a “suicide murderer”. When another, in an equally lacrimose moment, kills just himself, he has “committed an act of warfare”.

I don’t know about you, but in this situation I’d be saying “What the fuck d’you want?”.

The US government could counter with a brilliant PR move of its own. That is, it could apply the Geneva Convention to prisoners at Gitmo and restore full civil liberties to the citizens.

“The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a few other NGOs, have designated June Torture Awareness Month. We’ve created a blogroll you can join if you’re interested. You can find it here. The idea is that everyone is linked to from the blogroll, and in exchange, you discuss torture (as you already do), and link to the Torture Awareness site to help support the NGOs.

There’s a lot of bloggers concerned about human rights abuse in the War on Terror. If we coordinate, we can show our support and help Amnesty and HRW make Torture Awareness Month a success.

So the administration is calling the acts a stunt, which only days ago the Washingon Times was railing against non-existing Democrats for not saying.

According to the US, life imitates Life of Brian. Yes, the ‘Public Diplomacy’ bit of State is Karen Hughes’s beat. She of the cack-handed tour of the Middle East that would have been amusing had it not been so counter-productive.

Having established suicide as an act of asymmetrical warfare — and the spin here is remarkably consistent and remarkably offensive — I join those encouraging mass hara-kiri instead of bombing Iran. (Remember also that many of the Guantanamo detainees, ransomed off by Afghan warlords, apparently have no idea that the invasion of Iraq took place.)

This is the latest in the jihadists ploys, to actually omit the ‘bombing’ part and just go straight to the ‘suicide’.

It’s the obvious logical conclusion of Bush’s coinage — ‘suiciders’.

Alec: you may want to take a break from mocking jihadis to consider that we don’t yet know that these men who committed suicide were guilty of anything. We do know that some significant fraction of those in Guantanamo Bay weren’t. It’s certainly possible that these are as much matters to the cause as any cellmate of Isan Denisovich’s was to the Soviet revolution, or any bunkmate of Victor Frankl’s to the Master Race.

Thomas: First of all, we’d need reason to believe the men who died had any interest in warfare at all. Katherine of Obsidian Wings reviews available evidence and makes informed speculation; she’s been on this beat a while, and is careful. But even setting aside her specific guesses as to the men’s identities, the publicly available facts on Guantanamo operation make it entirely possible that none had any connection to jihad or terrorism at all before their internment – and that they didn’t up until their deaths, given that (amazingly, and thankfully) at least some of the released prisoners seem not to have been recruited to the cause while unjustly held.

I could build some speculation on what might be the case if your name is Bill, but before taking it too far, I’d do well to ascertain that you are in fact Bill and not Thomas. Same deal with anything about assymetrical warfare and these deaths.

well, I pretty much hit a dead end as far as “evidence”. The CSRTs are often a joke as far as figuring anything out, and these guys either didn’t go or the transcripts are still classified.

the Yemeni’s been id’d–his ISN’s 693–his CSRT’s not released and his ARB has exactly no information in it. so all we know is what the administration says.

Thomas, I’m saying that it’s pointless to talk about whether this is a tactic by jihadis until we even have any reason to believe they are jihadis. Unless you want to separate it out and discuss it as a general point, which is cool – it’s just that right now we have no reason to believe these men were connected to the war, and some reason to believe they weren’t.

I also don’t think anyone here actually wishes the officer would kill himself,s o much as we are bitter and angry about the chickenshit rationaliations of the whole thing. And pointing out the simple factual point that suicide is a weapon available to both sides, so it’s not assymetrical in any very strict sense of the word. But this is irony and satire in the face of outrage.

I also don’t think anyone here actually wishes the officer would kill himself,s o much as we are bitter and angry about the chickenshit rationaliations of the whole thing.

He may well be using the military-college definition of asymmetrical warfare, which refers strictly to the use of one’s strengths in the face of other overwhelming weaknesses. In which case, he’s arguing that suicide is the best weapon for a jihadi locked in an illegal detention centre that’s clouded in allegations of torture.

Or, he may well just be a reprehensible bullshit-spouting arsehole, in which case he should certainly top himself.

Time to declare a War On Suicide and bomb the sneaky bastards. Someone has to do something about this. I suspect the Syrians might be doing a lot of it.

Of course the underlying, unchallenged assumption is that they all are jihadis and not some random dark-skinned bloke picked up from somewhere shady.

How devious to wait all these years to launch their suicide attack, to make it look like they were driven to despair! Just like that “hunger strike” stunt.

I also don’t think anyone here actually wishes the officer would kill himself

Oh, what the hell: sure I do.

Furthermore, I think the world would be a better place if our side would engage in a little asymmetric warfare, particularly among the upper eschelons of the Administration.

But you must hand it to those generals in charge of this. Their West Point education has not been wasted on them. They are brilliant.

As the NYT reports “Prisoners’ Ruse Is Inquiry Focus at Guantánamo”.

Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the Army, who oversees Guantánamo as commander of the United States Southern Command, told reporters on Sunday that the investigation into the deaths “kind of boils down to two things: Are the procedures that you have in place adequate, and then were the procedures followed to the standards?”

No wonder they won the war in Iraq, and it is a peaceful democracy now.

How SOP will prevent the evil bastards from hiding behind their sheets. And the moral deliberations!

“We’ve got to determine and find the balance between the comfort items that we would like to provide and the point at which comfort items in the possession of a few determined detainees will be turned into something that could contribute to taking their lives,” General Craddock said.

General Craddock will undoubtedly get a medal for his excellent execution of modern day psychological warfare.

‘I understand most of the discussion above: the only thing I don’t understand is why people who wish death on American soldiers, as the commentators above do, squeal so loudly when they are rightly described as being “on the other side.” ‘

So my comment above about suicide now means that I’m an enlisted member of the United Brotherhood of Bearded Jihadists? Kewl! Do I get a badge?

How long before Bush blurts out the term suiciders to describe the Gitmo 3?

brendan, you don’t seem to be one of the commentators who commented approvingly on the suggestion that an American soldier kill himself. Perhaps I should have made clearer that I was only responding to some, not all, of the commentators above.

But I don’t understand your sarcastic self-righteousness, and that of most of the other commentators. You are part of a tiny minority with unpopular views in a democracy. Do you really think that snarky, anti-military comments, and a policy of “no enemies to the left,” is the way to win the battle of ideas?

y81 – are you kidding? Some people are dead. They probably committed suicide out of despair. I would have in their position. They really are dead.

I don’t understand your sarcastic self-righteousness, and that of most of the other commentators

I think you do.

O, brendan, what a wonderful world it would be if self-righteousness correlated with being right!

You are part of a tiny minority

y81 – What is your estimate of the size of the “tiny minority” of people in the world who are opposed the continued operation of your precious torture camps?

Let me ask a question. Why is it that the bulk of commentators here take as given that the men who hanged themselves were *not* trying to generate sympathy for the Guantanamo detainees both in the Western Media and more importantly in the Islamic world?

I know that this is crazy talk, but is it at least remotely possible that resisting the U.S. government to the very last might be done to inspire those who are fighting America?

I’m not even saying that the above two probabilities are the case. I’m just saying that it is pretty flip to simply dismiss out of hand that the suicides were anything other than innocent victims of a vicious America.

Assuming these men did commit suicide as an act of war, why would the Bush Administration go to all of the trouble of hanging up their “Mission Accomplished” banner for them? Does it make us look better to say that prisoners we’ve detained and control can plan and execute an act of war right under our noses? That’s even more embarrassing than not seeing the friggin Category Five Hurricane right off the coast.

Oh, okay, Alec, you’re just out to be a jerk. Carry on. I now know how much weight to give your views.

BRUCE BAUGH ==> Alec, you’re just out to be a jerk.

No, I was speaking to you with the same level of seriousness as your comment deserves. It’s not necessarily the same thing.

It’s alright, I’m used to be being called a groupie for the neo-imperialists when I dare to not to bend over backwards to accomodate anyone who valiantly opposes them. Just as I’m used to be being called a Hizby when I suggest that maybe our side can make mistakes or miscalls. Sticks and stones.

Obviously there was an element of protest in those suicides. Of course there was, there always is. So what.

I wonder why you don’t have such powerful feelings for people in North Korean or Chinese or Cuban prison camps

I want to know more about this mind-reading trick of yours, y81…I’m throwing a party this weekend and I think it would be a great ice-breaker.

One thing which struck me about Chris’ title post which doesn’t seem to have been picked up on:

==> And who is this “top official”?

Who indeed? The Secretary of State, chief White House press secretary? Nope, a minor mandarin. Harris is relatively more senior in his field, but that field is the military in which ‘blunt’ talking is often held to be more important than mere ‘diplomacy’.

Now compare their comments to the obvious discomfort emanating from real top officials, and lack of breathtakingly crass commentaries.

anyone else thinking of gandhi right now? quoting orwell:

Nor did [ghandi], like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you’re another” type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 … Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.”

“Let me ask a question. Why is it that the bulk of commentators here take as given that the men who hanged themselves were not trying to generate sympathy for the Guantanamo detainees both in the Western Media and more importantly in the Islamic world?”

“I don’t think anyone’s dismissing the possibility out of hand. We’re pointing out that it ought not be the default assumption, as it was in the officer’s vile comment.”

The comment was not vile for suggesting that the prisoners committed suicide as an act of protest.

Acts of protest whereby a prisoner, in oppressive circumstances, makes things worse for themselves (and it is traditional to think of death as being worse than living) in hopes of calling the attention of others to said oppression are often thought of as being noble.

I can’t help but wonder why, in all the narratives propounded for this act, it is not identified as a triumph for the human spirit. That at the end the powerful U.S government did not have control of the lives of these men.

The statement was not vile. Vile is an imprecise description of what this statement was.

If all the world’s a stage than this is the end of scene where the sacrifice is shown to be in vain, where human hope in being able to get the boot off the face is shown to be a delusion. Where you cannot warn others, because what you did to yourself in protest is done over and protested as an attack against order.

Even the people who should see this for what it is go along with the narrative, hardly anyone seems to dignify the efforts of these men to expose the corruption that had imprisoned them but rather wish to excuse the weakness of the dead in some way.

And that at least can be described by the rather milquetoast word, under the circumstances, of ‘vile’.

`I understand most of the discussion above: the only thing I don’t understand is why people who wish death on American soldiers, as the commentators above do, squeal so loudly when they are rightly described as being “on the other side.”’

y81 has an interesting and fairly typical (of the position he seems to represent) point here. The standardised dialogue (monologue I should perhaps say) in the wake of an event which a government is able to describe as an atrocity against the nation is to require that the country should unite in patriotic fervour behind the most right wing and agressive response that the government in question proposes. At a time when the foreigner has made clear his intention to attack the nation, y81 seems to believe that all the people of the nation must therefore swing into line behind anyone who advocates and practises warfare against the foreigner, and that this should be with no regard to the nature, bloodiness, effectiveness or cost of the war. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that, as Dubya argues, you are either `with us’ or `against us’.

Therefore anyone in America who does not support the militaristic response is one with the marauding foreigner, and part of the other side.

The example here is slightly more complex, as the woolly jihadist liberals are accused of wishing death upon the armies of the parent country. The assumption is that more than any other category of people, the soldiers engaged in executing the war agaist the foreigner must be above reproach, and certainly that to wish ill luck on them is treasonous.

This clearly does not apply to others in the population. In America especially it is normal to wish death on members of the American population who have transgressed the law, typically in the form of support for the death penalty, and usually because the individual in question has perpetrated a crime such as murder. However, at this point we must depart into the value system of the woolly liberal jihadists. They squeal when described as being on the otehr side, because they are under the impression that they live in a country which gives a moral as well as legal respect to freedom of expression.

It is normally their contention that instant over the top ill thought through military responses to atrocities are not necessarily appropriate. They may have their focus on practical issues such as actually making Americans safer, or on moral notions such as not blowing up loads of innocent people. They believe that the responses and actions of the ruling individuals are murderous, and perhaps motivated by other reasons than protecting the American people, such as the desire for enrichment. For all these reasons, these liberals feel that it is appropriate to oppose the government, military and other figureheads of the war.

They do not subscribe to the bipolar view of the world, but suspect that they are on the side of sensible appropriate reaction, guided by moral concerns and the pragmatic intention of protecting their countrymen. they feel that the jihadists and the warmongers share as much with each other as with themselves, the liberals.

And so, just as the jihadists and militaristic patriots feel at liberty to wish death and destruction on each other, and as people disgusted by certain crimes may appeal for the death sentence, the liberals will occasionally feel that it would be for the best if one, two or several hundred of the militaristic patriots who appear to be quite as murderous as Charlie Manson decided to top themselves, even when this includes specific (rather than generalised, a deathwish against all American soldiers would seem excessive) military personnel.

A trifle longwinded, but I hope my point comes through – the language of `the other side’ is the language of people who want an enemy and want to hate that enemy, and believe that while it is unforgiveable to wish harm on an American soldier, it is fine to redefine fellow citizens as the enemy for their opinions.

Of course, by y81’s axioms, what he says is surely true, we are on `the other side’. Its just that teh other side isn’t about people who hate america, its about anyone who won’t attack the foreigner indiscrimately in America’s name.

Unfortunately, if you take the unfashionable position that nations are arbitrary, and the only real and meaningful union of people is our common humanity, it looks rather like y81’s crowd are on the other side after all.

Love and woolly jihad…