National Security

War causes citizens and societies to assess what they value and the limits to which they will go to preserve life as they know it. It is, therefore, not surprising that those who are opponents of the war against Radical Islam are also opposed to measures used to prosecute it.

Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou recently disclosed that waterboarding was used quite effectively on Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, a high valued Al Qaeda operative, captured in early 2002. Traditional interrogation techniques yielded nothing from abu Zubaida, but when subjected to waterboarding, he broke in 35 seconds and volunteered information that led to the disruption of several planned al Qaeda attacks and "probably saved lives" according to Kiriakou.

Kiriakou's revelations stoked the fire of debate over what qualifies as "torture" of captured enemy terrorists and underscores the intensity of the political divide in America, but it is nothing new.

Loyalists demonized George Washington and the Continental Army, and supplied intelligence and support to the Tories even as the fledgling rebels risked their all in the cause of liberty. No President was ever so vilified as Lincoln, and his commitment to preserving the Union at all cost with emancipation and equal rights for slaves got him assassinated. Public sentiment was waning and patience wearing thin upon the death of Roosevelt during World War II. Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be questioned as an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives. Jane Fonda and her cohorts defended Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Viet Cong even as Americans were being slaughtered and tortured as POWs. Reagan's opponents mocked his "peace through strength" policy and defense buildup throughout his presidency claiming he was marching us closer to war with the Soviet Union.

Blaming America by Americans is nothing new, and is actually foundational to our freedom. The right to free speech and dissent regarding public policy must be preserved, but so too must be the right to recognize wrongful dissent and get beyond it.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – with a great deal of encouragement from the main stream media and the Democrat Party base – are this generation's version of Jane Fonda. They are so entrenched in their opposition to President Bush, so obsessed with political power and ballot box success, and so dependent on "CODEPINK" and similar fringe groups for their political survival that America's best interests are secondary considerations.

In civil society, torture is anathema. Americans agree that this great nation should be beyond barbaric acts. We have well established rules of engagement for our troops and treatment of prisoners of war. There was understandable – though disproportional - national repulsion over the revelations of the disgusting Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Volumes of editorials and scores of hours of Congressional and Judicial attention have been dedicated to the treatment and rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Unlike many societies in the world, however, in America wrongs are deliberated openly and the rule of law prevails.

Every war teaches many lessons. In Vietnam we learned that conventional warfare tactics could no longer prevail against an insurgency. We have still been slow to adapt to the unconventional strategy of Islamic Jihadists, but Gen. Petraeus has implemented a counterinsurgency strategy that by nearly every assessment is finally demonstrating success. Though slow in coming, even many Democrat critics are now willing to allow Petraeus and our noble troops a chance to succeed.

As with every war, the ultimate issue is preserving freedom and life. The jihadist's chosen weapon is terror by any means available. The cheapest, most effective and plentiful weapon seems to be suicide bombers like those who perpetrated the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States. For years prior to 9/11 America responded to terror attacks retrospectively like criminal investigations. To his credit, George W. Bush adopted a policy of pre-emption recognizing that saving incent life by taking action before an attack made more sense than investigating a suicide bombing after the perpetrator had already administered his own death penalty.

Failed or insufficient intelligence has haunted America in every conflict, and it certainly was insufficient prior to 9/11 as well as before going into Iraq. The recent reversal of opinion of the NIE regarding Iran's quest for nuclear weapon capabilities has sparked another round of finger pointing and second guessing. (Not all in the international community are in agreement with the NIE. Read the opinion of the Iranian resistance.)

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens pointed out the obvious – the National Intelligence Estimate is an "estimate" and that it has often been wrong in the past. Worse, and Stephens thinks rather obviously, policy preference has corrupted the business of intelligence. He believes that Iran hasn't scraped their nuclear ambitions, but actually "gone public" with them under the guise of energy development. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sworn to destroy Israel and her strongest ally, the United States. Suppose once again that the NIE is wrong and completely misses a looming threat, and this time it's a nuclear weapon?

The Sept. 19, 1962 the NIE contained this assessment:

'The USSR could derive considerable military advantage from the establishment of Soviet medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba, or from the establishment of a submarine base there. . . . Either development, however, would be incompatible with Soviet practice to date and with Soviet policy as we presently estimate it."

Twenty-Five days later a U-2 spy plane photographed Soviet ballistic missile silos and the Cuban Missile crisis began.

The NIE was also famously wrong (apparently) about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

How can the NIE be so wrong?

With regard to the NIE's reversal on Iran, Stephens writes, "For years it has been a staple of fever swamp politics to believe the U.S. government is in the grip of shadowy powers using "intelligence" as a tool of control. With the publication of this NIE, that is no longer a fantasy."

So what are a nation and her elected leaders to do? Common-sense would suggest that actionable intelligence has to be gathered from every sector and every source available. Nothing is much more reliable intelligence than that gleaned from combatants in the field of battle. That is why so much value is place on extracting information from them.

We are at war with radical Islamic fanatics who have no rules of engagement, no international treaties that guide their treatment of military prisoners or civilians, no transparent court founded upon the rule of law to resolve abuse or atrocity, and a willingness to commit suicide as a means to weaken and destroy their chosen enemy. They are lawless barbarians by any objective analysis.

Yet, we attempt to fight this enemy with an entirely different sent of principles and morality. A nation so great as America can and should abide by a higher standard – and for the record, we do.

But, with every rule, there is an exception. The case of abu Zubaida makes the point. For 35 seconds of simulated drowning of a man who sustained no lasting injury or discomfort, information was gathered that "saved lives."

As reported in the Washington Post, top leadership in Congress in 2002-2003 had as many as 30 briefings about interrogation techniques including waterboarding. The meetings included the current Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then in the role of Minority Leader. Two officials present when the specific technique of waterboarding was discussed confirmed that the lawmakers raised no objections, instead asking the CIA to actually turn up the pressure. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," according to an official who witnessed the briefing.

So what has changed since those meetings just a few short years ago? The raw emotions of the 9/11 attacks have faded with some. War weariness has infected the rank and file back home, and thus gets reflected by elected officials. The inability to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction gave reason and purpose for a growing opposition and a subsequent claim that everything else Bush said or did must be equally wrong. "He lied" became the motto of the left.

But, the need to protect life and freedom has not changed, nor the intensity and conviction of the enemy. Their attacks in Spain, London, and recently Algiers along with endless attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan underscore their relentless nature. Here at home, pre-emptive efforts have foiled planned attacks such as at Fort Dix, and we all rue the day when another successful attack occurs on the homeland

Charles Krauthammer, in an essay for The Weekly Standard,offered this hypothetical: "A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?

Answering his own question, Krauthammer says, "Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty."

No rational American is ever going to give carte blanche authority to torture prisoners. Neither, however should we establish in law "never" as Reid, Pelosi, and even John McCain would have it. Krauthammer says it well, "Torture is not always impermissible. However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information)." The real argument the lawmakers should be having then, is not 'if" but "when" extreme interrogations techniques are justified and how such authority is vested.

I believe in America, and I believe in American adherence to the rule of law and a morality, while imperfect, is founded in greatness. Abuse and error will happen, and America has institutionalized methods to correct and deal with breaches. Whenever a situation like Abu Ghraib happens we as a nation are disgraced and deal with it openly and swiftly demonstrating both our character and our commitment to high standards. I lose no sleep concerned about our interrogators crossing the line. I would, however, become gravely concerned should we ever in a falsely conceived moment of high-mindedness preclude those charged with preserving our safety from having the ability to do their job.