Military Historian, Victor Davis Hanson, Asks If Tom Hanks Is Un-Hinged

Tom Hanks vs. BlackFive Commentary - Some Great Insights on Hanks Liberalism

I imported this with the hopes that people will include in their daily diet a weekly stop over at BlackFive, not to mention that for those who so not understand what Tom Hanks did over the past two-weeks... here you go. Tom is simply wrong, and people like Don Imus has every right to call him a "Panty-wearing Liberal Dickweed"!

Tom Hanks should stick to making films 

Posted By McQ

I'm not going to go on a rant about Tom Hanks recent remarks about why we fought the Japanese during WWII, but I do have a comment or two to make.  He said:

Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?

It is easy to make ignorant statements like that when you decide you need to make a political point. We see it everyday in the three-ring circus we call politics. Bending history to fit your ideological point of view is nothing new and there's certainly nothing so special about Tom Hanks that he's somehow above such nonsense. But he ought to know better, especially after making this new HBO miniseries about the Pacific war. 

My dad served in the Army for 36 years and was on Saipan, Leyte and Okinawa. Unlike Hanks, he actually fought the Japanese in some very tough battles - especially the last one. He never talked about it much when I was a kid, although when old friends would stop by at the posts where we were assigned, I'd hear some of the stories by getting myself in an unobserved position in the next room and quietly listening.

I don't remember he or any of his friends ever reflecting the sort of attitude Hanks would have us to believe was prevalent then.  Sure, they referred to them as "Japs", but not because they thought it was derrogatory or because they believed them to be "different", but because, well, that's what they were.  The story I remember most concerned his time on Saipan.  As he told the story you could tell the memory had an effect on him.  He told about Japanese families - women, kids - jumping off a cliff to avoid capture ("Suicide cliff" in Saipan). You could tell he thought it was awful and it was clear in the telling that the memory was vivid.  They'd brought in Japanese speakers to try to talk the families out of jumping, but the indoctrination and the culture were so strong that they jumped anyway. 

If you want to "annihilate" someone, you don't make that sort of effort to save them.  If you consider them as "different" in the way Hanks intimates, such things wouldn't shake you as it obviously did my father and those he had served with.

He said that the only Japanese captives they ever took were those who'd been either knocked unconscious before capture or were so badly wounded they couldn't avoid it.  Certainly they were "different" in the sense that their honor and culture called upon them to do things American culture would never call on its soldiers to do. But that didn't make them less than human to my father. He certainly wasn't at all pleased with the way the Japanese treated prisoners of war and held a hell of grudge about that. But I got the impression that he considered the Japanese barbaric because of that, not less than human.  He held them responsible for that conduct because they were human beings.  And after the war, we shocked them with the most humane occupation imaginable and the rebuilding of their nation.

The reason my dad and hundreds of thousands of other Americans fought the Japanese wasn't because they were racially "different" or worshiped a different god.  Nor did they do it with the aim of "annihilating" them.  It was because the had attacked the United States, were the enemy and that enemy had to be defeated.  Period.  My father and his comrades would have fought the Germans with the same ferocity they fought the Japanese had they been in Europe.

Tom Hanks is a fine actor and an excellent film maker.  But he should stick with what he knows.  Deciding how those fighting the Japanese thought of  their enemy isn't one of them.  Making a film about them doesn't suddenly make him some sort of expert in that regard either.  And, pretending to know what motivates those of us who fight our enemies of today is just as mistaken.

Amazing Combat Footage Captured by German Cameramen - GRAPHIC

WWII, Nazi's, Torture, & Rights (4 Imported Articles -- Very Important Read To Formulate Proper Views of History and Responses to Revitionist History)

MIRANDA RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS?
By Neal Boortz

It turns out that it is true .. the Obama administration has been reading Miranda rights to detainees that are captured and held abroad. But apparently this isn't new, according to ABC's Jake Tapper. The Bush administration did so as well "to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution."

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller says, "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

I disagree with the policy, whether Bush's or Obama's. If the world is so sure that these Islamic goons have Geneva rights, let's give them those rights. Under the Geneva Convention enemy combatants dressed in civilian clothes can be summarily executed. No Miranda rights necessary. "You have the right to stand up against this wall. We have the right to put a slug in you. Stand by for your rights."

-- How Torture Helped Win WWII --

(The Daily Beast import)

Fretting over waterboarding, writes British historian Andrew Roberts, obscures the fact that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have saved thousands of lives in every war. Plus, read Michael Korda's review of Roberts' book Masters and Commanders: How Churchill, Roosevelt, Alanbrooke and Marshall Won the War in the West, 1941-45.

 

A slight air of unreality has permeated the debate over “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the war against terror, with historians embarrassedly studying their toecaps over the issue. For the truth is that there has not been a war in history in which torture has not been employed in some form or another, and sometimes to excellent effect. When troops need information about enemy capabilities and intentions—and they usually need it fast—moral and ethical conventions (especially the one signed in Geneva in 1929) have repeatedly been ignored in the bid to save lives.

In the conflict generally regarded today as the most ethical in history, World War II, enhanced interrogation techniques were regularly used by the Allies, and senior politicians knew it perfectly well, just as we now discover that Nancy Pelosi did in the early stages of the war against terror. The very success of the D-Day landings themselves can largely be put down to the enhanced interrogation techniques that were visited upon several of the 19 Nazi agents who were infiltrated into Great Britain and “turned” by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) between 1939 and 1945. Operation Fortitude—the deception plan that fooled the Germans into stationing 450,000 Wehrmacht troops 130 miles north of the Normandy beaches—entirely depended upon German intelligence (the Abwehr) believing that the real attack was going to take place at the Pas de Calais instead. The reason that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, was utterly convinced of this, was because every single one of his 19 agents, who he did not know had been turned, told him so.

If anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea, biscuits, and lectures in democracy, they’re being profoundly naïve. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken, using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemens’ lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha, Utah, and Sword. And another 100,000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came.

The wartime SIS being what it was, full firsthand details of the enhanced interrogation techniques have not emerged, either from the British or the German side since the war. In a country where the very existence of the wartime decryption operation known as Ultra was successfully kept secret until 1971, it was never likely that former SIS officers would have revealed precisely how the Abwehr agents were turned, but the talk and gossip in the intelligence community is another matter. Ham Common undoubtedly saw gross violations of the Geneva Conventions, as every means was used—fair and foul—to ensure the safety of Great Britain. Today Fortitude is generally considered to be the most successful strategic deception operation in the history of warfare.

Elsewhere, one only has to read George MacDonald Fraser’s excellent autobiography, Quartered Safe Out Here, with its description of the ill treatment of Japanese POWs by Indian soldiers of the 17th Division, to recognize that not all torture was committed by the Axis in WWII.

Did Winston Churchill know what was going on in the cellar-dungeons of the house in Ham? Of course he did, but like Nancy Pelosi and other politicians he understandably preferred not to dwell on this less auspicious side of the defense of freedom. As I show in my recently published book, Masters and Commanders—reviewed here yesterday by Michael Korda—Churchill always advocated the toughest option in any issue that came before his War Cabinet, be it over the bombing of German cities, allowing Mahatma Gandhi to die in his hunger strike, retaliating over the destruction of the Czech village of Lidice, and so on. The idea that he would have balked on ethical grounds over the breaking and turning of Abwehr agents—knowing how vitally necessary that was for the liberation of Europe—is ludicrous.

So, when we wring our hands about the waterboarding that took place at the hands of the CIA and their proxies in secret locations around the world, let us not pretend that such techniques are in any way historically exceptional, for in fact they constitute the norm. The only surprising thing is the extent of the information that we have been given about such unpleasant but ultimately necessary practices. Sometimes the defense of liberty requires making some pretty unpalatable decisions, but it was ever thus.

Historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, Masters and Commanders, was published in the U.K. in September. His previous books include Napoleon and Wellington, Hitler and Churchill, and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. Roberts is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Society of Arts.

Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Michael Korda reviews Andrew Robert's book, Masters and Commanders: How Churchill, Roosevelt, Alanbrooke and Marshall Won the War in the West, 1941-45.

If The World Treated WW2 Like the War On Terrorism

If the world treated WW2 the same way we treat the "War on Terrorism" and the "conflict in the Middle East" this is what it would have been like...

• March 15/16, 1939: Nazis take Czechoslovakia. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Czechoslovakia to be restrained in their response.)
• May 22, 1939: Nazis sign 'Pact of Steel' with Italy. (Other nations declare that Italy and Germany signing pact to help each other take over the world "not helpful to the peace process.")
• Aug 23, 1939: Nazis and Soviets sign Pact. (The world heralds signing of treaty as a sign of Hitler's good intentions. He wouldn't be signing a peace treaty if he wanted war would he?)
• Sept 1, 1939: Nazis invade Poland. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• Sept 3, 1939: Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. (World condemns these nations for declaring war. This may cause unrest in Europe!)
• Oct, 1939: Nazis begin euthanasia on sick and disabled in Germany. (World mildly condemns this but declares that we must understand the actions of Germany in the context of the horribly unfair treaty of Versailles.)
• April 9, 1940: Nazis invade Denmark and Norway. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• May 10, 1940: Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• June 14, 1940: Germans enter Paris. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• July 10, 1940: Battle of Britain begins. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Britain to be restrained lest they further the "cycle of violence.")
• Aug 23/24: First German air raids on Central London. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Britain to be restrained lest they further the "cycle of violence.")
• Aug 25/26: First British air raid on Berlin. (World outraged at British attacks! Civilians may have been killed by irresponsible British attacks! World votes 453-4 to condemn Britain!)
• Sept 13, 1940: Italians invade Egypt (Other nations give mild condemnation of Italian attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• Nov 20, 1940: Hungary joins the Axis Powers. (World excited! Hopes Hungary may now have the influence to help move the peace process forward. World publicly says they applaud the peace effort they are sure Hungary will soon begin!)
• Nov 23, 1940: Romania joins the Axis Powers. (World excited! Hopes Romania may now have the influence to help move the peace process forward. World publicly says they applaud the peace effort they are sure Romania will soon begin!)
• Dec 9/10: British begin a western desert offensive in North Africa against the Italians. (World outraged at British attacks! How will we ever have peace if Britain keeps attacking the other side?)
• March 11, 1941: President Roosevelt signs the Lend-Lease Act. (World criticizes Americans for selling weaponry to combatants! Announces they should only give food, blankets, and tents if they're going to get involved at all.)
• May 10/11, 1941: Heavy German bombing of London; British bomb Hamburg. (World is outraged by British attack on Hamburg! Civilians may of been injured! World condemns Britain in strongest terms and demands they stop bombing anywhere civilians might be!)
• June 14, 1941: United States freezes German and Italian assets in America. (Americans accused of "hating all Germans and Italians". 32 lawsuits filed.)
• June 22, 1941: Germany attacks Soviet Union as Operation Barbarossa begins. (World upset that treaty broken. They urge president Roosevelt to personally sit down with Stalin and Hitler to negotiate new treaty.)
• Sept 29, 1941: Nazis murder 33,771 Jews at Kiev (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi murders but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• Dec 7, 1941: Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor (Other nations give mild condemnation of Japanese attack but urge United States to be restrained in their response.)
• Dec 8, 1941: United States and Britain declare war on Japan. (Other nations outraged! Accuse United States of furthering "cycle of violence". World says that Roosevelt calling Dec 7, 1941 "a date which will live in infamy" is "simplistic" and "not helpful.")
• Jan 20, 1942: SS Leader Heydrich holds the Wannsee Conference to coordinate the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." (World declares plan to kill all Jews is "not helpful". Urges Hitler to declare that exterminating all Jews is wrong in German.)
• Aug 17, 1942: First all-American air attack in Europe. (World outraged at American aggression! Suggests putting Roosevelt up for war crimes trial!)
• Oct 18, 1942: Hitler orders the execution of all captured British commandos. (World takes occasion to remind "Allies" that German prisoners should get extra bratwurst and beer for "Oktoberfest".)
• Jan 14-24, 1943: Casablanca conference between Churchill and Roosevelt. During the conference, Roosevelt announces the war can end only with an unconditional German surrender (World outraged! Says that Churchill and Roosevelt must be willing to negotiate with Hitler now while they're being attacked!)
• May 13, 1943: German and Italian troops surrender in North Africa. (World demands that relief groups monitor the conditions for German and Italian troops to make sure they're not being "tortured.")
• July 25/26, 1943: Mussolini arrested and the Italian Fascist government falls; Marshal Pietro Badoglio takes over and negotiates with Allies (World fears change in Italian leadership will cause "more instability in Europe.")
• July 27/28, 1943: Allied air raid causes a firestorm in Hamburg. (World condemns "Allies" raid on Hamburg. Votes 454-2 to order all allied forces to withdraw to their own countries and begin negotiating for peace.)
• Jan 6, 1944: Soviet troops advance into Poland. (World condemns Soviet aggression! Demands Soviets stop their "brutal oppression.")
• March 18, 1944: British drop 3000 tons of bombs during an air raid on Hamburg, Germany. (World outraged! Citizens of Hamburg "under siege"! World suggests putting troops inbetween combatants in effort to insure a cease fire.)
• June 6, 1944: D-Day landings. (World goes nuts! This outrageous aggression by the Allies must not stand!)
• June 13, 1944: First German V-1 rocket attack on Britain. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)
• Sept 1-4, 1944: Verdun, Dieppe, Artois, Rouen, Abbeville, Antwerp and Brussels liberated by Allies. (World urges Allies to negotiate with Axis for peace! World has moment of silence for the German people who may of been harmed in attacks!)
• Dec 17, 1944: Waffen SS murder 81 U.S. POWs at Malmedy. (World chides Allies that they had better not treat their prisoners like that!)
• Dec 26, 1944: Patton relieves Bastogne. (World outraged! Patton is a "hawk". The fact that the Americans put a man like that in charge of their military shows "they're not serious about peace.")
• Feb 13/14, 1945: Dresden is destroyed by a firestorm after Allied bombing raids. (World calls for all allied leaders to be put up for war crimes trial. World expresses "shock and dismay" at Allies "complete disregard" for civilians!)
• March 6, 1945: Last German offensive of the war begins to defend oil fields in Hungary. (World comments "Who could blame them after all those allied attacks? Wouldn't you do the same thing in their place?"
• April 1, 1945: U.S. troops encircle Germans in the Ruhr(World demands US allow German troops a way out rather than attack.)
• April 16, 1945: Soviet troops begin their final attack on Berlin; Americans enter Nuremberg. (World demands that Hitler not be overthrown! He is the elected leader of the German people!)
• April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler commits suicide. (World now very upset! Fears someone "worse than Hitler" may now take his place!)
• May 7, 1945: Unconditional surrender of all German forces to Allies. (World upset and concerned about fate of German people. Sends relief groups in to make sure Germans not mistreated!)
• June 5, 1945: Allies divide up Germany and Berlin and take over the government. (World outraged! Demands that the "occupation of Germany" end immediately)
• Aug 6, 1945: First atomic bomb dropped, on Hiroshima, Japan. (World demands Truman be tried for war crimes. Protestors and peaceniks from across the world flock to Japan to act as human shields)
• Aug 9, 1945: Second atomic bomb dropped, on Nagasaki, Japan. (World tells US that dropping atomic bombs will only "create more martyrs" and will encourage more Japanese than ever to turn against the Allies!)
• Aug 14, 1945: Japanese agree to unconditional surrender. (World sincerely hopes the citizens on the Axis nations can forgive the Allies for their uncalled for aggression, imperialism, and oppression in this war.) Thanks to this site. I lifted the dates on the timeline from them. (URL no longer works)

Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists?

by Ted Lapkin
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2004

The United States has faced such challenges before. In early morning darkness on June 13, 1942, a German U-boat surfaced off the coast of Long Island. Four men wearing German naval uniforms piled into a rubber dinghy and headed for shore. They buried their uniforms on the beach and headed toward their objective dressed in civilian clothes.^[2] Four nights later, another German unit came ashore in northern Florida. After hitting the beach, they too discarded their uniforms.

These Nazi intelligence agents sought to sabotage targets within the United States. They were unsuccessful. Several weeks later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested them in Chicago and New York, remanding them to a U.S. army military commission for trial.

Like the "illegal combatants" held today at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, these Nazi saboteurs challenged the legality of the military tribunal process. Their lawyers took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them. In a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, the court determined that the German agents had violated the law of war and that a "military commission was lawfully constituted" to try them for that crime. Thus, declared the Supreme Court, "the motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."^[3]

Fast-forward almost sixty years. Foreign agents infiltrate the United States. Again, they don civilian clothes to cloak their operations. Nineteen hijackers board aircraft in Washington and Boston, seize them, and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush stood before a joint session of Congress and declared war against terrorism, "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom … Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."[4]

The world did not have to wait long to see Bush back his rhetoric with action. Less than three weeks later, U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's sanctuary. While fighting, U.S. troops encountered foreigners who had cast their lot with Osama bin Laden. The ranks of these jihadists included Western converts to Islam such as American John Walker Lind and Australian David Hicks. They also seized immigrant nationals or their children from Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Russia, Spain, Sweden, as well as many Muslim nations. These jihadists neither wore uniforms, nor respected the Geneva Conventions. On March 4, 2002, for example, an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft captured on film the summary execution of captured 32-year-old Navy SEAL Neil Roberts by three jihadists.[5] Accordingly, the United States made a decision to detain these captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as illegal combatants, rather than prisoners of war.

International law has progressed in the six decades since the Supreme Court ruled against the Nazi saboteurs. But, despite the arguments made by numerous academics and human rights activists, the law does not necessarily side with the detainees. In its 2004 Rasul v. Bush decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, even if they are American citizens. The court, however, mandated that non-American detainees could challenge their incarceration in U.S. courts.[6]

The question of how to treat captured jihadists extends beyond Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq: Israel has for years been forced to contend with Palestinian terrorist organizations that dispatch suicide bombers. Both the Kurdistan Workers Party (Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan, PKK) and various Islamist groups target Turkish civilians.

But, while the human rights community has been critical of certain United States policies for years, since September 11, the Bush administration has matched or perhaps even surpassed Israel and Turkey as a primary target of such groups as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Many nongovernmental organizations reserve venom for their condemnation of the U.S. policy of detaining captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as illegal combatants. Amnesty International labels the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay a "human rights scandal."^[7] Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemn Washington's characterization of captured jihadists as illegal combatants as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. "In its treatment of the detainees at Guantánamo," declared Human Rights Watch, the United States "has been unwilling to fully apply international humanitarian law… [and] has flouted international human rights standards."^[8] Amnesty International has adopted a similarly critical attitude. In a statement to the sixtieth session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Amnesty referred to "the human rights scandal of Guantánamo Bay" where "international law was flouted from the outset."[9]

Who Do the Geneva Conventions Protect?

But to what extent do the laws of armed conflict really apply in the war against terror? The answer resides primarily in the text of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention,[10] intended to ensure humane treatment for captured legal combatants. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) declared the Geneva Conventions to be the "bedrock of principles and rules that must guide the conduct of hostilities and the treatment of persons who have fallen into the hands of a party to an armed conflict."^[11] The Red Cross has gone so far as to demand mandatory application of the Geneva Conventions "wherever a situation of violence reaches the level of an armed conflict."^[12]

Yet, treaties are more like commercial contracts in that they are traditionally viewed as binding only among their parties. Some multinational agreements have evolved into the universally applicable "customary international law." This development is enshrined in the doctrine of jus cogens, which asserts the existence of a higher law that supersedes both national law and international agreements.^[13]

In the wake of World War II, the international military tribunal at Nuremburg declared that the 1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land to be customary international law.^[14] Yet, jurists have reached no such consensus about whether the 1949 Geneva Conventions have made such a transition.^[15]

Unfortunately, the basis for the Red Cross's conclusion appears to have more to do with institutional self-aggrandizement than with international law. Many leftist academics and activists insist that the Geneva Conventions must be universally applied. Yet, that argument is undercut by those treaties' texts. The Third Geneva Convention explicitly states that parties need not apply it to all conflicts, especially when the foes are not parties, and when enemies do not abide by its terms.^[16]

No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule.

Iraqi insurgents beheaded 26-year-old American businessman Nicholas Berg and shot 20-year-old Keith Matthew Maupin shortly after the June 28, 2004 transfer of sovereignty. On July 22, Iraqi police found the beheaded corpse of a Bulgarian hostage. The Arabic satellite television network Al-Jazeera had confirmed on July 13 that it had a tape showing his execution.[17] Iraqi captors have also executed Pakistanis, a Turk, and a South Korean, among others. Such mistreatment of prisoners is not a new phenomenon among terrorist groups. In the 1980s, Hezbollah captured a number of Westerners in Lebanon, among them priests, journalists, professors, a librarian, and even the president of the American University of Beirut. Hezbollah tortured and hanged U.S. Marine lieutenant colonel William Higgins. Iraqi insurgents who decapitate civilian hostages have no more international legal claim to protection than did Hezbollah kidnappers.

By violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured Al-Qaeda members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War II—trial by military commission and execution by firing squad.[18]

A similar argument applies to the Taliban. In 1956, the government of Afghanistan signed the Geneva Conventions. If the Taliban were the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then the United States would be bound to apply the Third Geneva Convention to captured Taliban fighters. Yet, only three governments—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—recognized the Taliban's claim to power. In fact, throughout this period, the rival Northern Alliance occupied Afghanistan's seat at the United Nations. A typical illustration of the U.N.'s noncommittal attitude towards the Taliban appears in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267 which addressed the group as only an "Afghan faction."^[19] After a fistfight erupted between diplomats at the Afghan embassy in Washington, police simply expelled everyone and shuttered the building.

If international bodies did not recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government, then their militias could not be considered Afghanistan's regular armed forces any more than Hezbollah can be considered the army of Lebanon. Thus, Taliban fighters were not eligible for automatic Third Geneva Convention coverage. The United States is simply not obligated to extend Third Geneva Convention protections to every militia or organization that has pretensions to power.

A subsection of article four does afford automatic prisoner of war (POW) privileges to "members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or authority not recognized by the detaining power."^[20] Accordingly, even if Washington did not recognize the authority of Mullah Omar's regime, U.S. forces would still be obligated to grant POW status to the Taliban had the Taliban been a regular force. But, the Taliban was anything but a regular force. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed this issue at a February 8, 2002 press conference:

The Taliban did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms … To the contrary, far from seeking to distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan, they sought to blend in with civilian non-combatants, hiding in mosques and populated areas. They [were] not organized in military units, as such, with identifiable chains of command….^[21]

Does International Law Protect Terrorists?

Some pundits and journalists condemn U.S. policy as a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions. Writing in the Guardian, a left-wing British broadsheet, professor of human rights law Conor Gearty proclaimed U.S. policy to be "cruel, unnecessary and as dangerous now as it was when first introduced."[22] But Gearty's criticism is more emotional than substantive. Nothing in the conventions requires that all captives receive prisoner of war status. In fact, article four of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates a number of requirements that must be met before a captive irregular combatant can qualify as a prisoner of war.

The drafters of the 1949 Geneva Conventions sought to base the treaty on past precedent. While the 1907 Hague regulations stipulated that "the laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps," those same regulations also presented a four-part test to determine eligibility of those irregular forces for lawful combatant status.^[23] In order to be recognized as legitimate combatants, the Hague regulations required irregular units to "be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; to have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; to carry arms openly; and to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."^[24]

The drafters of the Third Geneva Convention adopted this four-part test as part of the criteria to determine eligibility for POW status. The delegates drafting the convention made quite clear in their debates that they did not want to confer automatic POW status on irregular forces. After much negotiation, a special committee of the conference resolved this question by crafting article 4(A) so as to differentiate between regular armed forces, constituent volunteer corps, and militias on one hand, from irregular resistance movements, on the other. The drafters agreed to apply the Hague four-part test to the latter.^[25]

Terrorists groups ranging from separatists like the PKK in Turkey, Chechen rebels in Russia, or the Pakistani-backed Harakat ul-Mujahideen in India; to Palestinian groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, to the numerous cells that comprise the Al-Qaeda network all fail the four-part test. Hijacking civilian airliners and flying them into office buildings is not "in accordance with the laws and customs of war," nor is using human bombs to blow up buses, nor is lining up and executing school teachers. On these grounds, as well, the Taliban also forfeited claim to POW status. While they did carry arms openly, they neither observed the international humanitarian law, nor wore any recognizable sign to distinguish themselves from civilians.[26]

During the chaos of combat, confusion often reigns supreme. In battlefield confusion, captured combatants' eligibility for POW status may not be clear. During the mid-1980s, I served in Lebanon as an officer in Israel's Golani infantry brigade. We were engaged in a classic guerrilla war against Hezbollah, Amal, and Palestinian fighters who dressed in blue jeans and toted RPG-7s and AK-47s. At the slightest hint of disadvantage, these combatants would drop their weapons and melt away into the nearest Lebanese village, where they would try to blend into the local population.

The ensuing murkiness is precisely why the Third Geneva Convention demands that a "competent tribunal" determine the status of prisoners where there is doubt as to their proper status.^[27] But, while it mandates that a tribunal be held, the convention does not dictate details of the process.

In its war against terror, the U.S. military adheres to the competent tribunal requirement. No detainee ended up in Guantánamo without a series of interrogations by U.S. intelligence officials. This process was intended to determine whether a prisoner was a bona fide enemy or an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. Questions were asked, explanations given, and evaluations made. Thus, while Australian jihadist David Hicks wound up in Guantánamo and will shortly appear before a U.S. military commission, Afghan Haji Faiz Muhammad was arrested on suspicion of affiliation with the Taliban and was later released. Faiz Muhammad had few complaints about his treatment in U.S. custody, declaring "we had enough food to eat. We could pray and wash with water five times a day."[28]

Facilitating the Fight against Al-Qaeda

Despite being under no legal obligation to do so, the U.S. government treats the Guantánamo detainees in a manner consistent with the Third Geneva Convention. Why does Washington apply the letter and not the spirit of the Third Geneva Convention to the Guantánamo detainees? In principle, the Bush administration believes that members of an enemy organization that flies hijacked airliners into office buildings should not be rewarded for their crimes.[29] The privileges of Geneva Convention status are simply that—privileges. Moreover, in practice, the ability to circumvent the Geneva Conventions gives U.S. forces a substantial advantage in prosecuting its war against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist proxies.

This would allow more intrusive questioning for captured terrorists than the Geneva Conventions permits for prisoners of war. But, that does not make U.S. actions illegal or mean that the United States is guilty of torture, as some human rights activists have claimed.[30] The U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person."[31]

But, it is doubtful whether sleep deprivation or sensory disorientation constitutes "severe pain or suffering." While all four Geneva Conventions contain a common article three containing an injunction against, "cruel treatment and torture,"^[32] the interpretation of this provision rests upon the definition of torture for which the definitive document is the U.N. torture convention. True, Article 16 of UNCAT states, "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture." But, international legal language is precise. Obligation to "undertake to prevent" is not absolute prohibition. While lesser categories of coercion should not be routine, they may be available to intelligence authorities in the event of a classic ticking bomb scenario. Can some degree of force be used, for example, on a terrorist who has knowledge of an impending attack? If depriving a captured Al-Qaeda operative of sleep could prevent a bombing such as that which struck Madrid in March 2004, would that be a greater violation of international law than allowing the slaughter of innocents to proceed?

The U.S. government is not only within its rights but is also wise to hold Al-Qaeda members incommunicado. A prisoner's military value does not solely consist of the information that a captive carries in his head. By holding Al-Qaeda members incommunicado, the U.S. military can sow the seeds of confusion and uncertainty in terrorist ranks. If bin Laden's followers do not know whether one of their comrades has been captured, then they also do not know whether any of their operations have been compromised. This is at the heart of the controversy about whether U.S. officials prematurely revealed that they had captured an Al-Qaeda computer specialist named Muhammad Naim Nur Khan who had assisted authorities in entrapping other Al-Qaeda operatives who were unaware of his capture.[33] Yet, if the Third Geneva Convention were applied to terrorists, the treaty's strict rules on reporting the capture of enemy POWs would make such a ruse de guerre impossible and would lead to the death of more civilians.

Thus, U.S. policy in its war against terror is consistent with the Third Geneva Convention. But, human rights advocates, such as Anthony Dworkin of the Crimes of War Project, argue that U.S. detention of suspected Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan or suspected insurgents in Iraq nonetheless violates the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.^[34] The terms of this convention are expansive and seek to prevent unnecessary hardship to civilians in occupied territory. Nevertheless, any argument that U.S. policy violates the Fourth Geneva Convention can only be based on a very selective reading of that treaty. After all, regardless of how ambitious the convention's terms are, they still recognize the exigencies of war and the necessity to govern captured territory. The convention, for example, allows combatants to deny protections to an occupied territory's residents if those residents threaten security.^[35] Thus, when the United States and Great Britain accepted formal occupying power status in Iraq under the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, the international community gave them the ability to detain civilians for the overall security of coalition troops.

Israel, too, as an occupying power, has every legal right to pursue Palestinian terrorists and detain Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza. And, while these detentions cannot be open-ended, provisions to release terrorist suspects "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power" are open to interpretation. When car bombs target Iraqi civilians and politicians on the streets of Baghdad, and when suicide bombers attack Israeli buses on the streets of Jerusalem, neither U.S. nor Israeli authorities are under any obligation to release detainees. When push comes to shove, drafters of the convention recognized that the demands of legitimate military necessity always trump the extension of the treaty's privileges.

Human rights organizations and activists have also demanded that the U.S. government apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to Guantánamo detainees. According to Amnesty International, U.S. detention of illegal combatants violates ICCPR clauses against arbitrary arrest or detention.^[36] This is disingenuous, however, since the ICCPR also contains a clause that permits governments to suspend its application:

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States [and] Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.^[37]

On November 13, 2001, President Bush promulgated a military order entitled, "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism." This presidential directive declared that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were "on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces." The order went on to "proclaim a national emergency" in order to prevent terrorists from inflicting "mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property" which could "place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government."^[38]

The Bush administration has carefully positioned itself within the bounds of international law. Bush's proclamation satisfied both the procedural and substantive prerequisites for suspending the arbitrary arrest clauses of the ICCPR. Human rights advocacy groups may not like it, but international law is not always consistent with their political agendas.

Do Human Rights Groups Undermine International Law?

During the past century and a half, the world has witnessed almost 100 attempts to implement international agreements that would constrain the violence of war.[39] While many, if not most, of those conventions have fallen by the wayside through general disregard, a few have served to ameliorate the suffering caused by armed conflicts. What separated relevant from irrelevant agreements was pragmatism.

The authors of the 1949 Geneva Conventions were realists who recognized that by attempting to ban everything, they would stop nothing.

Distinction between permissible and impermissible violence is the keystone of international humanitarian law. The international consensus that certain weapons and tactics should be outlawed depends upon this distinction. Chemical weapons, for example, are clearly illegal. The practical implementation of the rules depends upon soldiers' ability to discriminate between what is military and what is not. In the words of an International Committee of the Red Cross educational pamphlet, "It is a basic principle of international humanitarian law that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives."^[40]

Anything that obscures the distinction between combatant and noncombatant undermines the entire foundation of international humanitarian law. Any erosion in the ability to differentiate between civilians and soldiers on the battlefield inevitably would automatically place noncombatants at greater risk. If soldiers are distinctively marked or uniformed, then troops are less likely to mistake civilians for armed combatants and fire upon them. Yet, by seeking to ban detention of illegal combatants in facilities like Guantánamo Bay, this is precisely where the recommendations of the human rights industry would lead.

Political corruption of international law is a serious issue. The U.N. Human Rights Commission, especially under the tenure of Mary Robinson, placed politics over sound legal principle. It is precisely because international jurists and human rights experts remain unaccountable and free to pursue political agendas that the U.S. government has remained vigilant.

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention provides a textbook example of the dangers of such ideological pollution. Drafted at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet bloc and its Third World allies sought recognition for those who fight "against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes."^[41] But, the most perniciously politicized provisions of the protocol appear in article 44, which bestows automatic POW status on all combatants, including so-called freedom fighters, even if they violate the laws of war.^[42] Another clause would permit fighters to retain legal combatant status even if they fight in civilian clothes.^[43] Thus, in one fell swoop, the drafters struck a body blow against the entire system of international humanitarian law. Not only did the Soviet sphere try to emasculate any incentive for combatants to abide by the law of war, but they also sought to obfuscate the vital distinction between combatants and noncombatants.

While the Carter administration signed the 1977 Geneva Protocol, the Reagan administration understood the damage the treaty would do. Because of the drafters' overt political agenda, the United States declined to become party to the additional protocol.[44] The Bush administration is fortunate that the Senate did not ratify the treaty. Had it done so, captured Al-Qaeda terrorists could shield themselves with the very same civilized guidelines that they hold in such contempt.

Many academics, pundits, and politicians have sought to transform the Geneva Conventions into something they are not. The fundamental violations of international law committed by terrorists, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Spain, or Russia, render them ineligible for Geneva Convention protection. To apply the Geneva Conventions universally would be the undoing of those treaties. If there is no price to pay for doffing their uniform or shuttling combatants in Red Crescent ambulances, then soldiers would figure such illegalities to be worth it. Serious violations of the laws of war would become the equivalent of jaywalking. Those advocating universal application of the Geneva Conventions to detainees in Guantánamo Bay are, in effect, encouraging future combatants to transform hospitals into ammunition depots and schools into machine gun nests. The entire regime of international humanitarian law would crumble, and the protections it provides to noncombatants in war would disappear.

The laws of war are imperfect instruments, often "more honored in the breach than the observance."^[45] Yet, despite their inherent limitations, they are humanity's best chance to restrain the savagery of war. The key to their effectiveness—and the ability of Western democracies to fight terrorism—lies in their ability to establish a clear differentiation between licit and illicit means of conducting armed conflict. To blur this distinction and to unnecessarily apply the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants would erode that distinction and constitute not only a legal mistake, but an ethical one as well.

Ted Lapkin is the associate editor of The Review, the monthly journal of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.

[1] CNN.com, June 19, 2004, at http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/.
[2] Ex Parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942), U.S. Supreme Court, at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Address to a joint session of Congress, United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html.
[5] BBC.com, Mar. 6, 2002, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1857599.stm.
[6] Rasul v Bush (03-334) 321 F.3d 1134, reversed and remanded.
[7] "Guantánamo Bay: A Human Rights Scandal," Amnesty International, at http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng.
[8] "United States: Guantánamo Two Years On," Human Rights Watch, Jan. 9, 2004, at http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm.
[9] "The Human Rights Scandal of Guantanamo Bay," Amnesty International, AI Index: IOR 41/024/2004, no. 098, Apr. 20, 2004.
[10] Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument.
[11] "International Law and the Challenge of Armed Conflicts," 28^th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Dec. 2-6, 2003, p. 5.
[12] Ibid., p. 8.
[13] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, art. 53, at http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm.
[14] "Judgment of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg," Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 1946, p. 65.
[15] Yoram Dinstein, "Application of Customary International Law," in Michael Bothe, ed., National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Proceedings of an International Colloquium Held at Bad Homburg, June 17-19, 1988 (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1991), p. 31.
[16] Geneva Convention (III), art. II, para. 3.
[17] CNN.com, July 13, 2004, at http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.main/.
[18] Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
[19] Text at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/5110.htm.
[20] Geneva Convention (III), art. 4(A)3.
[21] Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Department of Defense news conference, Feb. 8, 2002, at http://usinfo.org/usia/usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020818.htm.
[22] The Guardian (London), July 7, 2004.
[23] Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Federal Political Department, Bern, p. 467.
[24] Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Hague, 18 October 1907, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6?OpenDocument.
[25] Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, p. 422.
[26] Rumsfeld, news conference, Feb. 8, 2002.
[27] Geneva Convention (III), art. 5, para. 2.
[28] BBC News World Edition, Oct. 29, 2002, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2371349.stm.
[29] Theodore B. Olsen, solicitor general of the United States, "Brief for the Respondents," Rasul v Bush (03-334) 321 F.3d 1134, reversed and remanded.
[30] U.S.-based Australian lawyer Richard Bourke claimed that Australian Guantánamo detainees David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib were being tortured. Radio National PM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Oct. 8, 2003.
[31] Text at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm.
[32] Geneva Conventions I, II, III, IV, art. 3-1A, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView.
[33] Associated Press, Aug. 9, 2004.
[34] Anthony Dworkin, "America's Interrogation Network: Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners in International Law," Crimes of War Project, at http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-prison2.html.
[35] Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 5, para. 1, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument.
[36] "USA: Guantánamo Detainees—The Legal Black Hole Deepens," Amnesty International, Mar. 12, 2003.
[37] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, part 2, art. 4, at http://www.mediator.online.bg/eng/iccpr-2.htm.
[38] White House news release, Nov. 13, 2001, at http://www.state.gov/coalition/cr/prs/6077.htm.
[39] "States Parties & Signatories, by Treaties," ICRC, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView.
[40] "International Humanitarian Law and Terrorism: Questions and Answers," ICRC, May 2004, at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YNLEV.
[41] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1), art. 1, sec. 4, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument.
[42] Ibid., art. 44, sec. 2.
[43] Ibid., art. 44, sec. 3.
[44] "Letter of Transmittal from President Ronald Reagan to the United States Senate, 29 January 1989," reprinted in American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, no. 4, p. 910.
[45] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 1, scene 4.

World War I Diary Discovered: Describes British Soldier's experiences on the front line between 1915 and 1917

Imported from MilBlogging.com

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Marisa Miller & Harley Davidson Salute Those Who Defend Freedom

North Platte Canteen

When the "Greatest Generation" passed through North Platte, Nebraska during WWII, they got a hug and a handshake, homemade cakes and cookies, and a moment of respite and prayer provided by thousands of volunteers from the surrounding communities. This spirit of service is vital to America today. You can give something back to our military members and their families. Visit militaryministry.org to see how!

Some Islamic History -- Founding Father Time (Imported)

To the Shores of Tripoli

Fred Thompson

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.
We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine.

That’s from the Marine Corp Hymn, of course, and you can thank me for not singing it. When I was a boy, a lot of America kids knew that verse -- and probably a few more. I hope they still do, but I get the impression that might not be the case.

That's one reason I'd like to spend some time talking about the heritage this song represents. Another reason is that the lyrics hold a history lesson critical to America’s future. I realize a lot of you already know this material, but indulge me for the sake of those who might not.

The very first line written for the Marine Corps Hymn, about the shores of Tripoli, refers to America's first foreign war. After the Revolution, U.S. ships were sailing the world in search of trade without British protection. With no real navy to protect our merchants and travelers, American vessels and citizens were being targeted for looting, enslavement and ransom. The enemy was the so-called Barbary pirates -- agents of the North African provinces of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Ransom and protection money were demanded and paid. Stories of terrible treatment of American men and women in the dungeons of North Africa were well known. Behind it all, the country was having a pro- and anti-war debate.

On the one hand were those who took the "no blood for trade" approach. They had legitimate concerns about the cost and political impact of maintaining a standing military. They favored negotiations and payments rather than fighting. For a long time, their side was winning the argument. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:

“Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

This answer may have helped sway the debate to the side of those who favored military response over further attempts at diplomacy. Some believe it had a personal impact on Jefferson himself, though higher and higher ransoms probably helped too. Congress finally acted, creating the US Navy in 1794. This included approval for the construction and manning of six frigate warships, including the USS Constitution -- which is afloat and commissioned to this day.

Still, though, congress refused to act directly against the Barbary pirates for years. Eventually, between 10 and 20 percent of U.S. revenues would be paid annually without ever buying actual safety for Americans. In the end, Thomas Jefferson acted on his own, sending forces into harm’s way. America entered into its first and protracted foreign war. From beginning to end, in fact, the conflict lasted approximately 14 years. I couldn’t tell you, by the way, if the Barbary wars were ever described as a “quagmire” or "lost."

I won’t describe here the taking of Tripoli by courageous American soldiers. And I sure don’t have time to talk about America's eventual victory over the forces of that era's religiously justified terrorism. I would though encourage you to read about it for yourself. It's a great story and it holds an important lesson about the nature of the world.

Sometimes folks around the world mock Americans for not having more of a sense of history. They might be right, but I think it is often for a good reason. Americans are a people who look to the future instead of the past. We hope and believe that things can and will get better. We are more than willing to forgive our old enemies and move forward together in peace. So we tend to forget the bad things we left behind.

Unfortunately, some of our enemies feel differently. They neither forgive nor forget. Listening to the messages of al Qaida's leaders, you understand that they see their old defeats in very personal and contemporary terms. They are in a “long war” against us, even if we don’t know it. And they’re committed to winning it.

5-years Later (Amazing) -- Bush's Legacy

Interview With Military Historian - Victor Davis Hanson

March 31, 2005
An Audience with Saudi Arabia
by Victor Davis Hanson
Private Papers

Victor responded to some questions from Idris A. Ahmed, editor of Al-watan Newspaper, a daily Saudi news paper.

1. How do you see the world Without the U.S.?

A descent into regional power blocks and zones of influence that would eventually impair the present global system of trade and commerce. The strongest would dictate to the weakest, whether a China becoming a player in the Persian Gulf, a nuclear Iran, or a North Korea antagonizing Japan. There are thousands of places in the world that the U.S. silently adjudicates in a manner that disputing parties respect but do not often report.

All this hinges on Americans willing to spend billions abroad—$100 billion in aid to rebuild Iraq, $50 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt since the Camp David Accords, billions to Jordan and the old Palestinian Authority—as well as saving Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Remember, it costs about $3-4 dollars a barrel to pump oil in most of the Middle East and it now sells for about $50—but only because the global system protects property rights, has free commerce and the sea lanes are open and safe.

In the shadows of all that is not the U.N., the Arab League, or the E.U., but the U.S. Without it we will see a world of Saddams, who simply invade a Kuwait and take what they wish when they wish.

2. Do you agree that the world was more safe before the U.S. declaration of war against the terrorism, taking into account that the radical groups have witnessed considerable increase in numbers and operations since then?

I disagree with your conclusion. Here in America we can chart a 25-year cycle, beginning with the Iranian hostage taking, moving on to Lebanon, embassies being bombed, Khobar Towers, first World Trade Center, USS Cole etc. whose ultimate logic and expression was 9-11. The theory of these attacks was to weaken insidiously U.S. resolve by harvesting a few Americans each year. But since the war in Iraq we have seen new transparency in Libya, revelations about Pakistan's bomb-making, elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the West Bank, and even calls for more openness in your part of the world.

3. If there were no U.S., is it probable that the conflict in the occupied Palestine territories might be settled in some other way, taking into consideration the blind support of U.S. to Israel?

Peace hinges on two democratic interlocutors who can work out the details of 5% or so of the West Bank. We are not talking about occupied Tibet, Russia's occupation of Japanese islands, or 10% of Germany still held by Poland. The area under dispute in the granting of Palestinian independence is not large and can be settled by reasonable people.

The problem is that the Arafat kleptocracy could not negotiate as a legitimate voice, given its absence of regular elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary. Now we feel that the new government is both more legitimate and might agree to settle the issue through diplomacy. The intifada was a tragic mistake and failed, and so in its detritus we all have more hopes for peace. A two-state solution is the only answer; if both are truly democratic then any existing problem can be solved.

4. How do you see the U.S. interventions in the internal affairs of many independent states, in the name of human rights and often in the name of democracy?

Much can be attributed to the Cold War: 7,000 nukes pointed at your country tend to curb idealism and thus resulted in some places with "pump oil, keep out communists" policies that did not encourage democracy. But in the post-Cold War, there are new hopes that the United States policy will be to foster democratic reform. And we will allow countries to be quite critical of us, like Turkey for example. It is their country, let them do as they please. But we all must be mature: a Germany, for example, cannot level such invective against the U.S. and then expect American bases and subsidized protection.

We in the U.S. were delighted about the pullout from Saudi Arabia. And by the way, given the end of the U.N. embargo of Iraq, will bin Laden now call it quits—since his two demands in his 1998 fatwa are now apparently met?

5. Is the U.S. really playing the role of the “world police”, and who authorized her to play such a role?

Well in 1917 we had kept out and were invited in to save Western liberalism. In 1941 we came in to save democracy from fascism, albeit reluctantly. In 1946 the Soviet Union was poised to take over much of the European continent. And in the Middle East, I think Baathism, Soviet inspired as it was, did far more damage than the U.S. ever did. As bad as the Shah was, Iran in 1975 was no worse, and perhaps much better, than in 2005. A Kuwait or Saudi Arabia was not like Syria or Libya—Sadat figured that out when he flipped in 1973. But in general, unless the United States is going to be consistent in its support for democratic reformers, we should stay out of internal affairs and deal with nations that wish to us harm in an external way.

6. The invasion and occupation of Iraq resulted in serious human, material damage and geopolitical change. Given that the proclaimed weapons of mass destruction—the reason that led U.S. to invade Iraq—were not found, how do you evaluate the stability of the world before and after the invasion of Iraq?

Read the October 11, 2002 Senate proclamation authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam: there were 23 clauses ranging from WMD to 22 other reasons like trying to assassinate a former US President, gassing his own people, attacking 4 countries, violating the 1991 peace accords, etc. WMD was only one writ-and remember Arab governments warned the US that Saddam would use WMD, hence the problems of outfitting thousands in chemical suits in Kuwait. Between 1979 and 2003 Saddam perhaps killed as many as 1 million Arabs or Kurds; that will not happen again in Iraq. And the U.S. did not set up a Shah-like figure. With these elections and more to follow, most Americans hope to be gone rather quickly, once Iraq is fully constitutional.

7. Do you agree that the crimes of war committed by the American troops against the Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison has extremely damaged trust in the U.S. to bring democracy and maintain human rights for the Iraqi people—an event that distorted its image in the world?

Somewhat. Since America must be perfect and when it is not, it feels it is not even good. Remember that what happened in Abu Ghraib was investigated, stiff sentences were handed down and the judicial process continues. But such roguery is a daily occurrence for political prisoners in the Middle East, and only transparency can bring these problems to light.

One final point, the image of the Arab world in the U.S. after 9-11 is also at an all time low. We saw dancing in Palestine on news of 3000 murdered, 15 of the killers were Saudis, Atta was not poor but middle class and Western educated. And now with all the translating of Arab speeches, documents, and TV news into English that is being done and printed freely on the Internet the American people are seeing a Middle East that they feel is violently hostile to the West and at odds with liberal values. We are seeing and reading uncensored things from the Arab world, and it has had a devastating effect here in the U.S. on our views of the Middle East.

The average voter in Kansas finally has read too many speeches by an imam or cleric calling Americans "pigs and apes" as well as infidels, and is asking very new questions: is it safer to open a mosque in Detroit or Church in Saudi? Is a Westerner safer on the street in Yemen or an Arab in Los Angeles? Can one more easily support Israel in a speech in Cairo or support the Palestinians in Washington? And out of this perceived imbalance, a new unease with the Arab Middle East has arisen. In your part of the world you talk easily about "Anti-Americanism" but that is old news and the wage of a superpower.

What is new, really new is what I would call "anti-Middle Easternism" in America. We have seen one too many beheadings, one too many burnings of the U.S. flag, one too many fist-shaking mobs, and collectively sighed, "Enough is enough, they really are different people and we must go our ways." Hence the brilliant tactics of the Iraqi terrorists who made themselves so grotesque that they hoped Westerners would simply say "all of these people are like that, let's not spend any more money or help in that part of the world."

Freedom and democracy alone will allow all this to recover and to renew our old friendship. But right now? I'd say we are waiting for the Arab world to democratize and join the other 4 billion who have, and until then, we are in a process of disengaging troops from Saudi Arabia, calls to cut aid to Egypt if it doesn't reform, cutting of all ties with Syria, almost no US tourism to the Middle East, hard look at visas and students coming to America, desperate efforts to look at non-petroleum energy, etc.

8.The U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocal, in favor of its industry, was regarded by many environment protection groups as a deliberate intention to pollute the world and threaten the human existence. Can you comment on this?

I think the reasoning was rather that since we run huge trade deficits with China (and now India) other countries were not subject to the protocols and would continue to use energy in a less responsible way than the West and thus find cheaper methods of production to undercut American competitiveness The key is to find a standard and then to apply it to all nations on earth in exactly the same manner. We all hope a protocol can be worked out. Also, it is imperative for the Middle East to build a middle class that is highly educated and can create wealth since a petroleum based global economy is under renewed scrutiny on all fronts.

9.The U.S. declared withdrawal from the treaty of nuclear arsenals reduction with Russia. How do you see the future of the world under such insane armament race?

I think you are talking about the renunciation of the ABM treaty? Since the Soviet empire no longer exists, the US felt the treaty did not either. An ABM system may give the U.S. leverage when countries like Iran and North Korea attempt to engage in nuclear blackmail, as Iran is presently with Europe and North Korea with Japan. Democratization is critical to ensure these growing arsenals are subject to consensual government.

10. The U.S. major pharmaceutical companies endangered millions of lives in the poor countries through its monopoly of the patents of life-saving drugs. How do you see this claim?

Well, the U.S. pledged $15 billion in AIDS treatment money for Africa, far more than Europe and the Middle East combined. Most of these drugs cost billions to make, and billions more to defend from expensive litigation, so the patents allow the companies to find profit on their investment. If the world ends the present system, I just hope that governments will be as successful in finding new drugs as private enterprise. Remember, there is nothing stopping the oil-rich Gulf States from getting together and creating a shared public consortium to make their own drugs that are free from Western protocols and overhead.

11. How do you see the legality of the economic sanctions imposed by U.S. on many countries, e.g. Sudan, Syria and Cuba?

Castro has killed thousands of his own people and denies freedom to all—hence their desperate effort to reach Florida. The Sudan is engaged in genocide in Darfur. Syria sends money and aids in transit terrorists trying to kill democratic reformers. Hamas was no accident either. So the U.S. Congress, precisely because it does not wish to use force, has decided to pressure those autocracies to free their people and hold elections.

12. How do you see the preemptive attacks on theory adopted by the U.S. administration and its reflection on the international security and peace?

It is not a U.S. theory but as old as the Greeks and Romans. The latest manifestations-Noriega, Milosevic, Taliban, and Saddam-show a new trend of taking out fascists and allowing democracy to emerge in their wake. Would you wish any of them to return? But the American people are tiring of the cost and the invective that follows, and have come to a sort of consensus "none of these people are worth it" which is a tragic misreading of the good the U.S. does, but will curtail it in the future. Saddam's fate was sealed by 9-11 when the decision was made to take a close look at all those who aid and abet terrorists from the Middle East.

13. How do you evaluate the risks of the globalization, many of which are U.S.-based companies, on the international relations, local cultures of communities and world diversity?

I am very worried about it, growing up on a small farm that was obliterated by cheap fruit imports from Turkey, Greece, South America, and South Africa. Local culture in the U.S. was not all Wal-Mart, so it hit us first. But we must be adults and mature—globalization has given the world cheap clothes, food, medicines, etc. that was impossible just 30 years ago and helped at least in a material sense billions of the world's poor. So a balance must be struck, but as you know tribal people the world over now have access to antibiotics, eyeglasses, and books in a fashion not possible before—so the key is find some balance between material benefit and cultural autonomy.

14. How do you imagine the Arab world 50 years from today?

I have great hope. I think it will follow the course of Latin America and Asia and embrace democracy and open markets, take a hard look at persistent problems such as religious intolerance, polygamy, and near gender apartheid in places, and allow the Arab masses the same level of free expression that is now increasingly found elsewhere.

Democratization we think is critical since many autocratic governments use state-controlled media to deflect popular angst over their own failures to provide decent housing, jobs, education and infrastructure onto the bogey-man America—often in an insidious relationship with terrorists like al Qaeda that were given tacit support and sometimes money as a sort of blackmail on the promises their fury would be directed at the West and not Arab monarchies, autocracies, and dictatorship.

Only democracy can end that harmful calculus. Remember also that millions of wonderful Arab people have found tolerance, religious freedom, and economic prosperity in America, without the ghettoization of Europe and without the worry of state coercion at home. We believe only freedom in all its manifestations can solve our differences, and thus many of us in the United States are working to ensure our government supports reform and democracy in the Middle East and ends the old realpolitik.

I for one would pray for a strong Arab world, fully democratic and free, proud, a partner with America on an equal basis in all areas that gives and takes advice and works shoulder to shoulder with us. But as along as there is not one truly free election in some 20 countries I see little chance of that happening.