Bush and the Ethics of Counterterrorism

Introduction

In exactly two weeks George W. Bush leaves office. It is time for change, and while Barack Obama is not the exact change I was hoping for, I remain
“cautiously optimistic” about the future. Obama is an extremely bright individual with strong leadership skills; though I disagree with him on many issues, I believe that many good things will come from his presidency. But before this transition takes place, I feel compelled to write some reflections on this Bush’s tumultuous eight years in office.

Much has transpired during Bush’s time in office. Indeed, as with most Presidents, the summation of Bush’s tenure is best captured by a shelf of books—not a blog entry. Consequently, I have re-written these posts numerous times in an effort to make a meaningful and relevant statement, while avoiding a complete rehash of the Bush controversies that people of all political persuasions do not wish to relive. To this end, I have decided to devote two posts to discussing two issues of the Bush presidency that will continue to bear relevance in the Obama administration: counterterrorism and Iraq.


Controversial Counterterrorism

In keeping with humanity’s propensity for such conceptualizations, many have come to embrace Obama as an intelligent, compassionate, honest, and virtuous protagonist who will rectify the heinous crimes of the daft, callous, deceitful, and corrupt George W. Bush. At present, I will not attempt to deflate the current public image of Obama that is so replete with expectations—his presidency has not yet begun. I do, however, take issue with the popular characterization of Bush. Far too many people have come to portray Bush as some sort of malevolent dictator. A child of the silver spoon? YES. At times overconfident and headstrong? YES. Callous, malicious, or immoral? NO—his biography just does not support such a characterization. On the contrary, I believe he is one of the most principled and moral Presidents to ever hold office. But his is a morality that seldom appreciates a blurred line between perceived right and wrong, and shows little restraint when confronting the latter. Depending on your vantage point, this is either the greatest strength or weakness of Bush’s character.

Among the most controversial of Bush’s policies have been those concerning counterterrorism, specifically the use of coercive interrogation techniques by the CIA. These policies have been the focus of much attention over the past eight years, but anyone who has studied the history of Western intelligence gathering knows that virtually none of these practices are by any means new to the CIA or the Office of the President. In fact, every U.S. President that has held office since Franklin Roosevelt (with the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter) has utilized these practices in the name of national security. Moreover, techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and sensory bombardment for which Bush has been repudiated, are arguably far more humane than those utilized by the CIA and Military Intelligence during the Cold War. Even after the Cold War had ended, it was the Clinton administration—not the Bush administration—that began the process of abducting members of Al Qaeda in other countries and sending them to countries where the laws against torture are non-existent. In his book Enemies, former Clinton administration official Richard Clarke tells the followings story:

“extraordinary renditions” were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from
South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that.” Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

The writings of Richard Clark, Michael Scheuer, and others evidence that extralegal rendition was being used to fight terrorism long before Bush ever took office.

In this way, NONE of the questionable counterterrorism strategies utilized by Bush have been unique to his presidency. The only major difference between this administration and previous administrations is that Bush sought legal grounds to allow official employees of the CIA to employ pre-defined techniques of coercive interrogation. Moreover, he sought legal grounds to detain foreign fighters indefinitely at facilities such as those at Guantanamo Bay. While this seems disturbing, one must again consult historical precedent. During almost every conflict of the 20th century, captured “enemy combatants” who were not uniform-wearing citizens of a specific country were not considered POWs, nor were they sent to prisons like Guantanamo Bay—they were simply executed. As for those individuals captured by means of rendition, prior to Guantanamo they would have been interrogated and subsequently imprisoned in countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

To portray Bush as founding father of coercive interrogation and rendition is historically ignorant. Indeed, many of the journalists at Harper’s and the New York Times seemingly spend more time perfecting their witty prose that researching its content (i.e. Scott Horton). For those of you who vehemently dislike Bush, the above undoubtedly does little garner your favor for the man—that is not my intention. Instead, I foremost wish for people understand the counterterrorism policies of the last eight years with some perspective. One cannot demonize George W. Bush, while idolizing the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton—the rose colored glasses need to come off, and some history books need to be opened.


The Ethics of Counterterrorism

So are Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush cruel people? Are they and the hundreds of other Government officials involved in gathering intelligence simply apathetic to the horrors of human suffering? No. But all of these people have made the choice to engage in policies that combat violent individuals with violence when necessary. Embracing the ethical paradigm that Michael Ignatieff terms “the lesser evil.” They carry out assassinations, employ interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, and justify these practices in the name of the greater good. For many of us, such acts are repugnant, nauseating, uncivilized, and are contrary to our values and way of life. But unlike many at the CIA, we do not spend our daily lives dealing with those who traffic human beings, murder for profit, or possess the capacity to slowly cut off and then proudly display the head of another human being.

Indeed, we who live peacefully in Western countries are often naïve to the brutal laws that govern human relations in other parts of the world. We must always seek peace and reconciliation within our foreign relations, and strive to overcome the cruelty that continues to plague humanity. But at present, the world we live in will continue to occasionally demand that fire be fought with fire. As always, the debate is how and when.

September 11th was the Kennedy assassination of the new millennium; everyone remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard news of the attacks. Many of us spent the years following 9/11 gradually overcoming the horrors of that day: learning to board airplanes and think foremost about our destination, and not that horrible tragedy that befell airline passengers on that fateful morning. However, while most of us had only to overcome our horrors and fears in the years following 9/11, the Bush administration and the CIA spent those years feverously working to keep the United States safe. To date, despite brutal terror attacks in many other countries (Britain, Spain, India, Russian, etc.), they have thankfully succeeded. In fact, they have been so successful that many Americans have become complacent, forgetting the horrors and loss of life on that day and focusing instead on the features of the new iPhone. Such is the nature of normalization, but in this process many Americans have decided to turn on those in the government who went to all means to provide them with what they desperately clamoured for in 2001—SAFETY.

Most of us have normal jobs. We are teachers, students, ministers, secretaries, nurses, caretakers, construction workers, etc. In our jobs, we have spent the years following 9/11 wrestling with questions such as “Should I include this in my paper?” “Did Mr. Smith take his Plavix?” “What should I preach on this Sunday?” These are all important jobs with respective challenges, but those of us who hold them should sympathize with individuals whose jobs consist of questions such as “Will waterboarding this terrorist save lives?” or “Does the possible collateral damage justify this missile strike?” We may disagree with the answers George W. Bush arrived at, but those of us who do not have to make such decisions should remain empathic towards him, and realize the gravity and complexity of the decisions he has made on our behalf.

In all of this, I should state that I personally do not support the use of torture. Nor do I agree with Bush’s assertion that waterboarding does not constitute “torture.” But I realize the unique difficulty the decisions that Bush had to make during his time in office. In the struggle of “lesser evils,” Barack Obama has expressed his intent to break with history on many of the aforementioned practices. Similarly, I believe Americans of all persuasions should remain empathetic and supportive him, as he engages the extremely difficult questions with which every President must grapple.