National Post (National Edition)
Why Obama can’t shake Guantanamo’s shadow
Prison a ‘problem’ he can live with
Barack Obama’s comments on tuesday about the need to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp will be welcomed by many, particularly on the american left.
But it’s unlikely that the U.s. President will actually do much about it.
the President was asked during a press conference what he thought about an ongoing hunger strike among Guantanamo detainees. a hundred of the 166 detainees have been refusing to eat, and the U.s. military recently sent extra medical personnel to the Cuban base to help force-feed the weakest. there is a growing likelihood that some may die in U.s. custody, perhaps triggering an anti-U.s. backlash across the Muslim world.
“I continue to believe that we’ve got to close Guantanamo,” the President answered.
“[Guantanamo] is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists.”
“The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are,” he added. “It is contrary to our interests and it needs to stop.”
The president was right to note that it is bizarre that the U.S. would just hold a hundred some-odd people indefinitely, especially considering that 86 of them have been cleared for release by U.S. courts.
But, “contrary” to who Americans “are”? Hardly.
In2007, campaigning against John McCain, Senator Obama could point to Guantanamo as a moral outrage, a blight upon America’s conscience that needed to be closed. But then he took office, tried to shut it down once … and then ignored it. Were it not for the now looming prospect of U.S. embassies getting burned down should any of the strikers starve to death, he’d almost certainly be ignoring it still.
The president was correct when he said that for a lot Americans, Guantanamo is “out of sight, out of mind.” What he didn’t mention was that for all outward appearances, it’s been out of sight and mind for him, too.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has repeatedly, and rightly, written that the greatest endorsement of President George W. Bush’s controversial anti-terror policies has been their quiet adoption by the Obama administration. Yes, President Obama withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, and yes, he’s looking to do the same thing in Afghanistan next year. But the White House has expanded the use of drones for targeted killings, and has virtually left Guantanamo as it was under Bush.
It’s not that the president has shied away from contentious issues. He took on the Republicans over gun control, and lost, but he also took them on over ObamaCare, and won. He pushed hard for some kind of budget deal with a Republican House of Representatives, even though it was probably easier to just let the automatic cuts kick in (which is what ended up happening in the end).
President Obama is clearly willing to fight for the things he believes in. Yet for years he’s been invisible on Guantanamo. It’s easy to conclude that, despite his rhetoric, it simply isn’t an issue he cares about.
Maybe he shouldn’t. Despite the president’s claim that Guantanamo “hurts” the U.S., it’s just as easy to argue that it has worked out … pretty well.
With the benefit of hindsight, it ’s easy to say that Guantanamo was a flawed concept: Washington has enough information about detainees to know they were dangerous, but not nearly enough to convict them of any crime. Even those cleared for release end up stranded because no country, not even their homes, will accept them. “Let ’ em rot” in Cuba seems to be the unofficial policy of most Arab nations.
But has any of this hurt the president? Republicans support Guantanamo, both because they tend to be hawks on terror in general and because it was, after all, their party that created it. Dovish Democrats may not like it, but that didn’t stop President Obama from winning re-election last year with an outright majority of the popular vote. And Gitmo is, as the president noted, largely out of mind.
Nor does his promise to “re-engage with Congress” say much for his new-found determination to see the facility closed. Want a festering issue off your plate? Punt it to Congress and resume ignoring it.
President Obama can get away with this because, despite his remarks, Guantanamo is hardly contrary to what America is. Two pres- idents, from both parties, have sustained it for 11 years. Congress has shown no interest in its fate. The public has largely forgotten. The international community has accepted it and continues to do business with America, anyway.
If there were a practical, safe way to close Guantanamo, any president would probably jump at the chance to use it. But rhetoric aside, don’t expect this to be a pressing issue. President Obama lived with it for his first term. He’ll find a way to make it through his second.