SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (45025)5/5/2004 8:05:54 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq

By George F. Will
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A25

Oh? Who?

Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought:




"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration? Note that the clearly implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is "Americans." So the president seemed to be saying that white is, and brown is not, the color of Americans' skin. He does not mean that. But that is the sort of swamp one wanders into when trying to deflect doubts about policy by caricaturing and discrediting the doubters.

Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later said the president meant only that "there are some in the world that think that some people can't be free" or "can't live in freedom." The president meant that "some Middle Eastern countries -- that the people in those Middle Eastern countries cannot be free."

Perhaps that, which is problematic enough, is what the president meant. But what he suggested was: Some persons -- perhaps many persons; no names being named, the smear remained tantalizingly vague -- doubt his nation-building project because they are racists.

That is one way to respond to questions about the wisdom of thinking America can transform the entire Middle East by constructing a liberal democracy in Iraq. But if any Americans want to be governed by politicians who short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing racism to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system.

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush). And about how it is a "myth" that "our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture" because "ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit" (Tony Blair).

Speaking of culture, as neoconservative nation-builders would be well-advised to avoid doing, Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color.

The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation -- our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place such as Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives.

Condoleezza Rice, a political scientist, believes there is scholarly evidence that democratic institutions do not merely spring from a hospitable culture, but that they also can help create such a culture. She is correct; they can. They did so in the young American republic. But it would be reassuring to see more evidence that the administration is being empirical, believing that this can happen in some places, as opposed to ideological, believing that it must happen everywhere it is tried.

Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.

In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that.

Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism.

Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix.

washingtonpost.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (45025)5/5/2004 9:04:08 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 89467
 
NEWS: Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job
May 4, 2004
By JOEL BRINKLEY and JAMES GLANZ

nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, May 3 — More than two months after a classified Army report found that two contract workers were implicated in the abuse of Iraqis at a prison outside Baghdad, the companies that employ them say that they have heard nothing from the Pentagon, and that they have not removed any employees from Iraq.

For one of the employees, the Army report recommended "termination of employment" and revocation of his security clearance. For the other, it urged an official reprimand and review of his security clearance.

But J. P. London, chief executive of CACI, one of the companies involved, said in an interview on Monday that "we have not received any information or direction from the client regarding our work in country — no charges, no communications, no citations, no calls to appear at the Pentagon."

Ralph Williams, vice president for communications for Titan, the other company, also said Monday that the company has heard nothing, and that none of Titan's workers have been recalled.

Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Monday evening that they had no information on whether the workers were still on the job or why the report had not been conveyed to the companies.

In a statement issued Monday, CACI defended its employees, saying they are well-trained former military personnel.

The classified Army report asserted that at least one employee of CACI was among those "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib," the Iraqi prison.

It is unclear whether the second employee implicated works for CACI or Titan, since the Army report mentions both companies. Neither company would comment.

CACI said in its statement that one of the men listed in the report "is not and never has been a CACI employee," but the statement did not name him.

Companies with employees in Iraq usually refuse to identify them, citing security concerns.

CACI International, a 41-year-old public company whose main business is information technology — it manages the State Department's e-mail system, for example — said it has opened its own investigation.

But Dr. London noted with apparent irritation that the military still had not provided the company with a copy of the classified military report, completed Feb. 26, that makes allegations about CACI's employees.

Two civilian contractors were cited in the report. One of them, Steven Stephaniwicz, is described as a civilian interrogator, an employee of CACI assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.

Dr. London said the company opened an intelligence service division in the late 1990's whose mission is "intelligence information collection, analysis, field support and human intelligence that could include these types of interviews." It remains a small part of the business, he added.

Still, Joe Vafi, an analyst who follows the company for Jeffries & Company in San Francisco, said CACI "has hired a lot of former military, former intelligence."

CACI was founded in 1962 as the California Analysis Center, Inc. But as its mission grew more diverse, it changed its name simply to CACI Inc., in 1973.

It has about 9,400 employees and revenues of $843 million last year. About 63 percent of the company's business is under contract to the Defense Department and 29 percent to other federal agencies.

The other contractor implicated, John Israel, identified as a civilian translator assigned to the same brigade, is described in one place in the Army report as a CACI employee and in another as an employee of Titan, which provides translators for the Army throughout Iraq.

They and other civilian contractors, the report says, were allowed to "wander about" the prison "with too much unsupervised, free access to the detainee area."

It further states that both Mr. Israel and Mr. Stephanowicz made false statements to investigators about their knowledge or participation in the abuses, and that Mr. Israel apparently did not have security clearance.

Mr. Williams said Titan would not identify its employees working in Iraq but added, "we have no contracts that involve the physical handling of prisoners. The only service we provide is linguistic services."

Though he would not confirm that Mr. Israel worked for Titan, he said all of Titan's employees are still on the job in Iraq.

Titan, like CACI, is a public company that provides information and communication services under contract to federal defense and intelligence agencies. Founded in 1981, it has about 12,000 employees and revenues of about $2 billion a year.

Neither Mr. Israel nor Mr. Stephanowicz could be located on Monday.

The contracts for these workers are classified, the companies said.

But Angela Styles, who served as an administrator for federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2003, said the rules and statements of work governing federal contractors in this context are usually are quite broad.

"I would be shocked if there was anything more specific than you will assist the D.O.D. with the detention of prisoners," she said.

Allen Weiner, a professor of international law and diplomacy at Stanford University law school, said that ultimately the military commanders are responsible for the contractors' behavior.

"The law of war which applies in times of intense brutality assumes a high degree of control by commanders for the acts of their subordinates," he said.

But he added that, even with that responsibility, the commanders may not have had as much control as they would like.

"One can assume," he said "that once the contract is let, there may not be the same formal operational control that one would expect through the chain of command."

Joel Brinkley reported from Washington for this article and James Glanz from Des Moines.