War Destroys

War destroys. Or at least that's what Matt Gallagher thinks in his book Kaboom and an editorial in the New York Times.

Gallagher fought in Iraq as a soldier for the United States military. He considers himself one of the lucky ones because he returned to NYC with all his limbs and most of his mental facilities and a book deal (thus Kaboom was born!).

Even though Gallagher returned from the front lines he feels as if he left a part of himself in Iraq. Simple things like a slamming dumpster lid catapult him back in time to when he was in Iraq and "desperate not to die because of an unseen I.E.D."

Matt Gallagher in Iraq

He believes that chance is war's "dirty little not-so-secret." For veterans the dirty little secret is self-righteousness. Gallagher recounts how easy it is for veterans to fall into the trap of what civilians get or do not get.

While it may be easy for normal Americans to forget about the war in Iraq, it is impossible for the less than one percent of the population who fought over there.

Gallagher admits to succumbing to his own self-righteousness at times. However, instead of using fists or consuming mass quantities of alcohol, he took the high road. In response to people who show envy towards being able to kill Muslims, he replies that "such a black-and-white understanding of the war is what got us into so much trouble over there in the first place."

Gallagher could not be more right!

Many Americans, because of inadequate education and the natural instinct to be fearful of persons who are dissimilar, hold an opinion of Muslims and Arabs in general that is false and dangerous. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Americans are good people. In a polarized, fear-laden country like the U.S. we can sometimes overlook this fact.

Although the reasoning seems off, Gallagher decided, in the New York Times editorial, that he rather educate people about his experience in Iraq instead of pissing people off with a self-righteous attitude. Education is crucial when dealing with war of any kind. The more people know the better people will understand that war is not like a video game. War, according to Gallagher, is complicated, scary and extremely tolling.

Kaboom the book

He exemplifies these claims in his book Kaboom. In reading the first chapter, one realizes that Gallagher was perfectly ordinary before, during and after 9/11. He slept through the attacks and got drunk during invasions. However Iraq changed him and he will never be the young man who get drunk at frats again.

By 2005 Gallagher was in Iraq as a armored calvary officer. In sections that are brief but filled with detail about his time fighting. He writes about rolling out of wire and his interactions with the other soldiers.

Those interactions are the most interesting of all his descriptions because they illustrate how soldiers reacted to being in Iraq. Laughing was something that seemed to have happened often, which contradicts the tense situations of war.

However, upon closer inspection of the first chapter, one realizes that war is filled with contradictions. It is vital to understand that war is not as simple as the politicians make it out to be. Gallagher's book does a good job of demonstrating this. He extinguishes the disconnect (at least as much as you can) between soldiers and normal Americans who tended to forget about the wars abroad.  

Gallagher will never shed his soldier skin. It is a part of who he is now, and that means civilian life will forever be a challenge for him. However, using the knowledge of war to educate through books and editorials will go a long way to preventing him from resorting to violence and drugs like many Iraqi vets. If only every vet could be so lucky.  

Rhetoric and Torture

If you were a detainee at Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration you likely incurred sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, painful body positions, feigned suffocation and beatings. 

If a detainee were really lucky, according to Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, they were subjected to "sexual provocation" and "displays of contempt for Islamic symbols." These measures were used to force cooperation. 

The tactics above constitute cruel and inhuman treatment and torture, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The word choice used by the International Committee of the Red Cross is odd because it shows hesitancy in calling the above tactics torture. Putting "cruel and inhuman treatment" before torture dilutes the torture claim and makes it appear like the Committee does not actually want to call feigned suffocation torture.

Torture

But let's be honest, the above tactics, even the display of contempt for Islamic symbols (if you are Muslim) is torture. Adding the cruel and inhuman treatment is unnecessary, and it only serves to minimize the severity of the tactics used on detainees.         

While the Pentagon and the Defense Department assert that detainees' health information was not used at Guantanamo to craft interrogation strategies, Bloche and Marks found evidence to the contrary. The duo claims that in 2003 health information was available and used to craft and carry out interrogation. Psychiatrists and psychologists, since late 2002, have been using medical information in order to create extreme stress to extract intelligence from unwilling detainees.   

Could this mean that the Pentagon and the Defense Department blatantly lied to Americans? If this is true, is this even surprising?

The article found evidence to support their claim on the SouthCom Website. It said that caregivers are required to provide clinical information to interrogation teams both voluntarily and by request. If this is the case, it would mean that the Pentagon's separation between intelligence gathering and patient care is a farce. 

According to the research by Bloche and Marks by late 2002 there was growing frustration at Guantanamo because intelligence was not being gained from the detainees. This led to the creation of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT). BSCT was tasked with developing new strategies to seek intelligence.  

In developing new strategies, the duo found strong evidence to support their claim that BSCT had access to personal health information.

BSCT methods consisted of putting detainees through tailored stressors. They would use personal medical information to learn about a detainees phobia's and use those to create situations that would lead to extreme stress. 

Proponents of this type of interrogation argue that high stress interrogation leads to unreliable information because detainees are willing to say anything to bring relief. 

Gerard Hauser's Book

Ultimately, Bloche and Marks conclude that using detainees' health information is wrong. It makes every caregiver an accessory to torture, it undermines patient trust, and worst of all it puts the prisoners in a position to experience serious abuse.  

The last reason is most effective in their overall argument because it appeals to a readers ethos. Many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not guilty of anything. Yet they were tortured nonetheless with tactics that were specially crafted to ensure that the detainee experience as much stress as possible. Doing this to a human is wrong. It is that simple. 

Gerard Hauser, in his book "Prisoners of Conscience," uses rhetorical analysis to demonstrate how framing was employed at Abu Ghraib for prisoner's bodies. He uses a similar technique to the one I used in this blog post to analyze how using particular words or phrases can frame an issue in whatever light you want. 



Hauser's chapter explores how rhetoric helped play down the atrocities that occurred at Abu Ghraib. He demonstrates how powerful words can be and how important it is to pay attention to the way politicians are framing certain issues.     

Obama and Drones: BFF!

President Barack Obama, during his first term, baffled liberals and conservatives when he decided his approach to counterterrorism would be aggressive one. 

He invented and allowed himself to become the head of the secret "nominations process to designate terrorists for kill or capture," according to a New York Times article. Obama also decided to have the final say when it came to drone strikes with top terrorists and their families in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. In these situations there is not near certainty that civilian causalities can be avoided. 

His rational for placing himself at the helm of counterterrorism is simple he believes "that he's responsible for the position of the United States in the world." 

President Obama and John Brennan

This is a troubling position for Obama. Even though he is the president of the world's hegemony, no one person should be responsible for making decisions regarding the use of drones and other counterterrorism measures. The use of drone, while strategic, is a moral decision. One person cannot be tasked with deciding the morality of killing.     

Technically, Obama is not alone when it comes to counterterrorism decisions. John Brennan has become indispensable to Obama as his counterterrorism advisor and soon to be head of the CIA. Brennan is a staunch supporter of drone strikes so it's no surprise that drones have become a staple in U.S. counterterrorism policy.  

Although it is clear that the secret kill list should be decreasing in names, it is still unclear "how much killing will be enough." Obama believes in options but there comes a time when killing the enemy is no longer a solution.

According to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, "[Obama's] policy is to take out high-value targets, versus capturing high-value targets." While this appears to be a valid conclusion, the question remains is this okay? Instead of dealing with the messy trials and rules regarding capture the Obama administration has instead opted to bypass capture and simply kill high-value targets.  

By doing this Obama is facing major trade-offs. It is true that al-Qaeda has weakened, but Obama's goal of improving relations with the Middle East and adopting a broader strategy against radicalization has been sacrificed in the process. 

"Obama’s liberal reputation and “softer packaging” have protected him" from the type of criticism that plagued the Bush administration. His policies, however, deserve criticism. 

The use of drones has become a symbol of American power and have replaced many forms of counterterrorism. Although they have been effective in killing leaders in al-Qaeda, they have done little to improve U.S. relations with the Middle East. Pakistan and Yemen who have endured the most drone strikes are more hostile to the U.S. now than they were during the Bush administration. 

In a 2012 study about living under drones an argument was made against the use of targeted killing practices. This study reflects a powerful movement that is against the use of drones. The study stands in stark contrast to the policies of the Obama Administration because the study calls for policy makers rethink the use of drones.  

The study makes strong claims against the Obama Administration. It claims that Washington has misrepresented drone strikes when they claim that such strikes make the U.S. safer. What's worse, the study also suggests that the Obama Administration lies when it says that drone strikes produce little or no civilian casualties. 

If this study is correct this would imply that the Obama Administration is using Bush-like tactics to legitimize human rights abuses.  

Welcome to Obama Speak.  

Terrorism as a Media Event

Carolyn Guertin gets right to the point in her 2007 article about violence. In her first paragraph, she argues that the media has dramatized violence, namely murder-suicide, and in doing so, murder-suicide has become fashionable and newsworthy.

By utilizing technology, suicide bombers can easily spread fear. Not only that, but the press that suicide bombers receive catapults them to celebrity status. This, according to her argument, is the reason people yearn to blow themselves up. It’s “the sole crowning achievement in and of itself.”

The above claim needs analyzing because Guertin seems to imply that technology is the reason that suicide bombings became a tool of extremists. While suicide attacks increased in frequency in the last decade, the tactic has been employed since WWII with the Japanese kamikaze pilots. Suicide attacks as we know them today, where a bomb is attached to a person and detonated in a densely packed area, did not begin until the 1980s.

Violence and the Media

This simple history of suicide attacks demonstrates that even before the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle extremists used such attacks to strike fear in people. However, since the advent of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle suicide attacks have greatly increased.

So Guertin’s claim is partly correct in that extremists have capitalized on modern technology to inflict fear through murder-suicides. Although the use and idea of suicides attacks predates the Internet, and therefore, fame was not the original reason that people blew themselves up. It should be argued that in the case of terrorists they do not care about fame. They care about spreading as much fear as possible, and the media and technology allows them to do just that. 

Guertin’s continues her argument by tying media and guns together. They are both forms of violence. Guns kill people and the media broadcasts the killing. It’s this culture of violence that causes people to harm themselves and others. It’s this culture that allows attacks of terror to become a media event.

Technology in the form of violent movies and videogames are blurring the line between fiction and reality. To demonstrate this point she discussed Second Life. However her discussion seems inept in that it leaves much to be desired. Second Life is an online world where even big corporations exist. How is that relating to violence exactly?

Guertin uses a Columbine-inspired video game to argue that videogames are not the problem but a symptom of the disease that is the violence-filled media. Violence manifests itself everyday in advertising, TV shows and the Internet. It is nearly impossible to escape violence for even one day unless a person completely eliminates technology from their lives. But in this technology saturated world, is that even possible?

The argument is made that by living in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, people are becoming filled with rage because they are bombarded with blogs laden with resentment. Resentment infiltrates quickly encouraging these feelings of rage. 

Thus, the technology-overloaded world runs the risk of becoming a world filled with only “Armies of One” where people only care about themselves and are suicidal/homicidal tendencies. Whether or not this is true will be decided in the next few decades.

Violence is certainly a problem, but I highly doubt that this culture of violence will evolve into "Armies of One."       

        

Treating Veterans or Not

An article written by a marine, who served and was wounded in Iraq, cites the two to costs of war: treasure and blood. Treasure refers to the defense budget and is more commonly discussed in the media and the countries political discourse. The other cost, blood, is the price soldiers and their family's pay. And according to the article, this cost of war is commonly overlooked. The author calls on Americans to remember the people who fought and are fighting in wars.

The word choice employed by the author is quite effective in creating pathos. Treasure is linked to greed. Using this word implies that by focusing on the treasures of war Americans are greedy and have better things to worry about. Blood, on the other hand, elicits thoughts of suffering and violence. By utilizing the word blood the author is able to show in one word that war affects humans not only finically but physically as well. It is the physical aspect of war that should most concern Americans.

After explaining to readers the importance of troop remembrance, the marine proceeded by telling his own war story. He was stationed in Iraq when a sniper shot him behind the left year. While it missed the brain and spinal cord the bullet tore apart his month and face. With the help of some brave soldiers, the author made it to a hospital.

The faces of PTSD. Soldiers injured in Iraq.

What bothered him the most about his injury was not the pain associated with it but the shame it brought him. All he wanted to do was return to his unit in Iraq. He felt bad that his girlfriend Dahlia had to put her career on hold to care for him. However, his case is not unique, many wounded warriors caregivers drop everything to care for their husbands or boyfriends (etc.).

The author admits that he, like many returning from war, suffers from PTSD. The way he approaches PTSD is the way a person would approach depression. He accepts it and wants to receive help. This seems abnormal. In many cases soldiers with PTSD are often too ashamed or proud to admit to the condition or seek treatment.

But treatment, according to the article is hard to come by. PTSD counseling is only offered at certain times of the day. This makes it hard for soldiers who work to go to counseling sessions. What's worse, for this particular vet though I imagine he's not the only one, is that when he told the vet's center he was not able to meet at the scheduled times they coldly told him to seek help from a nonprofit.

The above incident represents the core of the problem in terms of veterans. They give so much for their country and get so little in return. The least that the government can do is make sure that those who want to confront PTSD have the resources to do so.

With suicide the leading cause of death in the army, a New York Times article argues that PTSD care is improving. However this seems to contradict the above story.

According to the article, since 2005 the Pentagon in partner with the V.A. have increased funding for PTSD research. In 2008 mental health providers were required to be at all large V.A. clinics, as well as adding more centers with free and confidential counseling.

While there is no doubt that this has happened, there is clearly a disconnect between the soldiers who want treatment and the providers who offer it. If efforts to cure PTSD were improving the marine above would not have had trouble accessing the necessary counseling.  

According to another article, much is also being down to improve TBI surveillance. The use of advanced body armor is resulting in a higher survival rates of wounded warriors. The DoD has also put in place a screening process which is used throughout the course of combat operations.

Even with the advances in treatment and prevention of PTSD and TBI there is still much work to be done. As the marine article demonstrates, hurt soldiers are still not receiving the necessary care.








   

Rhetoric and Terror

In 2002 Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to Americans addressing two questions: why are we fighting and opposing you? and what are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

In regards to the first question, bin Laden gave a simple answer "because you attacked us and continue to attack us," namely in Palestine. He is frank about Israel, and U.S. involvement. Israel belongs to the Arabs and Americans should pay because they helped the Jews establish Israel. Bin Laden sites many other examples of U.S. oppression and aggression towards Muslims, like the sanctions in Iraq. Because bin Laden believes the U.S. has attacked Muslims for half a century, Americans should expect nothing but jihad from bin Laden and his supporters.

Osama bin Laden

Bin Laden makes a compelling argument against Americans. He makes it clear what Americans have done and continue to do in the Middle East is wrong. It is no surprise, given the actions and policies of American policymakers, that bin Laden could cultivate such a strong hatred for Americans.  

What is surprising is his interpretation of the Qur'an. In the letter he claims that Allah gave Muslims the permission to enact revenge. Thus, if Muslims are attacked they have the right to attack back. This extremely flawed logic is used by bin Laden to justify September 11.

However, the Qur'an makes no mention of this eye for an eye concept like the bible does. Bin Laden, when he talks about revenge, is referring to the concept of jihad. His use of jihad is the extreme interpretation of the meaning. The actual meaning of jihad is an internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible.

He answers the first part of the second question by calling Americans to embrace Islam. Bin Laden also calls Americans to stop oppression and lies, which, he implies, can only be done by embracing Islam.

Bin Laden continues by intentionally riling up Americans when he writes,  "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." Clearly, it does not sadden him to express his opinion of Americans. However, by using such rhetoric he serves to piss off American readers with little effort on his part. He continues the insult by thoroughly explaining why Americans are the worst civilization. 

Bin Laden concludes his letter with advice to Americans. He suggests Americans should realize they are a nation without principles or manners and that Americans should stop supporting Israel (among others). He precedes to threaten Americans claiming that if his suggestions are not implemented Americans should be prepared for a fight with the "Islamic Nation." The tone of the final section is ominous because Bin Laden claims "the crusade" that Bush has started will fail miserably. 

Just as bin Laden uses specific wording to illicit a response from readers or create a particular tone, Douglas Kellner argues, in an essay, that the Bush administration and corporate media manipulated rhetoric after September 11 to create a politics of fear that enabled the administration to enact atrocious laws like the Patriot Act and start two wars.

Douglas Kellner

One of the ways Bush helped to create a politics of fear was through the persistent usage of the word evil. On September 11 Bush used the word evil five times to describe the terrorists. Associating terrorist with negative words repeatedly is highly effective because it leads the word terrorist to have a negative connotation. 

One of the ways that the media helped to create a politics of fear was to allow right-wings militarized zealots to circulate their views on live television. 

The media, combined with the fear laden rhetoric constantly employed by the Bush administration, is to blame for the climate of fear created after the September 11 attacks. This fear allowed the administration the start two wars and limited the rights of Americans through legislation of the Patriot Act.        












  

Is the End Near?

Rachel Maddow accurately notes, on her TV show, that wars need to be finite. If war persists, Maddow said, “…our country is killing people and locking them up outside the traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe cannot be forgiven for." Opinion writer Glenn Greenwald agrees with Maddow’s observation, which becomes the theme in his recent editorial.

Glenn Greenwald 

However, according to Greenwald, the Obama administration does not believe, like many people, that the War on Terror needs to end. In fact, the Obama administration has plans to continue this war for another 10 years if not longer. And this is only one of the many moves the Obama administration has employed to extend the war. Other ventures include renewing the Patriot Act and plotting to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois.    

It begs the question should we ever have started a War on Terror? Will we even be able to win? And what does win mean? Will Obama use drones to kill every terrorist on the planet? It that even possible?

Clearly the War on Terror poses many complex questions. However, the most complex question it raises, and a question Greenwald refuses to acknowledge in his op-ed, is which War on Terror are we talking about. There are two Wars on Terror. The first is the War on Terror that involves nation building in the Middle East. This provided one of the reasons for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The other war is the more commonly understood war, fighting to stop terrorists and to bring an end to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. If Greenwald discussed this question many gaps in his argument could have been filled. However he did not so with that important point noted let’s continue with his argument.    

Greenwald makes the case that U.S. policies employed in the war in Afghanistan are creating the very terrorists that the U.S. is fighting to stop. Referring to a similar situation in Yemen, Greenwald determines that the war will continue indefinitely. With great certainty, Greenwald claims that U.S. officials have no desire to end the War on Terror because he believes the U.S. is getting something from the war like limitless power and massive profit. Massive profit? This raises a read flag. If the war in Afghanistan is creating massive profit why is the United States national debt so high?

Regardless, of the numerous questions Greenwald’s agreement raises, it is fair to say that Greenwald firmly believes that the War on Terror will not end any time soon, and that the U.S. government will do whatever it takes to farther fuel the war.   

Based on a Fareed Zakaria op-ed, Rachel Maddow's observations and Greenwald's editorial it appears that that among the liberal media there seems to be a consensus that the War on Terror needs to end. Both editorials and Maddow agree that 11 years of wartime powers is enough.

Fareed Zakaria

Zakaria notes that it is time to conduct anti-terrorism campaigns under a more normal and legal framework. He strengthens his claim by citing excerpts from a speech that the outgoing general counsel for the Pentagon, Jeh Johnson, gave. In his speech, he argues that abandoning the wartime powers should be something both sides of the aisle can agree on. However even if that is not the case, Zakaria remarks that Obama on his own can start preparing and planning for the end of the War on Terror.

Zakaria makes an interesting point when he talks about involving Congress in more anti-terrorism decisions such as drone strikes. Obama claims he wants to take the high road and compromise. However when it comes to the War on Terror he has been unable to involve the Republicans. Wartime powers have allowed him to sidestep Congress.

The Obama administration is not planning on continuing the War on Terror, like Greenwald suggests. However, until Obama takes Zakaria’s advice and includes Congress in anti-terror decisions by ending the wartime powers, people like Greenwald will be able to make the case that Obama is a power obsessed president and wants to continue the War on Terror for personal gain.