Bin Laden, Torture and Hollywood

I have seen Lincoln (which I thought was excellent) but I have not yet seen Zero Dark Thirty.  But it will be interesting to see what discussions on morality and ethics in national security affairs both movies will stimulate.  Can we reconcile the friction between national interests and moral values?

V/R

Dave

December 8, 2012

Bin Laden, Torture and Hollywood

By FRANK BRUNI

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinion/sunday/bruni-bin-laden-torture-and-hollywood.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

I’M betting that Dick Cheney will love the new movie “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Who could have predicted that? Hollywood, after all, is supposed to be a West Coast annex of the Democratic National Committee, and the makers of this gripping thriller, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, were expected to repay the Obama administration for its indulgence of them with a tribute to the current president’s wisdom and grit.

But the movie of the year is also the political conundrum of the year, a far, far cry from the rousing piece of pro-Obama propaganda that some conservatives feared it would be. “Zero Dark Thirty,” which opens in theaters on Dec. 19 and presents itself as a quasi-journalistic account of what really happened, gives primary credit for the killing of Bin Laden to neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations but to one obsessive C.I.A. analyst whose work spans both presidencies. And it presents the kind of torture that Cheney advocated — but that President Obama ended — as something of an information-extracting necessity, repellent but fruitful.

Even as David Edelstein, the film critic for New York magazine, named “Zero Dark Thirty” the best movie of 2012 in a recent article, he digressed to say that it “borders on the politically and morally reprehensible,” because it “makes a case for the efficacy of torture.”

Edelstein isn’t the only critic in a morally complicated swoon over “Zero Dark Thirty.” Last week the New York Film Critics Circle awarded it the best movie of the year. So did the National Board of Review. Surprises atop surprises: not only does “Zero Dark Thirty” decline to toe a conventionally liberal line, but it is being embraced by many cultural arbiters who are probably at some level horrified by the conclusions it seems to reach.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinion/sunday/bruni-bin-laden-torture-and-hollywood.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Outside View: The commander in chief (Strategic Leadership)

Have not seen Clausewitz' phrase turned quite this way:

 war is an admixture of policy with other means

But maybe "admixture" is another translation for one of those German words.

But I am glad to know we are not alone:

Strategic failure isn't unique to the United States. Saddam Hussein and the mullahs in Tehran haven't done well in this category either. Nor did the Soviet leadership.

But where does the President find this guy?  (though I thought this would be the National Security Adviser):

One solution is antithetical to politics. Presidents desperately need a senior adviser well versed in strategic thinking and not dominated by domestic politics or the pressures of political expediency. Whether such individuals exist in nature or could survive that job is a test of presidential maturity.

Here Ricks' prescription can be translated from Army into civilian terms. Military leaders need to anticipate both the intended and unintended consequences of long-term policies and shorter-term directives. Before embarking on any action, commanders in chief would be well advised to follow this guidance by holding subordinates accountable for answering the vital question of "What next?" as a critical step in ensuring strategic success.

Unfortunately Presidents do not know anyone who is not dominated by domestic politics or the pressures of political expediency.  As an aside, after watching the movie "Lincoln" last weekend I observed that everyone around Lincoln was dominated by domestic politics and especially the pressure of political expediency.  It was only President Lincoln that had the strategic vision, the long view and who was able to both rise above the political fray but also at the same time  to mix it up in the political fray to accomplish his strategic goals. Strategic vision and leadership cannot be "contracted out" to some senior adviser – if Lincoln is any example, the responsibility for strategic vision and leadership lies with the President.

V/R
Dave

Outside View: The commander in chief

Published: Nov. 28, 2012 at 12:10 AM

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/11/28/Outside-View-The-commander-in-chief/UPI-89891354079400/

HARLAN ULLMAN || UPI Outside View Commentator

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- To ensure civilian control over its military, the U.S. Constitution specifies that the president, and not a general or an admiral, is commander in chief of the armed forces.

As Clausewitz brilliantly observed nearly two centuries ago, war is an admixture of policy with other means. Thus, successful use of military force must be subordinate to the broader political context. That means to succeed as commander in chief, presidential understanding of what objectives strategy can and, perhaps more importantly, cannot achieve is crucial as well as holding subordinates accountable for carrying out that strategy.

That isn't always the case. Undue deference to political expediency and political correctness and the temptation of seeking overly simplistic or unrealistic strategic objectives are further guarantees for disaster. And holding generals and admirals responsible for executing a military strategy without making them accountable is a prescription for failure.

Journalist Tom Ricks' latest book "The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today" is a powerful reminder of how commanders in chief can come to grief over isolating responsibility from accountability.

In a remarkable critique of the generalship of the U.S. Army (and endorsement of the U.S. Marine Corps about which Ricks has separately written and clearly regards as the most professional of the four services), the author argues that since the end of World War II, the Army used the wrong lessons from the last war as the basis for selecting the leadership for the next and then failed to hold those unsuited for wartime command accountable.

A parallel exists with presidents who likewise don't always hold admirals and generals accountable for the right reasons.

Harry Truman finally fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination during the Korean War. But George W. Bush dismissed Adm. William "Fox" Fallon and Barack Obama Gen. Stanley McChrystal not for failing in Iraq or Afghanistan but for making inappropriate comments to journalists (to their credit, as secretaries of defense, Dick Cheney and Bob Gates did relieve senior generals and civilians for cause).

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/11/28/Outside-View-The-commander-in-chief/UPI-89891354079400/