Have you heard of Matthew Alexander? Unless you follow the debate over terrorist suspects and “enhanced interrogation techniques” very closely, the answer is probably no. Yet Alexander is one of the most influential voices in the deliberations over what to do with the U.S. terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“Major Matthew Alexander, who has actually interrogated al Qaeda suspects in Iraq, attributes half of the deaths of Americans in Iraq to the detention abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo,” Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin said on “Meet the Press” Sunday. “Continuing Guantanamo, unfortunately, makes our troops less safe.”
A moment later, moderator David Gregory asked Durbin for evidence to support President Obama’s assertion that “the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.” Durbin’s answer? “I just gave it to you: Major Matthew Alexander.”
It is widely asserted that Guantanamo has been a key recruiting tool for terrorists around the world. Indeed, it has been asserted so often that the assertion has become conventional wisdom. But what is the source of the conventional wisdom? To hear Sen. Durbin and some of his allies in the Guantanamo debate tell it, the source is Matthew Alexander.
Here’s the interesting part: Nobody knows who he is. “Matthew Alexander” is the pseudonym of a man who, according to an online biography, is a former U.S. Air Force officer who “personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than 1,000.” He is the author of a book, “How to Break a Terrorist,” in which he describes his part in the interrogations that led to the killing of al Qaeda-in-Iraq chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He says he wrote the book under an assumed name for security reasons.
Alexander has only been part of the Guantanamo debate for the last six months. On November 30, 2008, as he began promotion of his book, he published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled, “I’m Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq.” In it, he wrote, “I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.”
That passage has become the basis for much of the argument that Guantanamo should be closed. Just ask Sen. Durbin.
Since the op-ed was published, Alexander has lived a very public life for a man living under a pseudonym. He has promoted his book, written other op-eds, and blogged at the Huffington Post. He has appeared on MSNBC, “The Daily Show,” CBS, and Fox. He has participated in panel discussions and public forums — all without revealing his real name or much about his background or current activities.
Normally, when one makes an argument as serious as Alexander’s, especially in an area that has so many critical policy implications, it’s done in a totally public way, in which the advocate’s identity is known and his case is subjected to scrutiny in debate. Not this time. The leading advocate of one side is making his case anonymously.
In addition, when there is a consensus as widespread as the Guantanamo-as-terrorist-recruitment-tool idea is, it’s often based on some sort of report, or extensive research, or key document. In this case, it isn’t. There are certainly other arguments in line with Alexander’s — for example, former U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora has said there are top U.S. military officers who believe that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have been responsible for “recruiting insurgent fighters into combat” in Iraq, and thus the deaths of U.S. soldiers. But a big report that can be studied — and challenged? There’s not one.
Instead, there’s Matthew Alexander.
There is a case to be made against the terrorist-recruitment argument. Critics point out that the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the USS Cole, the African embassies, and Khobar Towers happened before there was a Guantanamo. Also, in 2007 and 2008, American strategy broke the back of the Iraqi insurgency, and terrorist recruitment plummeted, while Guantanamo was still in business.
There are a lot more questions to hash out before a final decision on Guantanamo. What’s needed is a full debate — with all the evidence on the table. “Matthew Alexander” has his position, but the American people should know more about him before making up their mind.
Note: For readers who want to learn more about this topic, please read my post from Monday, “Guantanamo and the question of terrorist recruitment.”
