As many Facebook users are aware, sometimes you can’t help but regret past photos. But is the commander in chief allowed the same privacy options? This week, in a dramatic reversal to an earlier statement, President Obama revealed that he will avoid releasing photos of terrorist suspects being abused. His order to his legal counsel to block the release of these photos constitutes what is effectively an “executive untagging.”
This issue of appalling, and possibly illegal, photographs is especially important to an administration so conscious of image — both of the president himself and of the United States abroad. The pictures, if released, are sure to be plastered all over news programs and the front pages of every newspaper. But this is not necessarily politically bad for Obama. Rather, a clean release of the photos would represent a purging of the last administration and their interrogation techniques that were widely considered torture. This would be especially clear when complemented with Obama’s ban of waterboarding and his closing of Guantanamo Bay within his first 100 days. Releasing the photos would only show a commitment to repair America’s image while further distancing his presidency from the unpopular previous administration.
The decision, which seems to be contrary to campaign promises of transparency, was made because the Obama “did not feel comfortable” with their release, according to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Aside from the greater goal of transparency, the administration originally said it planned to comply with a court order and release the photos last month, but changed its mind, in part due to concerns of escalated violence against the troops. The argument of protecting U.S. forces in a war where many troops have unwillingly served multiple tours of duty certainly should carry some weight. But this does not mean that the premise cannot be questioned.
The pictures, Obama fears, “would…further inflame anti-American opinion.” But the anti-Americanism seems to be due to two related factors: an unwelcome occupation in the Middle East and a strong sense of distrust of the American government. The first factor, of American occupation, may not be changed immediately, as Obama has already committed to a phased withdrawal period over multiple years. It is true, however, that the war should ideally be progressing from the original “shock and awe” to a more cooperative state of rebuilding today. And perhaps the best defense of burying the photos is that they will shatter any sense of cooperation or trust that Americans have fostered in recent years. But this argument treats foreign citizens as forgetful and naïve. In fact, Al-Jazeera ran their article on the suppressed photos side-by-side with a picture from Abu Ghraib in 2003. These pictures ignited such global outrage because of the shocking techniques used and the secrecy maintained by the United States. President Obama has already publicly denounced torture techniques during his term; now he must dispel any myths of criminal secrecy. One of the main rules of public relations is that if you have a scandal about to break, you control the news by disclosing everything at once. It may result in a bad news cycle or two, but it prevents the story from taking on a legendary nature or trickling out day by day.
Those susceptible to anti-Americanism are not as absent-minded as we may hope. The stories and images of a Quran being used as target practice or prisoners being sexually humiliated and tortured do not fade easily. We may find that these horrifying images have been seared into the very minds and hearts that we are trying to win over. The only way to persuade the world of a new America is through an open and honest repudiation of the qualities that encouraged anti-Americanism. Next month President Obama plans to address the Muslim world from Egypt in an attempt to renew relations. But he will not be effective unless he can demonstrate a noticeable shift in American policy and a truly honest exchange.
In the worst-case scenario, the White House fails to secure an exemption from the court order and the photos are ultimately released, or worse, leaked. In this situation, the photos would be released while perpetuating the aura of the United States as dishonest and secretive in their violations of civil liberties. In avoiding the court order, Obama has upset his liberal base and brought about outrage from the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International. Although the administration has found allies in Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Lindsey Graham, its critics will likely be vocal for some time, dragging the story on longer.
President Obama stated that he made his decision to protect Americans overseas, which is always a commendable position, so long as it’s not used for political cover. Hopefully, when weighing risks, he understood the consequences of withholding information and the roots of anti-Americanism. America’s image in the Middle East is a significant, long-term problem that should be viewed as such. A release of the pictures in combination with a taskforce examining (if not prosecuting) past mistakes would constitute a national mea culpaand show a commitment to change.
If one can extrapolate from the CIA memos, the photos will likely be horrifying: waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced isolated in tiny spaces with insects. But these images of Americans in uniform abusing detainees are not new; untagging these photos does not erase what actually happened. The world will take likely take years to recover from our abusive practices, but full disclosure should be the first step.