Comments on: Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:08:04 +0000

Appeasing anti-Americanism will only make it worse in the long run.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:52:30 +0000

DC loser
Actually as I said, I do respect the Admirals rank and listen to his opinion. I just happen to disagree with it. My issue is how the MSM cover it and how people ignore other high officials few. The MSM will find that one soldier or general who has an opinion that fits the MSM position and put him on front page while the majority opinion of soldiers and Generals opinions get little or no press time. Almost anyone in the military that dealt with the press can attest to that.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:17:44 +0000

When Peter Pace was trotted out to support administration policies, you all were very respectful for his high position and thoughtful opinions. What's changed now?

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:00:52 +0000

Beldar, it sounds like you think we should give no weight to appearances. I think that whether or not we do, and how much we do, really depends on the cost/benefit. For example, using DU ammunition does give some propaganda value to anti-American sentiment, but the amount of propaganda value is small, in my opinion, relative to the benefit.

In the case of Guantanamo, it doesn't seem to me that there is a whole lot of need to keep it open, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

By: Tano

Tano — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:16:02 +0000

With all due respect Beldar, the issue isn't the fact that the enemy generates whatever propaganda that they can dream up, the issue is that some of that propaganda finds traction with its intended audience because it manages to tap into the real concerns that the audience has.

It may be very difficult for many Americans to imagine what it must be like to be a citizen of a weak and powerless country, and to look upon the seemingly infinitly powerful US - and to hope that the good things America sometimes project are really true, but to always have, as an existential defense mechanism, the fear that the superpower is nothing other than yet another hegemonic empire on the prowl.

It is most assuredly in our interests to do whatever we can, without compromising our real interests, to assuage that concern. So, no, we do not have to react to whatever propaganda our enemies put out, but we would be foolish to ignore those instances where their propaganda seems to find traction. Seems to me that the admiral has, probably correctly, noticed such a case.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:20:35 +0000

With due respect to the general (and to our host, who I gather may agree with him): Our enemies will always find something upon which they can focus their propaganda. It's not as if they will cease their propaganda if we close the prison at Gitmo. The fiction that we can end, script, or even much affect our enemies' propaganda about us is a terribly weak reason for doing anything, one that I respectfully submit is entitled to virtually no weight in the making of American policy decisions.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:15:31 +0000

DC Loser

Yes he is just another Admiral who happens to be in a high advisor role. His opinion should be taken into account but I will bet good money that that opinion isn’t even shared among some of the other members of Joint Chiefs of Staff. For James to infer that the Admiral speaks for the whole military is asinine. The Admiral isn’t even in the Command structure at this point.

By: PoliGazette » Joint Chiefs Chairman Wants Gitmo Closed

PoliGazette » Joint Chiefs Chairman Wants Gitmo Closed — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:15:34 +0000

[...] Outside the Beltway comes the news that “[t]he chief of the US military said he favors closing the prison here as [...]

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:15:15 +0000

And how many Generals think we should keep it open? MSM can always find someone with one opinion or another. Of course the MSM gets to choose which to report. I won’t go into the Navy angle except that they have always been more concern with image than the Army.

Yeah, Wayne, the Chairman of the Joint Chief's opinion doesn't mean much, right? He's just another admiral.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:10:17 +0000

Potential terrorists know they will be hauled to a prison where they might be stuck forever?

I have a bigger problem with the fact that many Americans are worried that they can be hauled off to a prison forever. Also, while I applaud the Admiral's courage in talking about this on the record, he's completely off-base. It's not Gitmo that's the propaganda bonus for the bad guys, it's what we do to human beings only suspected of terrorism at Gitmo that degrades our nation.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:05:13 +0000

And how many Generals think we should keep it open? MSM can always find someone with one opinion or another. Of course the MSM gets to choose which to report. I won’t go into the Navy angle except that they have always been more concern with image than the Army.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:43:57 +0000

By all means, let's allow perception to be reality.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:18:32 +0000

Serious question. Is the propaganda value in Guantanamo or in that we're holding the prisoners? If the former, the admiral may well be right. If the latter, we may as well keep the Guantanamo detention facility operating because it's the best of bad alternatives.

By: Director Mitch

Director Mitch — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:20:40 +0000

Hmm. Potential terrorists know they will be hauled to a prison where they might be stuck forever? Yeah, to many people it's seen as "negative propoganda" if your enemy seems like a hardass.

By: just me

just me — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:17:23 +0000

While I think he is right that Guantonamo has propaganda value at this point, I am not sure I want to haul the current prisoners to the US either.