Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald took Roger Cohen to task for his endorsement of a secretive, unaccountable foreign policy in this NY Times op-ed. It truly is a stellar example of elite journalism’s identification with government and its pathological belief that its job is to help it keep its secrets.
But I’m also interested in the phenomenon Cohen examines in his piece — the various secret wars the administration has taken up and the contrast with the Bush administration’s attempts to legalize the same covert practices. This is a very interesting observation because I remember having various inchoate thoughts during the Bush years about how strange it was that Cheney et al were so intent upon creating a legal framework for their misdeeds. I wrote quite a bit about the effect of legalizing torture and aggressive wars as a way of normalizing pathology in our culture, but in retrospect I think that perhaps that didn’t matter as much as I thought. It’s certainly important that such things not be made legal and normal, but in the end, the important thing is to ensure they are not practiced.
It’s reminiscent of the fight before the Iraq invasion over UN approval.Yes, it mattered that the Bush administration defied international law and invaded without UN approval. But if they had had it, the war would not have been any more right or moral. I think we get a little bit tangled up in processes sometimes and forget the fundamental issue.
But it is interesting, nonetheless, that the Bush administration tried to legalize these immoral practices because the whole post war history among both parties was littered with secret, covert foreign policy initiatives and the GWOT seemed to offered the perfect excuse for more. But they seemed to want to prove that their ideological predispositions were acceptable and mainstream and so sought to legalize them. It was very odd. In that regard, Obama is just reverting to former norms by being secretive.
Unfortunately he seems to be reverting to it with a vengeance. When I read the Cohen piece I couldn’t help but be reminded of this WaPo column from a couple of months ago by David Ignatius:
It’s an interesting anomaly of Barack Obama’s presidency that this liberal Democrat, known before the 2008 election for his antiwar views, has been so comfortable running America’s secret wars.
Obama’s leadership style — and the continuity of his national security policies with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush — has left friends and foes scratching their heads. What has become of the “change we can believe in” style he showed as a candidate? The answer may be that he has disappeared into the secret world of the post-Sept. 11 presidency.
[…]
Obama is the commander in chief as covert operator. The flag-waving “mission accomplished” speeches of his predecessor aren’t Obama’s thing; even his public reaction to the death of bin Laden was relatively subdued. Watching Obama, the reticent, elusive man whose dual identity is chronicled in “Dreams From My Father,” you can’t help wondering if he has an affinity for the secret world. He is opaque, sometimes maddeningly so, in the way of an intelligence agent.Intelligence is certainly an area where the president appears confident and bold. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who has been running spy agencies for more than 20 years, regards Obama as “a phenomenal user and understander of intelligence.” When Clapper briefs the president each morning, he brings along extra material to feed the president’s hunger for information.
This is a president, too, who prizes his authority to conduct covert action. Clapper’s predecessor, Adm. Dennis Blair, lost favor in part because he sought to interpose himself in the chain of covert action. That encroached on Obama, who aides say sees it as a unique partnership with the CIA…
Perhaps Obama’s comfort level with his intelligence role helps explain why he has done other parts of the job less well. He likes making decisions in private, where he has the undiluted authority of the commander in chief. He likes information, as raw and pertinent as possible, and he gets impatient listening to windy political debates. He likes action, especially when he doesn’t leave fingerprints.
Even Ignatius, who is a believer in covert foreign policy and an admirer or President Obama, is unnerved by this:
There is a seduction to the secret world, which for generations has charmed presidents and their advisers. It’s easier pulling the levers in the dark, playing the keys of what a CIA official once called the “mighty Wurlitzer” of covert action. Politics is a much messier process – out in the open, making deals with bullies and blowhards. But that’s the part of the job that Obama must master if he wants another term.
This rings true to me. I have always believed that Obama is animated by foreign policy and that domestic concerns (and the messy politics required) aren’t his thing. And that’s fine. Presidents have to do everything, of course, and I’m sure he’s fully engaged in the economy. But it’s the global issues he most interested in and what motivated him to run in the first place. What’s surprising is the extent to which he’s embraced the secretive world of covert action. I don’t think people expected that.
I honestly don’t know what’s worse — legalizing immoral wars or running them covertly. They’re both bad. But liberals who condemned the Bush administration for its open defiance of civilized norms and embrace of an Imperial policy should be forgiven if they are equally appalled that President Obama is doing the same thing covertly. On the other hand, perhaps it’s also the case that many people were more concerned about the legalization of these tactics than the tactics themselves. There were plenty of arguments along those lines during the Bush administration. (As I said, I think I fell into that trap from time to time myself, simply by worrying so much about the effects of making torture legal on the society at large.)
In other words, it’s the process they don’t like rather than the substance. I don’t know if that’s the case but the fact that these practices have been so common for so long under both Democrats and Republicans — and that the only time people get agitated is when the government seeks to do it openly — argues for the latter. It’s not something that Americans should be proud of. Having the government do this dirty work under cover of night is undemocratic — even if the people prefer it that way. The people are ultimately responsible, either way.
.