Marc Lynch and Gregg Carlstrom provide some twitterborne pushback to my Guanthomsonamo piece. Their point is that Guantanamo has a symbolic value, particularly in the Muslim world, that Thomson doesn’t. “‘Gitmo’ resonates with accumulated history, narrative way beyond rational/legal issues,” Marc observes.

My response was: give it time. I don’t understand why we should believe that creating a new site for indefinite detention and military commissions of, in practice, exclusively Muslim cohort wouldn’t take on the same symbolic value of the old one. Transferring Guantanamo is not the same thing as closing Guantanamo, and I don’t believe people are gullible enough to miss the distinction. On the contrary: if you want to talk symbolism, the propaganda value to al-Qaeda of President Obama continuing with the same injustice as his predecessor is rather underestimated. 

I got into some trouble a few weeks ago when I pronounced myself allergic to any debates that are premised on “narrative.” So I won’t do that again with “symbolism.” I get it, I get it, symbols are important. I’m trying to expand my horizons. But but but. Beneath the symbol is the thing-itself. And that first-order thing is always more important than the symbol. Sure, there’s a symbolic value to closing The Place Called Guantanamo. But let’s not let that obscure the greater value — to the Constitution, to American values, to national security, to U.S. foreign policy — of stopping indefinite detention without charge.*

*If you forced me to, I guess I could swallow real hard and accept military commissions as a compromise choice, even though I’ll hate every minute of it and you’ll have to make a really energetic argument to me about the transactional utility of accepting the commissions. Indefinite detention without charge — absolutely not, never, fuck no, this is not North Korea.

Update: Daveed Gartenstein-Ross essentially wrote this whole post in a tweet.