Memorial Day: Obama and Cheney on National Security (May 21, 2009), part 2

    This past week, President Barack Obama and Vice President delivered speeches on the same day and on the same theme of national security.  For the text of Obama's speech, see here.  For the text of Cheney's speech, see here.
    In this post, I comment on Cheney's speech on occasion.  Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.  Quotations are indented.

The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact–crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least–but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat–what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

"a law enforcement problem" -- For Obama, the current "war on terror" should be seen in just such a light.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan–and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive–and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. ...

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions–and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event–coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

"You can look... Or you can look..."  -- In other words, Cheney (unlike Obama) recognizes that sincere and patriotic Americans can disagree.

In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

"Article Two of the Constitution,"  "given specificity by the Congress" "authorizing 'all necessary and appropriate force'" -- quite a different interpretation from Obama's of the nature and authority of decisions with which Obama disagrees.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

"prevented attacks and saved lives" "was top secret...until..." -- A very different timbre from Obama's.  Here Cheney focuses on the unhappy necessity of secrecy, while, for Obama, transparency is a necessary tool to maintain America's status as beacon to the world. 

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

"legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do" -- Obama will not concede any of these points.  More than that, he will not concede that an America might even justifiably hold them.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

"little curiosity in finding out what was learned"  -- perhaps because some on the left would rather remain blind to the fact that we are in a state of war.
"treating political disagreements as a punishable offense" -- This is truly a grave danger, for it shows that we are eating ourselves alive, as it were.  What a gift to grant our enemies!  Cheney expresses the dangers very well.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

"equate...Abu Ghraib with the...work of CIA personnel" -- Indeed, for some on the left (Obama among them?), ours is the shame.  For, ours is the agency.  Our enemies--do they even have agency?  Do they have the dignity of persons that allows them to make decisions, even heinous ones, for their very own reasons?  One senses in our time an American self-loathing that feeds the bloodlust of our enemies.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster”–never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

"euphemisms...'war'...henceforth... 'Overseas contingency operations." "'man-made disaster'... terrorist attack" -- Language is powerful.  Central to language is the capacity to name.  The Obama administration has sacrificed that power.  Not to be able to name the enemy is not to be able to fight him. 

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. ...

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other. ...

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion, our belief in equal rights for women, our support for Israel, our cultural and political influence in the world–these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the nineteen recruits who boarded those planes on September 11, 2001.

"notion that American interrogation practices were a 'recruitment tool'" -- This is one of Obama's central arguments.

"terrorists hate...the values we profess" "belief in freedom of speech and religion, our belief in equal rights for women, our support for Israel, our cultural and political influence in the world" -- This is self-explanatory.  Obama, of course, does not recognize this.

Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11.

"having reserved...less disdainful" -- Obama is disdainful because he is arrogant.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

"the United States has never lost its moral bearings"  -- Not to say that this country is perfect, but certainly to affirm (among many other things) that its effort to preseve itself is a moral struggle.