State: Q&A: Michael Pheneger

Q&A: Michael Pheneger

Michael Pheneger, treasurer of the ACLU in Florida, weighs in on Iraq and how he helped steal Manuel Noriega's pants.

By GRAHAM BRINK, Times Staff Writer

Michael Pheneger carries three identification cards, an unlikely grouping probably not found in too many other wallets. One signifies his military service, another his membership in the Republican Party -- and right next to those is his membership card for the American Civil Liberties Union.

That's right, Pheneger is not only a decorated retired U.S. Army colonel who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, but he is also treasurer of the ACLU in Florida.

"I don't find it strange at all," he says. "Both jobs are about upholding the Constitution."

Pheneger did counter-intelligence work in Germany, survived the Tet offensive in Vietnam and kept a close eye on the Soviets during the Cold War. Before retiring in 1993, Pheneger worked as deputy director of intelligence for Central Command and was the first director of intelligence for U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base.

Times staff writer Graham Brink interviewed Pheneger, 62, in his office at the University of South Florida, where he is program coordinator for the Division of Lifelong Learning. He talked about his careers, the threat of war with Iraq, and how Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega lost his pants.

* * *

Brink: Some observers might find it intriguing that a former Army colonel is now a very active member of the ACLU, a group its detractors have at times called a bastion of communist ideas and liberal hokum. What would you say to them?

Pheneger: One of the first things you do when you join the United States Army is to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And in a way that's what the ACLU tries to do. Our problem, from the standpoint of our public image, is that we tend to take the words of the first 10 amendments of the constitution fairly literally.

Brink: Why did you join the military in 1963?

Pheneger: I was working on the highway department in Ohio, shoveling stone and patching roads with stone and tar. I learned a lot about the idea of the division of labor. When I signed up for college, they asked whether I wanted to join ROTC. I sort of thought being an officer would be better than being an enlisted man because you would be doing more divisioning and possibly less laboring.

Brink: If the United States does go to war with Iraq, what is the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used?

Pheneger: That's very hard to say. There is an argument that says that (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein) will go ahead and, in some kind of a death spasm, use whatever it is he happens to have ... What we will try to do is go over Saddam's head to the people who actually have to carry out those missions, and by various kinds of psychological and other information operations, we'll try to persuade those people to not obey those kinds of orders.

Brink: If a war does occur, how similar will it be to the one with Iraq 10 years ago?

Pheneger: I think it'll be awfully different. Saddam's army is about two-thirds the size it was then. We look to be going in right now with a force that's substantially smaller, too. But our ability to maneuver, our ability to target his forces, has really substantially increased since the Gulf War. During the Gulf War, we saw all these wonderful pictures of smart weapons flying in windows and things like that, but only about 6 or 7 percent of the weapons that we used during the Gulf War could be classified as smart weapons. Right now, we're looking at the possibility of having 70 or 80 percent of the weapons we would use being smart weapons.

Brink: I know they are very serious places, but can you think of any funny stories from your days at Central Command and Special Operations?

Pheneger: (Sighs) Well, I was at SoCom when we went into Panama. I had had contact with Panamanian leader Gen. Manuel Noriega earlier, when I was commanding the Army's intelligence resources in Central and South America out of Panama. During the planning of Operation Just Cause we obviously had taken into account where we thought Noriega might likely be, including his mistress' apartment in downtown Panama. What we really didn't know was that at the exact time we went in, Noriega was at a house of prostitution out near the airport. When the Airborne soldiers from Fort Bragg ultimately checked that place out, they found that he had left very quickly to go hide, leaving his uniform pants behind. So his uniform, in all of its glory, was placed in the museum at Fort Bragg.

Brink: Who's the bigger threat, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein?

Pheneger: Well, they're different kinds of threats. The real threat the president is worried about is that somehow the capabilities of Saddam Hussein will be married to the threat that Osama bin Laden represents. . . . If you suddenly link the capabilities of Saddam with the fanatics who work for al-Qaida and you start using those capabilities to deliver weapons of mass destruction, that's a real serious problem.

Brink: What three books should Americans read to get a better understanding of war?

Pheneger: (Prussian military strategist Karl von) Clausewitz's On War . . . Thomas L. Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem . . . Samuel P. Huntington's The Soldier and the State.

Brink: What is your favorite movie about the Vietnam War?

Pheneger: Uh, actually, until lately there was no actual Vietnam war movie that I thought was decent. But I think the recently released We Were Soldiers, which was Lt. Col. Hal Moore's story, was very good. . . . The other one I would mention is Robin Williams' Good Morning Vietnam. It gives a different look at the war.

Brink: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Pheneger: (Laughs) Now you're crossing over my ACLU and my military lives. I think it would be very nice if we would get this country to the point where gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military establishment without it having any side effects. I think, for the time being -- and ACLU people are going to hate me for this -- but for the time being I think the (don't ask, don't tell policy) is a reasonable compromise. . . . We have overcome the animosity in the case of blacks and other minorities and I hope that we're going to be able to overcome it with regard to gays and lesbians.

Brink: What concerns you most about the state of civil liberties in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001?

Pheneger: What concerns me most is that we as a country are prone to react when threatened in ways that are inherently damaging to civil liberties, without really considering whether all the damage we're doing is absolutely necessary.

Brink: Have Americans been too quick to give up some rights to feel more secure?

Pheneger: You can see it throughout history. Abraham Lincoln, who is revered for what he did to free slaves and to save the Union, did it by not only basically abrogating the right of habeas corpus, but he also threw newspaper editors and reporters in jail who disagreed with the union war effort. Interestingly, we've always done things that are, in some cases, kind of silly. In Pittsburgh, for example, during World War I, they forbid the local symphony orchestra from playing Beethoven because it might be considered in support of the Germans. I mean, we do these things, and then we kind of repent a little bit later.

Brink: How well has the University of South Florida handled the situation with suspended professor Sami Al-Arian?

Pheneger: Terribly, in a word. Dr. Al-Arian is obviously a very, very controversial figure. He has made statements that are reprehensible. And there are allegations that he has been involved in terrorist activities. However, in this country, we don't really punish people based on unproven allegations. . . . I think what the university is doing is kind of ironic. The way to silence Dr. Al-Arian, if that's what they had in mind, would be to put him back in the classroom, let him teach computer science and not give him all this free time.

Brink: When an organizer of a public event erects a free speech zone, should dissenters be expected to remain in that area?

Pheneger: The answer to that is no, in my opinion. The First Amendment creates a free speech zone. It's supposed to be roughly contiguous with the United States of America. And if for some reason we have to make some limitations, we might do that, but you ought to have a really good reason. But the really good reasons aren't there.

Brink: Tell me the first words that jump into your head when I mention Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Pheneger: The ACLU had a bit of a debate about whether we ought to take a formal position on John Ashcroft and I said no. Ashcroft obviously comes from a place where we don't come from. But I don't think that you should go ahead and preclude somebody from serving as the attorney general simply because they hold conservative beliefs. He promised that he would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think that's the standard we ought to hold him to. And when he doesn't do it, or we think he's not doing it, we ought to protest like hell.

Brink: Finally, what is the most destructive force to America's democracy right now?

Pheneger: Fear. Unreasoning fear. We have good reason to be afraid. What we're afraid of is that we will be attacked and we'll ultimately lose our way of life. But our way of life is distinguished not by how well we live, but by the fact that we are, as human beings in this country, freer than anybody else in the world. We need to spend a lot more time worrying about what it is we're trying to defend and what we're afraid of losing. The danger is not just that the terrorists will blow up the plane, but it's somehow, along the line, that we will depart from the way that we live and the freedom in which we live.