• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Christopher Boucek"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Guantanamo is a Problem We Can Solve

The Obama administration’s goal of closing the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was encouraging, but unrealistic; the larger issue that must first be addressed is the entire U.S. detainee policy and the need for disengagement programs that mitigate the chance of former detainees engaging in violent activities.

Link Copied
By Christopher Boucek
Published on Jan 22, 2010

Source: Global Post

Guantanamo is a Problem We Can SolveToday is President Obama’s self-imposed deadline for closing the United States military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. After the events of the past year — including, most recently, the failed airliner bombing over Detroit on Christmas Day — and ongoing problems finding countries able and willing to accept detainees, the administration concedes it will not meet the President’s target.

The goal of closing Guantanamo in a year was encouraging, but unrealistic. It’s not simply a matter of what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo, or “Gitmo North,” if any of its inmates ever end up being transferred to the Thompson correctional facility in Illinois.

The United States’ entire detainee policy is at issue, in Guantanamo, Bagram air base in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else the U.S. or its allies hold people without trial.

Today, there are about 200 prisoners at Guantanamo, most of whom are from Yemen. Moving them to Illinois doesn’t solve the problem, it just relocates it. At the most fundamental level, Obama still hasn’t decided what he wants to do.

The administration has prisoners it intends to place on trial, either in open courts or military tribunals. These include some of the 15 high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh. At the other end, the White House had cleared between 40 and 45 Yemeni detainees for release, but as yet, has no idea what to do with them.

In between, it gets even messier, with a group of detainees the administration doesn’t want to try but doesn’t want to let go, either. The administration will doing everything in its power to make that group as small as possible, but it won’t be easy, and the last four weeks haven’t helped.

President Obama has never adequately explained his position, that this is a matter of managing risk in a manner that comports with both our security and our values.

It would be politically suicidal for Obama to release any detainee who might return to violent activities, yet every day in the U.S., we tolerate a substantial risk of recidivism among paroled rapists and murderers, and we manage it. It’s equally absurd to presume that we can keep prisoners who have never been convicted of crimes in custody forever, or let them out and expect that they’ll never do anything bad.

Unfortunately, that leaves a range of unsettling options. The White House should try as many of the Guantanamo prisoners as possible in an American court. Terrorism is a crime, and our criminal justice system has tried and convicted terrorists before.

Among prisoners we release, there will always be a risk of behaviors we don’t like. We need to create programs to help handle that. Today, we simply don’t have the metrics to determine whether or not a prisoner constitutes a manageable risk, or a formalized process for releasing him. We have tools and processes to help make those decisions for sexual predators and other violent offenders (admittedly these are far from perfect), but for these detainees, we have nothing.

We should produce a much more detailed analysis, measuring how detainees engage in terrorist activities on a sort of scale. We can’t expect someone who was deeply involved in violence to give it up easily, but some of these detainees had never engaged in violent actions in the first place.

We need to think of terrorist behaviors as points on a spectrum, and create specific interventions to stop particular behaviors, or particular people from committing them, instead of saying essentially, “don’t do things we don’t like.”

Disengagement programs should ideally replace a detainee’s social network with one more conducive to peaceful behavior, determining who he can and cannot spend time with, and placing him in new social networks.

Saudi Arabia is the only country with a formal program to help reintegrate nationals who return from Guantanamo. The U.S. has made similar programs a condition for repatriating prisoners to other countries, including Kuwait, which may soon establish one.

Today, the Yemenis have no formal system to handle detainees, and the Obama administration needs to help them build one. To manage the risk of sending detainees back, Yemen needs a means of absorbing and reintegrating them into society.

Yet, as media attention turns again toward the Yemenis held at Guantanamo, people seem to forget that we’re only talking about 90 people. Though Obama may not solve it this year, or next year, or even by 2012, this is a manageable problem. We can deal with this, and we will.

About the Author

Christopher Boucek

Former Associate, Middle East Program

Boucek was an associate in the Carnegie Middle East Program where his research focused on security challenges in the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Africa.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Yemen After Saleh’s Return and Awlaki’s Exit

      Christopher Boucek

  • Q&A
    Rivals—Iran vs. Saudi Arabia

      Christopher Boucek, Karim Sadjadpour

Christopher Boucek
Former Associate, Middle East Program
Christopher Boucek
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle East

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

    Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

      Vladimir Solovyov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle East

    The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.