Barack Obama Lives in the Real World

I just returned from an extended trip during which I unexpectedly had virtually no access to the internet. But I'm not sure I would have blogged all that much even if I had been able to log on. With the war in Iraq essentially over (not because we abandoned our allies there to the wolves of al Qaeda but instead because the U.S. military defeated its enemies -- as history will undoubtedly record) and with a new president who is nothing at all like the man he appeared to be (instead, on both national security and the economy, he has assembled a team of advisors that reflects moderate conservative views rather than radical left wing views), my motivation to blog has dropped a bit. I mean, it's just one thing after another:

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President-elect Barack Obama assures intelligence officials that his complaints are with the Bush administration, not them, there are growing hints from Democratic Senate allies that spy agency veterans will not be prosecuted for past harsh interrogation and detainee policies. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein told The Associated Press in an interview this week that there is a clear distinction between those who made the policies and those who carried them out.

Once again, we don't see any evidence of the left wing fanatic that Obama's rhetoric and his history suggested that we might be seeing right about now. Instead, he merely talks the talk:

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama said Friday his administration would not compromise its ideals to fight terrorism, adding at a press conference to announce his CIA and national intelligence nominees that he has told them to honor the Geneva Conventions.

"I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture," Obama said, when asked at the news conference whether he would continue the Bush administration's policy of harsh interrogation. "We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals."

Of course, this is essentially Bush's position as well.

Text of order signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees:
...
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
...
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

The difference between this policy and the one announced by Obama appears to be that in those few cases where military necessity dictates harsh interrogation (e.g., to elicit time sensitive information from a high-level al Qaeda detainee that could save thousands of innocent lives), Barack Obama will allow the innocents to perish in order to uphold our ideals, where Bush would not. That's a legitimate stance even though I side with Bush (wretchedly evil non-defender of "social justice" that I am).

I feel sure that, soon, Obama will deal with an issue that no anti-torture hysteric ever addresses, namely, the harshest interrogation technique that should be allowed when seeking to elicit time-sensitive information from high-level al Qaeda detainees. People who choose to emote (not to think) believe that the whole debate is about "torture vs. no torture" or "inhumane treatment vs. humane treatment." Actually, that's what the irrelevant self-aggrandizing rhetoric is about. In the real world, you have the draw the line (how harsh is too harsh?). And despite all that he said during the campaign, Barack Obama appears to be living in the real world. This continues to amaze me, and it will probably cause me to blog less as time goes on. We'll see, I guess.

UPDATE: More evidence that Obama lives in the real world comes from his appointment of John Brennan as an advisor in the war on terror. Self-aggrandizing anti-torture activist Andrew Sullivan discusses Brennan like this when he was being considered as director of the CIA by the realist Barack Obama:

21 Nov 2008 11:48 am

No Way. No How. No Brennan.
...
The simple answer to the question - what length do we want to go? - is to abide by the rule of law. Why is that so hard to understand? And yet Brennan and Tenet didn't. They authorized clear torture sessions. Why is such a man even considered for the post under Obama? This man cannot end the taint of Bush-Cheney. He was Bush-Cheney. In fact, if Obama picks him, it will be a vindication of the kind of ambivalence and institutional moral cowardice that made America a torturing nation. It would be an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters and his ideals. It would be an acknowledgment that Tenet himself is not a war criminal, while the facts indisputably prove that he was.
...
The least we know is that Brennan is ambivalent about this. Ambivalence on this matter is unacceptable. We haven't fought for decency and reform and a return to American values for so long to be turned back now. We didn't work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA. If Brennan emerges as the pick, those of us against the continuation of war crimes and the prosecution of war criminals will have to oppose him strenuously in the nomination process. We will, in fact, have to go to war with Obama before he even takes office.

To me, it's important to have presidential advisores who cause Andrew Sullivan to react like that. If every advisor received the Andrew Sullivan seal of approval, I start to worry. Fortunately for all of us, Barack Obama lives in the real world (to my unceasing amazement).