May 15, 2011

John McCain: Forward to the Past!

Hatched by Dafydd

Sen. John S. McCain (R-AZ, 96%) has painted himself into a deep hole over waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods. He has staked everything, everything, on two dubious claims:

  1. That waterboarding and the other so-called "harsh" interrogation techniques (used through 2006 by the CIA against terrorists and other unlawful combatants) is "torture," defined by McCain as the equivalent of what his captors visited upon him in the "Hanoi Hilton."
  2. That such "torture" cannot conceivably yield valid information, not even in theory.

How so? Because any form of interrogation harsher than politely asking the detainee to spill the beans necessarily, in every instance, elicits false and misleading disinformation (which apparently cannot even be fact checked, for some unfathomable reason).

Alas, in the war against radical Islamism, McCain has become obsessed with proving these two preposterous propositions, to the point that such proof trumps even victory itself. He believes such measures are never necessary, and that their use sears the very souls of the interrogators and of the nation itself. He also appears to maintain a childlike belief that there is always another way to gain the same intelligence; if only we ask detainees sincerely, compassionately, and charmingly enough, even top al-Qaeda leaders will see the light.

Case in point, McCain's bizarre argument with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and others who had intimate knowledge of what information was extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi under waterboarding and other somewhat harsh (but hardly torturous) questioning. Though he wasn't there, John McCain has a vision of what happened (and didn't happen):

Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques were not a factor in tracking down Osama bin Laden, a leading Republican senator insisted Thursday.

Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, also rejected the argument that any form of torture is critical to U.S. success in the fight against terrorism.

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, the Arizona Republican said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and others who back those tactics were wrong to claim that waterboarding al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, provided information that led to bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

Impassioned! But extreme passion typically comes at the price of reason.

AP makes a feeble attempt to cast McCain as "in the loop" anent those interrogations, enough to know for dead certain that they were completely unproductive, fraudulent, and useless; writer Donna Cassata tepidly serves up the fact that Sen. McCain is currently (since 2009) the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a qualification she concludes gives McCain an "unrivaled record on the issue."

But he was neither chairman nor ranking member when the interrogations took place; the Republican who was both is John Warner, now retired, who has not seconded McCain's pronunciamentos. No matter, the point is irrelevant anyway, as it's extremely unlikely that anybody in Congress, including Warner, was fully informed about the nature and extent of intelligence gleaned from those interrogations -- under the principle that 535 can keep a secret if 534 are bound and gagged.

How did McCain become such an authority, particularly on the left, on the morality and effectiveness of enhanced interrogation? Those now prattling about his "unrivaled record on the issue" utterly villified him during the 2008 campaign; what has since transmogrified him into the senator with absolute moral authority to speak on the issue of interrogations?

The cover story is that John McCain's Communist captors tortured him, so he has a unique understanding of such things. (The real story is that anybody casting calumnies on George W. Bush and other Republicans automatically has absolute moral authority.) But McCain's captors inflicted real, not simulated, torture upon him, for years during and after the Vietnam War. It's hardly comparable, but that's the truncheon they'll use to bash everyone who engaged in or supported the interrogations.

Yet McCain's personal connection is precisely what makes him a uniquely unreliable witness. It's clear that he was so physically traumatized and emotionally devastated by his ordeal that he cannot possibly come to any rational, unbiased conclusion about waterboarding or any other harsh interrogation technique; he's hag-ridden by nightmarish memories and chronic medical problems. You may as well ask a Pearl Harbor survivor what he thinks about the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII.

I happen to like John McCain, and of course I have tremedous respect and admiration for what he went through and how he recovered (mostly) from it. But he has become, for perfectly understandable reasons, phobic on the subject of interrogations.

Phobias do not make a good basis for rational inquiry. An arachnophobe is terrified of a Brazilian wandering spider or a Chilean recluse, two of the most deadly arachnids; but he's equally terrified of a harmless daddy longlegs.

On policy, I very much like McCain's position on spending and taxes; I mostly like his position on immigration (though I still want to know exactly how he proposes to reform the legal immigration system); and he was of course the first major Republican to begin calling for a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. On the other hand, his role in the "Gang of 14" constituted an appalling attack on constitutionalism and judicial restraint; his other phobia about campaign fund raising led directly to an attack on freedom of speech; and his penchant for poking his finger in the GOP's eye at every opportunity may well have contributed not only to the election of Barack H. Obama in 2008 but even the Democrats' recapture of Congress in 2006.

I had no difficulty voting for McCain in the 2008 general election against Senator B.O., and I would have had just as little difficulty voting for him against Hillary "Fist Lady" Clinton. But on the subject of interrogating unlawful combatants for intelligence purposes, McCain is so blind, so deadly blind, that I believe he should simply recuse himself from that entire subject. He does his country far more harm than good on that issue.

John McCain has become a man behind his time. It happens to most folks, if they live long enough; but people who have been, in their lives, powerful mover-shakers and very important personae cling to relevancy as feverishly as they cling to life itself. In practice, this usually takes the form of railing against all that has changed in the world since their own opinions and understandings hardened into concrete, umpty-ump years ago.

McCain understood very, very well the world of the Cold War and Vietnam, of mechanical and electronic marvels, of an economy rooted in Alvin Toffler's second wave of industrial civilization. But there his personal "theory of everything" froze; and the lightspeed changes since then -- insurgency/counterinsurgency warfare, the microprocessor and biogenetic-engineering revolutions, and an economy increasingly based upon information and microcurrents rather than plugboards and manufactories -- confuse, enrage, elude, and frighten him.

He is a great politician -- for 1985. Alas, it's always 1985 for John Sidney McCain III.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 15, 2011, at the time of 8:00 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Beldar

I agree. Hence the endorsement of McCain in my blog sidebar before the 2008 general election: "Vote for the Grumpy Old Man. He's least bad of who's left."

The above hissed in response by: Beldar [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2011 12:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Beldar:

Let's hope that if Sen. McCain reads BeldarBlog, his eyes never strayed to the sidebar!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2011 2:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Beldar

He damn well should have. I did a much better job of defending his Veep nominee than the McCain campaign did.

The above hissed in response by: Beldar [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2011 6:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Beldar:

I did a much better job of defending his Veep nominee than the McCain campaign did.

Bill, do you know how tired I am of defending people who have perfectly reasonable and persuasive arguments for what they have done and are doing, but simply won't defend themselves (or their loyal subordinates)? Republican politicians who instead leave that task up to, well, you and me and a horde of others duped, deputed, bedraggled and bedrafted, willy-nilly, into arguing on behalf of the "Silents."

It's not just John McCain, as you well know; we suffered through eight years of a president with excellent instincts, courageous policies, and a clear-eyed view of the world... but who appeared allergic to communicating any of this with the American people. If Reagan was the Great Communicator, GWB was Silent George or the Great Obfuscator.

Sachi was railing about this just yesterday, before she left on yet another underway mission testing components of America's naval forces. She rattled off five or six examples of dual-use WMD discovered in Iraq after we deposed Hussein.

She noted that in each case, the CIA took the tack that if it was even vaguely possible to imagine using the object in a non-warlike way -- mobile chemical labs (weather balloons!); carefully preserved samples of Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, and other delicacies (medical research!); 55-gallon drums of Cyclosarin pesticide secreted in weapons caches (the urgent need to have 100% pest-free ammo dumps!) -- then it was morally reprehensible to call that item a "weapon of mass destruction."

"How do we know that those gas-centrufuges would have been used to enrich nuclear fuel? It's marginally conceivable that their only purpose was to make bouillabaisse!"

Why didn't Bush fight back by making the obvious rejoinder that when a suspect person or country has been caught again and again using supposely civilian equipment for military purposes (or for crimes against humanity -- plastic shredders spring to mind), then the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused three-time loser.

This isn't a court of law, it's a battlefield. The American people were very receptive to that argument, not least because it happens to be true and obvious; and if the president had made it forcefully, he would probably have ended his second term with approval ratings in the mid to high forties, rather than the mid thirties.

And maybe we would be in the third year of John McCain's first term, whining about a federal deficit of $350 billion.

Sorry for the rant, Beldar, but I work my brain to the white meat -- as do you! -- playing amicus counsel, making the proper arguments that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and now the GOP leadership in Congress, shoulda coulda woulda easily have made.

I would dearly love, before I depart the vale of smears, to see another Republican president with the huevos to defend his own blasted policies, with courage and vigor, constancy and determination, and of course hope and happiness. I'd like to sit down and become an audience member for a while, having grown weary of playing understudy to a gaggle of close-mouthed, lofty disdainers who recoil from dirtening their hands by actually -- ugh -- making their own cases.

Yeesh.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2011 12:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: RattlerGator

Damn, Dafydd, go 'head wit ya bad self!

And Beldar, yes -- you did a far better job defending Sarah America. The failure by McCain to defend a woman who excited so many, a woman who drove the left-wing absolutely bat-crazy, will puzzle me for years to come.

The above hissed in response by: RattlerGator [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2011 2:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Beldar

I didn't change many minds, but I grimly relished Ramesh Ponuru's observation that I did a better job defending the Miers nomination than the White House did. Talk about damning by faint, faint praise.

The above hissed in response by: Beldar [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2011 4:17 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2013 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved