The Berntsen National Security Review

The Interrogation Memorandums

This past week President Obama authorized the release of a set of classified memorandums written during the Bush administration.  These documents outlined the procedures and tactics employed during the interrogations of captured senior Al Qaeda operatives and have been referred to by the press as the “torture memos”.  President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest.  The four most recent CIA Directors—John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden—all recommended against the release of these memorandums.  President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents.  Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

In taking this action, President Obama has effectively defined the limits of what America, at its most aggressive and most passive, would do against Al Qaeda detainees.  This will undoubtedly allow groups like Al Qaeda to adjust the preparation and training of their operatives.  Administration officials as well as some journalists on the left have argued that the President took into consideration the fact that much of the memos’ contents have already made it into the press.  This is a hollow defense.  Speculation or discussion of these details in the press may allow Al Qaeda and other terrorists to assess potential U.S. capabilities to some extent.  But official White House memorandums released to the public, and immediately downloadable online, are the gold standard for Al Qaeda. 

In addition to bolstering Al Qaeda’s tactical position and morale, I argue that President Obama has also demoralized those members of the Clandestine Service that make enormous personal sacrifices and take tremendous risks in the fight to keep our nation safe.  After having served most of my adult life in CIA’s Clandestine Service and having led many important counterterrorism missions, I can say that the rank and file is truly horrified by President Obama’s naïve decision making.  Apologists for Obama’s misguided decision may counter by highlighting the President’s announcement that no CIA employees who participated in the interrogation program will be prosecuted.  Surely President Obama understood that taking such action would have accelerated retirement of many senior officers already eligible to depart and would have also caused a significant number of resignations.

On top of all this, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, called recently for a “truth and reconciliation commission”—much like what South Africa used to address decades of apartheid.  Leahy’s “truth commission” would purportedly be established to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at the Justice Department during the Bush Administration.  It would allow America to cleanse itself of what he terms Bush Administration crimes.  This is simply a cheap political stunt designed solely for Democratic political advantage and will further undermine our ability to defend ourselves against Al Qaeda terror.

On a daily basis we watch countries like Iran and North Korea continue to advance their technology in the area of weapons of mass destruction.  What the Obama administration fails to comprehend is that terrorist groups are also evolving their tradecraft and the lethality with which they plan to strike.  The fact that we did not suffer a significant follow-on attack in the continental United States during George W. Bush’s eight year presidency resulted from the extremely aggressive posture taken by his administration.  George W. Bush, for all his mistakes and missteps, did understand that we were at war with a lethal and insidious enemy, and he conducted himself accordingly.  Sadly, it is inevitable that a time will come when we learn of an impending catastrophic attack on an American city.  In today’s highly globalized society, small numbers of people can leverage technology to do terrible things.  Given the positions staked out by President Obama, how does a reasonable person believe the national security apparatus will function in such a crisis?  Will individuals be willing to accept the reality of such a threat and be allowed to act decisively at the lowest level to counter the threat, or will such threats have to work their way up the chain of command, at the cost of time, for reflection by President Obama himself?

President Obama’s handling of the classified Bush-era interrogation memorandums displays a lack of maturity.  More dangerously, it displays a lack of understanding of what could lie ahead for the nation.  Like all Presidents in the modern age, Obama is likely to face events in the years ahead that will be heartrending.  To prepare for these challenges and to minimize the impact on the nation, he must avoid rewarding our enemy and build consensus within the national security establishment.  Unfortunately, with the release of these memos, the hope that President Obama would conduct himself in foreign affairs as a moderate pragmatist has all but evaporated.  

      

Negotiating with Terror: Why Ron Arad Matters

In the past several weeks, a variety of news items out of Israel have exemplified the difficulty that democracies face when fighting terrorism.  New reports suggest Israel has been conducting an investigation into whether its soldiers acted with excessive brutality during military operations in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009.  Meanwhile, information has surfaced that Israel may resume targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and block visits to Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli jails.  Israel has also been attempting to reduce Hamas’ demands for a 400 to 1 prisoner swap while pressing the group to allow visits to Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by militants in June 2006.  Without context, these assorted developments may be difficult to piece together and fully comprehend.  But to many who have lived and worked in this complex region, much of this should come as no surprise.  Israel’s approach to its dealings with Iranian-supported terror groups such as Hamas and Hizballah has been shaped by a difficult history—and Israel's actions are in many ways guided by its citizens’ personal tragedies and hardships. 

The case of Israeli Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad illustrates this point.  His is a story that began over twenty years ago, and one that continues today without resolution.  On October 16, 1986, Lieutenant Colonel Arad was on a mission to attack Palestinian Liberation Organization targets near Sidon, Lebanon.  Arad, a weapons officer flying in an F-4 Phantom, as well as the accompanying pilot were forced to eject after their aircraft was damaged.  Though the pilot was recovered by Israeli forces, Arad was captured by the Lebanese militia group Amal—one of the dominant Shi’a Muslim militias during the Lebanese Civil War.  In an effort to recover Arad in 1989, Israel would snatch a leading member of Lebanese Hizballah, Sheik Addul-Karim Obeid.  This effort failed to unearth any details on Arad’s whereabouts or his physical state.  For eight long years, the Israeli military, Israeli government officials and Arad’s family waited to hear word of his condition. 

New information on Arad would not be uncovered until 1994.  A long-awaited breakthrough came with the capture by Israeli forces of Amal’s head of security, Mustafa Dirani.  In captivity, Dirani recounted how his militia group turned Arad over to Lebanese Hizballah who, in turn, passed him to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.  This information provided hope but it did not lead to further action.  While the United States and its European allies cut deals for the release of Western hostages held by Hizballah during this time frame, Ron Arad was again forgotten to all but his countrymen.  In Israel, songs were written in Ron Arad’s honor and events marking the day of his capture became part of popular culture.  Meanwhile, Ron Arad’s wife, Tami, continued a brave fight to raise awareness of his circumstances in the hope of resolving the fate of her husband. 

Additional evidence surfaced periodically in subsequent years.  In the 1990’s, a photo of Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad, bearded and with sunken eyes, was released to the public.  In 2006 the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation aired new footage of Arad believed to have been shot in 1988.  And In 2007, Israel received a two decade-old letter written by Arad to his family.  But just last year, United Nations negotiator Gerhad Konrad reported to the Israeli government that Arad was dead.  No final ruling has been decreed and the Israeli public continues to speculate.  Though Obeid and Dirani have been freed as part of a POW swap, no additional information on Arad has ever been provided directly by Hizballah or Iran. 

Ron Arad’s case continues to haunt the Israeli public to this day.  It also shines light on the uncompromisingly brutal methods used by elements of Hamas and Hizaballah.  For though Israel has captured hundreds of Hizballah and Hamas terrorists during combat and counter-terrorism operations, those prisoners are regularly visited by their family members and the International Committee for the Red Cross.  In contrast, Israeli prisoners that fall into the hands of organizations like Hamas and Hizballah receive no such visits and suffer horrible abuse. Such was the case with Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.  In 2006, Lebanese Hizballah crossed Israel’s northern border and captured these two Israeli soldiers. This was the spark that set off the 34-day Israeli-Hizballah War of 2006.  During negotiations held toward the end of the conflict, Hizballah refused to confirm the status of Goldwasser and Regev.  Two years later, the Israeli government concluded an agreement within a negotiation framework that allowed for the release of five Hizballah terrorists in return for these 2 young Israeli soldiers.  But the Israeli public would be horrified to learn that instead of receiving their young men alive in the exchange as expected, Hizballah presented Israel with their dead bodies.  The Israeli government was criticized by its public for this betrayal, but the Olmert government had felt compelled to make the deal in the hope that at least one of them was alive.  This was not the case.

This brings us to the issue of non-stop pressure by the international community to force Israel to reopen Gaza check points and allow Hamas and its Palestinian subjects to begin reconstruction.  We are all mindful that Palestinians in Gaza are in need of humanitarian assistance.  Unfortunately, they are led by the killers of Hamas and this group must not be rewarded in any way until it abides by a minimum level of civilized behavior. As a start, that behavior should include providing Red Cross access to Gilad Shalit.  Where are the international voices calling for the protection of his human rights and his protection from torture and abuse?  The reactions to the photos of Iraqis naked and in humiliating positions, taken at the Abu Ghraib military prison, caused widespread criticism and severe disapproval around the world.  There have been reports that Gilad Shalit has been restrained with explosives tied to his body as a means of ensuring that no Israeli rescue is attempted.  Yet no universal condemnation has resulted from these horrid reports.  Inexplicably, only the side in the fight not recognized by the United Nations—terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah—has received protection under the Geneva Convention.

Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an admirable stated goal of the Obama administration.  An important first step toward that end will be Hamas’s adherence to basic international norms relative to human rights.  A second step will be to abrogate the horrible double standard that has long defined the plight of Israeli combatants that fall into the hands of their enemies.  The missing Israeli navigator, Ron Arad, is little known to most Americans but the last haunting photo of him—and his long-standing suffering—is seared into the consciousness of Israelis.  It hardens even the most peace-loving of individuals.  His case and others like his undoubtedly guide Israel’s most important decisions regarding how the nation deals with its enemies and how it chooses to negotiate with terror.