Heroes - When it's Convenient

The latest chapter of the Colin Kaepernick kneeling saga began a few days ago, when Nike made him the face of its latest ad campaign.  If you haven't seen the ad in question, here's a link where you can take a look.  Predictably, the ad sparked a backlash, signs of which you could see in the news and on social media: photos and videos of people destroying their Nike merchandise, the standard amount of anti-Kaepernick vitriol, and so on.  It was a new twist on a familiar tune: Kaepernick is being unpatriotic and disrespectful to the troops and the flag by kneeling, etc etc etc. Basically the same old stuff. 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is disrespectful (I don't think it is, but I don't presume to speak for all military personnel). If kneeling during the national anthem gets people angry enough to torch their Nike shoes, how angry would they get over the government suppressing a report about contaminated drinking water on military bases? Or appallingly poor medical care at VA clinics? Homeless veterans? Deep cuts to educational benefits? Or how about the biggest one in recent memory: the Bush Administration's unnecessary and completely botched war in Iraq? Even if you believe the WMD intelligence was legitimate (hint: it wasn't), Bush and his team screwed up every significant decision at the start of the war, from ignoring the looting to not sending enough troops to secure the country to the Ba'athist purges.

So if someone cared about the troops not being disrespected, there are much bigger things to get angry about. Yet I'd speculate that there's not a huge amount of overlap in the Venn Diagram of "people who are angry about what Kaepernick's doing" and "people who are angry about all that other stuff."

Curious, isn't it? It's as if some people only care about "the troops" to use them as a political prop, and then forget all about them when it comes to things that really matter.

Like I said, I don't presume to speak for all military personnel.  But I'll just give my $.02.  At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I'll say that I detest shallow patriotism, and that people angry about Kaepernick and the Nike ad campaign are a classic example of that. Caring about the troops is about more than a coupon at a restaurant or priority boarding at the airport, or flashy parades and magnetic yellow ribbons. It's about taking the time to read up on the challenges they face: the far-flung corners of the world they're sent to, the various missions they're made to undertake, and the difficulties they face when they eventually re-enter the civilian world.

And it is definitely not about allowing the military and the flag to be used as a rhetorical club to hit a particular segment of society. If that's your idea of patriotism, you have a lot to learn.

A Torture Enabler's Career Path

A news story that I thought should have gotten a lot of attention was President Trump's decision to nominate Gina Haspel to be Director of the CIA.  Unfortunately, like many other important stories, it was pushed out of the news cycle by later events.  If you don't know who Gina Haspel is, that's okay.  There are probably a lot of people who don't.  Here's a quick rundown of the most important details about her: Haspel oversaw a CIA "black site" in Thailand in 2002, where agents used various forms of torture like waterboarding to extract information from detainees.  (I strongly encourage you to click on that link and read the accounts of the torture from people at the site.) She also was part of a concerted effort to obstruct a federal investigation by destroying recordings of CIA employees torturing detainees.  Neither of those things impeded her career progression, because she is currently the CIA's Deputy Director.

Haspel didn't get to where she is overnight, though: America has gotten far too accepting of an unarguably immoral practice since 9/11.  "Enhanced interrogation," Camp X-Ray, preemptive wars - they all led us to where we are now.  Our government's hands weren't clean before that, of course; but torture wasn't promoted so openly and wholeheartedly before the War On Terror.  "Dubya" basically started a course of action that has proven difficult to reverse.  Obama, to his credit, managed to rein in some of the torture programs, like the "black sites"; but he couldn't halt it completely.  And his unwillingness to make good on his campaign promises ensured that it would be an uphill battle to hold anyone accountable. There's also an argument to be made that Obama's decision to not confront the torture issue paved the way for Trump's endorsement of it.

In addition to the obvious moral (it's cruel and evil) and practical (it doesn't work) objections, there are also political ones.  It's hard to say to say "You shouldn't torture people" to countries like China, The Philippines, or Saudi Arabia when three successive presidents have said "It's okay" in one way or another.  It also sends a bad message to other liberal democracies, including our allies in Europe.  How can the US present itself as a "beacon of democracy" when we engage in such a barbaric practice? On a domestic level, it also says to the intelligence community that participating in torture, and then trying to cover it up, is not an impediment to career advancement.  Expect to see the CIA and other agencies start loosening restrictions on torture soon, if they haven't already.  ICE has already taken its cue from Trump's tone and adopted more aggressive tactics, so government agencies are taking note and responding accordingly.

"Torture is bad" is such an easy and obvious judgement to make that I'm not going to spend time explaining why.  Promoting someone who had a hand in it sends the message that torture is acceptable, maybe even desirable.  The longer torture is seen as acceptable, the harder it will be to dislodge once we decide it's not tolerable any longer.  If you disagree with my position on torture, you're welcome to do so, but don't waste your time or mine trying to change my mind.