Asymmetrical Information

As I've argued elsewhere, this is an argument with no end. It's circular and therefore has no meaning.

All the debate over torture goes to show you that
"truth serum" is, and always was, a fiction created for spy thriller novels and movies. Of course, if it existed, someone would whine that a forced injection was torture even if it potentially stopped a terrorist bombing in their own neighborhood.

My wife would be astonished to learn that I might have said something "profound." ;) But whatever.

No matter how many laws you make against cannibalism, no matter how many "ethicists" say it's never right, when they get hungry enough some people will eat others. Does that make cannibalism "right"? Don't know. But it sure makes it a feature of life as we know it, one that, however, is at the very edges of normality. To use the extreme possibility of cannibalism to enforce vegetarianism at all times makes no sense. These controversies remind me of Ayn Rand's condemnation of the use of "emergency ethics", where people treat every day life as an extreme circumstance, in order to bend others to their will.

One of my commenters said something rather profound: "I don't think Americans have a good handle on what is torture and what is merely bad manners."

This is a false distinction. What went on at A.G. was not "bad manners." Bad manners is chewing with your mouth open, forgetting to say "please" and "thank you" and belching at the dinner table. That isn't what happened, that I know of, at A.G., although hey, more photos may emerge.

Its not just enemy combatants getting it, an not only Republicans doing it. Check out

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1303220/posts

and just keep scrolling. I thought that this was, well, extra special:

"Reno had Ileana isolated from the prison population and placed in solitary confinement, naked. Ileana described her treatment in a 1998 interview: “They would give me cold showers. Two people will hold me, run me under cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods and they would just wash me and throw me back into the cell.”

(although, come to think of it, I'm sure "It's a small world after all" must be banned by the Geneva accords)

NOOOOO . . . seriously, that ride broke down when we were at Disneyworld, and we were stuck in there for about 45 minutes. Traumatized for life, I am.

Excellent article, short and to the point. I would like to add 50,000 words to it, but that has been done in several places. I said how I feel on the subject. Thanks

"What's torture, really" is only complicated if you're trying to find a way to rationalize torture.

Catholic (and hence, by extension, Christian in general) doctrine holds that "Man, being formed in the image of His Creator, possesses an intrinsic individuality and dignity that requires us to treat other human beings always as ends, and never as means." (I am paraphrasing the CCC from memory, so I may not have the exact verbiage, but I know I am not doing violence to the meaning)

This is the core principle that makes torture sinful: it is inherently instrumental, and hence can never be justified, no matter what ends it serves. This is why--again, from a Catholic/Christian perspective--discussions of the exact techniques used--and, incidentally, all those analogies about what we do to military recruits and others--are beside the point: in Catholicism/Christianity, *intentions count*. NO means--however anodyne--can be justified if the ends are intrinsically evil.

Today's testimony on the bad manners displayed at Abu Ghraib prison:

"A Syrian man who was held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq called Army Spc. Charles Graner the "primary torturer" who beat and stomped on him and threatened to kill and rape him."

"Al-Sheikh, who was in Iraq to fight Americans and who admitted shooting a guard with a pistol smuggled into the prison."

The only thing surprising from this is that the terrorist Al-Sheikh is still alive after smuggling a gun into the prison and shooting one of the guards.

Hey, Jason -- since it's not so complicated to come up with "what's torture, really", why don't you offer us an example?

Yes, if there were a nuclear bomb set to go off in midtown Manhattan, and we could find it by torturing a terrorist, I'd probably want the CIA to go ahead and do it. But as Glenn Reynolds once pointed out, no matter what rules we make, if there's a nuclear bomb set to go off in midtown Manhattan, and we can find it by torturing a terrorist, the CIA is going to go ahead and torture him no matter what rules we make.

Troubling. Doesn't this amount to abdicating any moral responsibility? Shouldn't we pre-approve extreme measure in extreme situations?

The notion that someone might say, "Gee, I would nevr have approved that, but I am glad they did it" strikes me as a cop out.

Not that I am always opposed to cop-outs...

Jason and David,

I understand that by even asking you will claim I am rationalizing torture, but assuming we don't want it to happen the question I, Jane and others have is what is torture? According to what I have been reading in many quarters it is anything which might break the will of someone who is refusing to answer questions. Something is torture then if it causes me to feel such distress that I cooperate. That pretty much rules out interrogating people who do not want to cooperate.

Maybe the two of you could stop sneering and enlighten those of us too dim to get the patently obvious distinctions between legitimate interrogation and torture. I ask this because I really want to know. Regular beatings, sodomy with a nightstick etc., seem pretty clear. Likewise much of what is forbidden under the Geneva conventions make sense for regular armies, less so in delineating torture (offering some prisoners better food than others, candy, etc.) Plenty of what happened at Abu Ghraib would be torture if it were involved in interrogation (much of it was not, Graner and pals were sick and abusing their authority) but some I am not sure. Panties on the head? Being naked? What about being forced to stand for several hours? Maybe in some contexts, but necessarily? Abusive and unwise they might be. Maybe such behavior is bad policy. However if such things are always torture don't we water down torture and make it seem less awful, even possibly encourage people to blur the lines to make torture less objectionable?

I don't know what the right answer is, but glib statements to shut off discussion is unlikely to lead to a constructive, civil debate that can allow us all to put in place policies to keep us safe and limit Human Rights abuses.

Raining Ketchup,

I can’t believe you read the post. The reader wasn’t claiming Abu Ghraib was merely bad manners. Your insinuation is insulting. The commenter is saying that many people are not sure where the line should be drawn. You have erected a straw man; please apologize to the commenter (I assume we are speaking of George) and take the straw man with you.

Moral seriousness requires accepting what people are trying to say, not what you want them to say so that you can sneer and hurl insults. This is an important debate and if we are going to come up with policies which help eliminate (though history says we will never eliminate it, too many bad apples in every barrel) many of the abuses which we have had to endure in this war and past, we have to be willing to hear everyone out honestly. We also have to allow people to posit what in our mind is patently unjust and respond persuasively, not abusively. Often many people need to chew on things to see the real cruelty behind some treatments, conversely many may have to hear things through at length to realize extreme positions in favor of terrorists well being may not work, that they ask too much, or are more harmful than they realize. For example, does a slavish devotion to the Geneva Conventions when applied to non signatories actually weaken the Conventions themselves by undermining the rationale for following them in the first place? Men and women of good will can disagree on that question, and both can claim a devotion to extending humane treatment. It is a question of means and ends, with both having a claim on our conscience. I am not sure where I stand, though I am pretty sure where I do not. If you don’t really want to help all of us find a workable answer I don’t see a point in commenting at all.

Troubling. Doesn't this amount to abdicating any moral responsibility? Shouldn't we pre-approve extreme measure in extreme situations?

If you pre-approve them (e.g. “torture warrants”), you run the risk that they will be over-used and become more acceptable and the practice may become more widespread. However you do have the chance to set up guidelines as to what sort of methods might be approved under what circumstances and you have the chance establish accountability.

On the other hand, if you decide on a case-by-case basis after-the-fact (e.g. allowing a person charged with torture to raise a “necessity defense”), you run the risk that they get done on the sly or you lose the chance to control their usage by developing some sort of guidelines. However it’s less likely that someone might resort to those methods if they are unsure that they will be acquitted and the practice may be less likely to occur.

"What are the things we will do only if they're reciprocated, and what are the things we will never do, because they are too horrible ?"

First, I think the reciprocation issue is a blind. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that no enemy of ours has been entirely scrupulous in its applications of reciprocated agreements; to my knowledge, that hasn't been used to tear up that agreement. Furthermore, these (explicit or implicit) agreements aren't purely bilateral - particularly given our enormous power, a lot of what matters is what potential future enemies think we are willing to do as policy. Given that we've ghosted prisoners, rendered prisoners, and the like, I doubt that they'll take our word that "this time we're really not down for the abuse thing."

Second, if people aren't arguing about the remaining issue, I suspect it's because the issue isn't ripe. The time to sort out how much bad we're willing to do for our own benefit is when we are facing a truly frightening enemy (the Germans, arguably the Japanese, the Sovs, etc.); not when we're fighting the remnants of fourth rate regional power (Israel stronger? Check. Turkey stronger? Check. Iran stronger? Check.) under circumstances where no sane person believes we had to go to war. Or against an enemy whose best attack depended upon active participation by maybe 50 people with a half-million dollars. (I'm not arguing we shouldn't go after Al Qaeda - if I'd been President, I might have (wrongly) gone to Afghanistan in a much more brutal fashion).

The question on the table is not "how much bad will we do if necessary," (answer: quite a lot) but "how much bad will we do in the course of a couple of, ex-ante, meaningless kerfuffles." Nothing terribly bad would have happened to our national security if we hadn't gone into Iraq, just as nothing terribly bad will happen to national security if Bin Laden isn't captured (which the Admin. has apparently tacitly admitted).

Might we get answers through torture that would save the lives of our soldiers? Possibly. But if you go into a war, you accept a certain attrition rate among the military. (That's one of the reasons why it is important to have a great reason, and the country's strong will, at your back before you go to war). So the question becomes, "what's an acceptable attrition rate after which we will do bad things." It's hard to say that its even above one - how can you tell someone that their life is worth less than an amorphous ideal? - but clearly it is above that. You might use the Vietnam war as a proxy. To the best of my knowledge (and it's effectively zero in this area), we never explicitly authorized "abuse" in that war, and (as the Right is fond of telling us) the attrition rate among military in Iraq and Afghanistan is substantially lower than it was in Vietnam. So it seems entirely reasonable for people to be angry about our use of abuse without answering the question of "how bad will we be when necessary."

All of which is to say - there may be little debate on the latter question for precisely the same reasons that no one took the Pistons-Pacers brawl as the basis for a debate on the death penalty.

Tim, I think you're dodging on a number of fronts.

First, I've made it explicit several times that we are not talking about Abu Ghraib; we're talking about Guantanamo. Geneva applies to Iraq, whether or not you think we could do better at compliance. Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is entirely meaningless to the question of how we should interrogate suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists or their Taliban fellow-travelers.

Second, the issue is not whether each side has rigorously hewed to the letter of the Geneva Convention; in no war in history (nor, I suspect, in the future) has either side gone without violating the conventions, some in fairly horrific ways (civilian bombings, the Bataan death march). But we're fighting an enemy which hasn't signed the damn thing, and whose standards for taking and treating prisoners is not merely well below those of the Geneva accord; not merely well below the standards we are already using; but totally incompatible with basic human decency--in no place is the kidnapping and execution of journalists or humanitarian workers allowed by the law of war or minimal standards of morality. Faced with an enemy who is clearly uninterested in the Geneva accords, it is appropriate to ask which provisions are just basic humanity (don't put their eyes out a la that Byzantine emporer), and which are just nice extras (hot meals). If you think that reciprocity is irrelevant, I suggest you go look at what happens, in either game theory or history, to actors who unilaterally commit to taking certain sanctions off the table. If you can find any left alive.

Yes, I am also advocating unilateral committments to things like not mutilating prisoners. But at least I have the moral courage to recognise that the price of my committment may be lives lost.

Third, there are very, very good reasons that Geneva protections are denied to those who masquerade as civilians, target civilians, use churches and civilian buildings, or civilians, as shields for their military forces, or otherwise violate the definition of lawful combatants in the Geneva accords--and those good reasons are not that I voted for George Bush the second time round. Those provisions are designed to protect civilians, by making it unprofitable to endanger civilians either as camaflouge, or as a propaganda tool through forcing the enemy to target them in order to pursue the battle. While superficial reasoning convinces advocates of a "unilateral Geneva" that they are occupying the high moral ground, it is their position that results in the greatest harm to the greatest number of innocents.

More research $ for effective truth serum and MRI lie detectors, please. Pronto!

I'm serious--we'll need both someday no matter where this torture debate ultimately goes, or how long it takes to get there. Why not get there sooner rather than later?

Good post.

And Jason, perhaps you can read SCMTim's post for an example of how to have a dialog, even if you disagree with many or all of the engaged party's positions.

Simple fact is, there is NOT a clear line between obnoxious interrogation tactics (crude, even crass, but effective and not fundamentally destructive to the person under interrogation) and actual torture (i.e. inhumanity), if only because different people want to draw the line at different places based on different sets of assumptions/beliefs/etc.

I really hope you weren't suggesting that your perception of that line is so correct and obvious that it didn't require a defense. If so, your word-of-the-day is "arrogance." Look it up and let us know what you find.

Jane:

Either I mis-wrote or you mis-read; there's a misstep in there somewhere. In rough order:

1. Part of the problem might be that (I think) you were talking about two issues: (a) is what we are doing at Guantanamo wrong, (b) what's the general case here. I was responding to your point about the lack of discussion about to (b). To that end, I don’t think that my argument depends on Abu Ghraib particularly (I don't think I mentioned it). You could use the Yoo memo on torture as a proxy for our policy about what we should do in such situations. (Cf. http://www.acsblog.org/international-affairs-623-marty-lederman-on-understanding-the-olc-torture-memos-part-i.html (". Because the 2002 Opinion basically defined torture out of existence…. ")). ( I'd also note that there was (IIRC) an allegation of a naked prisoner being dropped on barbed wire at Guantanamo). And my answer: we don't answer the general question now b/c we don't really believe we need to - the people we're talking about aren't sufficiently scary to make us consider what we'd do with our backs to the wall (despite the "suicide pact" crap we've heard recently in other contexts).

2. "f you think that reciprocity is irrelevant, I suggest you go look at what happens, in either game theory or history, to actors who unilaterally commit to taking certain sanctions off the table. If you can find any left alive."

Part of this probably depends on the range of actions we're talking about as "reciprocal". For history - I guess I'd argue that the Israelis claim that they have long treated the Palestinian militia much better than their own soldiers are treated by the Palestinians. Whether you find that convincing historical evidence probably depends on your belief in the Israeli claim. As for game theory, I think this one is straight miscommunication. You (I believe) are talking about a two player game. I (by reference to "potential future enemies") was arguing that N was much larger. AFAIK (I don't follow the field), multiple N games are really complex and poorly understood. That complexity might be a reason to be cautious.

"But at least I have the moral courage to recognise that the price of my committment may be lives lost."

That's largely the issue I was trying to get at in the paragraph that begins: "Might we get answers through torture that would save the lives of our soldiers?" To be fair, I didn't mention moral courage, so miscommunication here might have been inevitable.

3. I didn't mention the Geneva Conventions - again I was addressing the general case issue. (I am now wondering if you were talking to someone else - if so, please read NEVER MIND in place of this post). I am, however, suspicious of arguments based on the protection of civilians in a war. Because we've far the better weapons (of which I'm very, very glad), I assume in any war, we'll be (as a matter of direct causation) responsible for by far the larger number of civilian casualties. And to be honest, in general I'm willing to accept that fact if it lets our troops use their better weapons. For me, I think of it as a question of how badly we need to achieve the goal vs. the cost in collateral damage; if the need's sufficient, do it.
(Obviously, there are a range of costs, depending on the strategy we adopt).

What the hell are we discussing here, how to tie our hands so that we can let these Islamic Fundamentalists cause as many problems as possible until we realize that we can not win a "clean" war?

These psychos show no limits to what they will do and we should treat others how they treat us. Anything that will help our interrogators get the information they need is within my definition of allowable for these enemy combatants.

I could care less for these animals that are killing my brothers. We are fighting this war like idiots, caring about civilians and captured enemies. We lost close to 200 men between the two battles at Fallujah and it was all because we cared about these people. I would rather level the entire city and kill 200,000 of these pigs before losing 200 of my bretheren. Now what happens, these beasts who were protecting those who were killing our troops, are now complaining about the damage done to their city. Their houses are destroyed at the expense of 200 of our kids. I could care less about their house or their lives.

The only way to win a war is to completely destroy your enemy and his supporters, kill their will to continue the fight. Showing them mercy does not help our troops, it only shows weakness on our part. Dropping two A Bombs on Japan killed their spirit to fight rather quickly. Halting bombing North Vietnam only caused us to lose a war. When citizens know that they are going to die if they harbor or do not turn in our adversaries they will do a lot more informing.

Just because these citizens are not picking up arms does not make them innocents. They support those who are fighting us, and without that support the fighters could not do what they are doing. A perfect example is in Gaza where the citizens run into the street to protect the gunmen when Israeli helicopters come out. These civilians are acting as shields and accordingly are combatants in my book, ready for a bullet to the head. Treating these animals as if they were 21st century human beings is just outright stupid and has put us in the position we are in now.

One of my commenters said something rather profound: "I don't think Americans have a good handle on what is torture and what is merely bad manners."

I don't think it's especially profound (or original) to point out that "torture" is probably too strong a word for most or all of what went down at Abu Ghraib.

But as Glenn Reynolds once pointed out, no matter what rules we make, if there's a nuclear bomb set to go off in midtown Manhattan, and we can find it by torturing a terrorist, the CIA is going to go ahead and torture him no matter what rules we make.

Sounds like a good example of
hidden law.

Who said "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it?"
I'm all for making our enemies corpses or broken fugitives by whatever means necessary as fast as possible.
Except you don't want to BECOME the enemy.
I'd sooner kill than torture: killing the enemy is HONORABLE.
Dying in battle is HONORABLE.
Torture is NEVER honorable.
That's torture by MY lights, of course.
Which is a damn sight worse than the 'panties on the head' or whatever our resident wussies are fussing about.
More like maiming, crippling, blinding....
Severe, extensive scarring, organ failure....
Inflicted up close and personal, in cold blood or even gloating.
Don't be that guy.
That's not the good guy.
Smacking some scumbag around, to put some fear in his rodent-like heart: who wouldn't?
Anybody who wouldn't would never have the chance to begin with!
:-)

A simple way to start looking at this is to think how much YOU would be willing to suffer.

If you give the government the right to do X sooner or later that right will be abused or mistakenly applied. So if you think the government should have the right to torture you have to accept that sooner or later someone who is innocent wil be tortured.

Now suppose that someone is you, or your mom, or your spouse, or your child. How much torture are you willing to let the government apply in that case, even if they afterwards say, oops, sorry.

Remember that the tortured person has no right to appeal. The government can and makes many mistakes, routinely. It can incarcerate innocents. But all of them have the possibility of appeal, of having their cases reviewed. Not in the case of torture.

"Raining Ketchup,

I can’t believe you read the post. The reader wasn’t claiming Abu Ghraib was merely bad manners. Your insinuation is insulting. The commenter is saying that many people are not sure where the line should be drawn. You have erected a straw man; please apologize to the commenter (I assume we are speaking of George) and take the straw man with you."

Lance, I read the post, did not erect a strawman and will not apologize. You can take your request for an apology and stick it where the sun don't shine. The poster I was responsing to was the one with the straw man, not me. That poster tried to frame debate in false terms. What we are criticizing here is not bad manners. It may or may not be torture, but his/her framing of the issues that way was extremely dishonest. Oh, and spare me your blather about resolving problems. This is a blog, for Chrissake. We aren't going to solve anything. As a group, we probably couldn't agree on what toppings to put on a pizza, much less solve a problem like this, assuming we had influence.

> It can incarcerate innocents. But all of them have the possibility of appeal, of having their cases reviewed. Not in the case of torture.

Except that incarceration is also irreversible. "Review" can't give you that time or opportunities back.

Incarceration also tends to be dangerous. (For example, you may be all sweetness and light, but the majority of your neighbors aren't and avoidance isn't an option.)

There are no nice alternatives.

"We are fighting this war like idiots, caring about civilians and captured enemies. We lost close to 200 men between the two battles at Fallujah and it was all because we cared about these people. I would rather level the entire city and kill 200,000 of these pigs before losing 200 of my bretheren. Now what happens, these beasts who were protecting those who were killing our troops, are now complaining about the damage done to their city. Their houses are destroyed at the expense of 200 of our kids. I could care less about their house or their lives"

The reason we are fighting this war like idiots is that we have an idiot in charge. His name is Donald Rumseld. No less a fighting man than David Hackworth has called him such. How this man still has a job is beyond me. As for the rest of the post, what you advocate will not help us win the war. What it will do is to create more enemies and bring about more terrorist and make other nations less willing to help us.

Andy,

Well I had in mind simply being detained, not necessarily wrongly conviceted. But even when wrongly convicted you many chances to have your case reviewed. They can't send you to jail without a trial first.

I would rather not be wrongly arrested or convicted but I am generally OK with the mechanisms the system has for me to appeal or have muy case reviewed. That's not the case with torture. It's a one-off thing. There is no way to have it reviewed beforehand.

So I ask you, what are you willing to endure or have your loved ones endure?

"make other nations less willing to help us"
Like who? China? France? Equatorial Guinea?
Iraq would be all duckies'n'bunnies right now if only we had more foreigners nodding their sage approval?
How many magic powers do you think these "other nations" have?

"what you advocate will ... create more enemies and bring about more terrorist"
Oh, I see: killing them creates more of them. Because the terrorists are magic.
Gee, that's too bad.
Sorry to hear we can't win wars by killing our enemies.
It always worked in the past, but I guess times change....
So: we'll just have to surrender then, right?
BZZZZT, wrong answer, try again.

what you advocate will ... create more enemies and bring about more terrorist"
Oh, I see: killing them creates more of them. Because the terrorists are magic.
No, moron. Killing some of them makes others more likely to turn to it.

Sorry to hear we can't win wars by killing our enemies.
It always worked in the past, but I guess times change....
So: we'll just have to surrender then, right?
BZZZZT, wrong answer, try again.

We killed over a million Vietnamese. Didn't win that one. Care to rethink your answer, Mr. Einstein?

"A simple way to start looking at this is to think how much YOU would be willing to suffer."

"So I ask you, what are you willing to endure or have your loved ones endure?"

GT -- I am a big fan of the Golden Rule in regular life, but I most definitely do not want it applied in war. I don't know where the line is as far as defining torture, but I have no trouble saying that the definition is NOT "treatment to which I would not willingly submit."

Dear, misguided, "Sargon:"
You're either under- or over- estimating the enemy.
Are you so prejudiced against Arabs that you honestly believe every last one of them is a mentally deficient psychopath just itching for an excuse to blow himself up?
Or do you think they're all so possessed of fervid
anti-American zeal that they'll keep hurling themselves, lemming-like, against the indomitable American war machine, until their entire culture destroys itself in a futile, romantic gesture?

And I know you and your ilk fervently pray that all of America's wars will end like Vietnam, but you might wanna brush up on your history.
That was the ONLY one we lost.
And, of course, 'losing' just meant we said "eh, this isn't worth it," packed up and went home, while the Vietnamese ceased to trouble us.
Trust me, the American military has forgotten more lessons from Vietnam than you'll ever learn.
:-)

From the perspective of one who subscribes to a moral stricture against aggressive violence against others, the issue would be framed differently. I would ask whether I was entitled to use any force of any kind against a lawful detainee other than to maintain his detention. Once the individual is detained, he ceases to be a combatant and is no longer subject to violence except to the extent necessary to confine him.

Adherence to such values entails a price and will be inconvenient. I cannot, for example, kill everyone in Iraq in order to pacify the country at a minimal loss of troops. I cannot destroy an entire city in order to root out some combatants who might be in it. I cannot target civilians in order to terrorize an enemy into submission.

We adhere to these values not necessarily because there is utility in it, although this might be argued, but because they are important to us in their own right.

"And I know you and your ilk fervently pray that all of America's wars will end like Vietnam, but you might wanna brush up on your history.
That was the ONLY one we lost."

Kind of flies in the face of your earlier claim that"Sorry to hear we can't win wars by killing our enemies.
It always worked in the past, but I guess times change....
So: we'll just have to surrender then, right?"

It's not me that needs to brush up on history, nor on military tactics, having actually served in it instead making half assed statements about how to win wars on the internet.

Oh, didn't realize I was addressing GENERAL Sargon!
Well, feel free to go ahead and win this war for us, dear, since you're the expert....
;0)

Jane,

Excellent post. It's a very tough question. If you apply the Geneva Convention, you can't interrogate anyone beyond asking nicely, period. You can't even offer inducements to cooperate (such as better food or female companionship). How many of President Bush's adversaries, Democrats and Republicans alike, are willing to stand up in public and say that terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq should be treated more deferentially than criminal suspects arrested in the U.S.?

On the other hand, I think most of us agree that physical mutilation, infliction of extreme physical pain, and infliction of sexual humiliation for the sexual gratification of the jailer (Abu Grahib)should all be illegal. (I would not make any exception for the nuke-ticking-in-Manhattan case because the cops or CIA or whoever will do whatever it takes in that case regardless of the law, and executive clemency will protect them.)

The really hard part is where to draw the line in the gray area. 18-hour interrogations without potty breaks? Piping loud music into the cell 24/7? Keeping lights on 24/7? Slapping? Pushing? Threatening dire consequences? Lying about dire consequences supposedly visited on others? Non-violent sexual humilitation? (Personally I would not rule out the infliction of non-violent sexual humiliation if it were done not for personal gratification but as part of an interrogation strategy, but I can see two sides to this.) It's too bad that President Bush's critics refuse to engage in the hard work of trying to draw a line that makes sense.

"It's too bad that President Bush's critics refuse to engage in the hard work of trying to draw a line that makes sense."

I see little point in this. Bush supporters aren't willing to listen to ANY criticism of ANY tactic in this war. If you criticize Bush himself, you are "attacking the commander in chief in time of war". If you point out the armor shortage, you get a flip remark from Rummy about "the army you have". If you criticize the interrogation tactics, you are "tying their hands".

Sargon,

I have no doubt some Bush supporters feel and act that way. However, I have never met any as dogmatic as that, and many are liberal in every way but the war. Seems you are applying that brush a tad too broadly.

Rainingketchup-

"What we are criticizing here is not bad manners."

And George never said it was. Your vitriol tells me it is probably pointless to discuss much with you, but in framing a debate (since now it his framing that is the issue) one doesn't automatically imply that all parties discussing the subject are referring to the boundaries of the frame. This tells me that you are not only unpleasant, but logically impaired. That being said some of what others (if not you) have criticized does entail much that might be called bad manners. It also includes things which are undoubtedly torture. Nowhere however, and I'll quote you since you subtly changed what your criticism is, did George say anything to imply that what went on at Abu Ghraib was merely bad manners.

"This is a false distinction. What went on at A.G. was not "bad manners."

Nothing about improper framing, rather an explicit claim that George and Jane were saying what went on was "bad manners."

Now show us where he says that it was merely bad manners. You can't. You can imply that that was what he meant if you wish, but it certainly wouldn't make sense to imply Jane had such an interpretation given the discussion as a whole, and you were critiquing her use of the comment in the first place. Thus whatever underlying beliefs George may have that he brought to the statement and didn’t share with us, but that you have a unique insight into, Jane’s more literal use of the statement certainly implies no such thing. In fact, Jane seems to be explicitly applying the statement to Guantanamo and terrorists (as opposed to Iraqi detainees swept up indiscriminately) and specifically has spoken of quite chilling abuses in Iraq. In the end that you want to wish somebody means something doesn't mean they do. That is the definition of a straw man. Invent your own version of what someone believes so that the belief can be easily attacked or ridiculed.

Now, can you attack his statement as incorrect? Of course. Go ahead and argue that we all have a great handle on where lines are drawn. I think it is an incorrect assertion given some of the thoughtful comments on this thread by people of varying viewpoints. SCMT's I disagree with on a few counts, but he asks the questions and tries to make the distinctions necessary to illuminate the issues. DBL frames the debate quite well and seems to be running along lines I am thinking. That is productive dialogue. However you are free to make a poor argument without me being bothered by you misrepresenting what both George and Jane are trying to say.

As for your complaint about solving anything, I am well aware we will not solve any problem nationally on this humble blog, however, I believe these issues are a problem the individuals in this country need to grapple with before anything gets solved at the national level. I am content if reading the various threads on this topic I'll find a few where genuine thoughtful dialogue takes place and helps me work through my own dilemmas on this topic. That is what I mean by solve, individuals having the chance to form informed opinions. It seems to me a better use of the space than just showing you can spew invective and feel morally and intellectually superior to our host and the others commenting here.

A simple way to start looking at this is to think how much YOU would be willing to suffer.

There's no way to answer that proposition in terms of "simply." Ideally, should I ever be interrogated or incarcerated, I would like to be hanlded with kid gloves at all times, and maybe given a private hot tub and massage therapist in my cell.

But if I was apprehended on a credible suspicion of collaborating with an entity who would like to kill or maim innocents, I doubt that's what YOU would want me to have.

So I ask you, what are you willing to endure or have your loved ones endure?

Again, was my recently-apprehended 'loved one' taken in because s/he was keeping shady company and very likely consorted with madmen? If so, inflict mental agony, inflict pain; and so long as you don't maim or break anything, I'll quietly stay to the side pondering the meaning of "Bet s/he won't do that again."

On the other hand, I wouldn't want my own mother to go through a standard police interrogation under the premise of a false accusation.

But that can't be had both ways, and the reason is that you're proposing a highly subjective standard. Thus, what good is it? Sometimes an adequate standard of justice requires the innocent to suffer more than what we would want them to suffer, and sometimes it permits the guilty to suffer much less than they ought.

Jeebus.

"Sometimes an adequate standard of justice requires the innocent to suffer more than what we would want them to suffer...."

Which is why we might want some sort of risk assesment thrown in befor we start throwing away our base-level understanding of America, like freedom of association. I mean, wouldn't this standard,

"was my recently-apprehended 'loved one' taken in because s/he was keeping shady company and very likely consorted with madmen"

include family members of people who belonged the KKK, Nation of Islam-ists, gun nuts, and the isolationists in Idaho?

"This tells me that you are not only unpleasant, but logically impaired. That being said some of what others (if not you) have criticized does entail much that might be called bad manners. It also includes things"

This is a pretty ironic comment coming from one who is upset about "invective" and feeling "intellectally superior". If you don't like my comments, fine. I can accept that, but it isn't your place to (falsely) accuse me of raising a strawman by deliberately mistating my argument and to demand an apology, when this isn't your even your forum. I notice, for example, that you said nothing to Sargon, who called another poster a "moron" and Mclaine who openly mocks everyone he responds to. For some reason, I have touched a special nerve with you.

I have NEVER argued that George (or Jane for that matter) called the goings on "bad manners". My point was that what the supposed inability to grasp the difference betweeen bad manner and torture was false distinction, since one, I think most of us know that belching at the dinner table, drinking directly from the water pitcher and wiping your hands on the dog is not the same thing as beating a prison to get him to talk. Thus, I think that statement is a wildly inaccurate way of trying to frame the debate. It's not that we don't know the difference between bad manners and torture, it's that none of us appears to be experts on this matter and there is a large gray area between what are acceptable means of extracting information and what is just plain inhuman.
There is nothing that went on at Abu Gharib that is the subject of the investigation that falls under the heading of "Bad manners". I don't think Emily Post ever really addressed the proper etiquette for leading a naked POW by a leash, but then, I haven't read up on her in years.
Finally, I am not at all an unpleasant person. You don't know me and aren't fit to make that judgment.

Anony-mouse, Denise:

The threshold is not to what you would willingly submit but what you would acept afterwards if it were a mistake.

I'd rather not be wrongly arrested but if I happened to fit the description of a suspected criminal and was interrogated or jailed for some time I would be OK with that. By that I mean I accept that's how the system works.

To take it to an extreme I would not accept giving the government the right to rip off my nails. There is no going back after that and I would not accept that for me or my loved ones.

If we are going to have a serious debate about legalized torture you need to accept that it's a question of time before someone is wrongly submitted to it. So we need to agree what is the level we are comfortable with.

Scenario #1:

a group of terrorist (insurgants in rueter's speak) are captured red handed. As unlawful combatants they are subject to execution according to the Laws of Warfare.

If "I" execute them one at a time in full view of the others and ask "Anybody have anything useful to tell me?" before I hang/shoot/cut the throut of each one... is it tourture? does the implied offer of clemancy violate some part of the GC?

Torturing the innocent, that's the big problem.

some percentage of detained persons are innocent. it might be a big percentage or it might be a small one. the problem is how much collateral damage are we willing to accept? we have spent billions on weapons that minimize the suffering of innocents in war.

are we willing to torture ten, knowing that 3 are innocent, 5 are "bad guys" but know nothing useful and 2 are "bad guy management" with actionable info? what is an acceptable ratio?

if it's not "Torture" but simply coecive interogation (CI), how coercive will we be to the innocent? how many volts to the genitals is acceptable as CI?

> would rather not be wrongly arrested or convicted but I am generally OK with the mechanisms the system has for me to appeal or have muy case reviewed. That's not the case with torture. It's a one-off thing. There is no way to have it reviewed beforehand.

Of course there is. Torture can be a sentence just like incarceration.

BTW - I think that in-the-US review is "less than adequate" so I'm tempted to conclude that GT's "generally OK" wrt review in Iraq is either hyperbole or a desperate attempt to salvage the unsalvagable.

Note that incarceration is even less effective than torture at getting timely information.

"you said nothing to Sargon, who called another poster a "moron" and Mclaine who openly mocks everyone he responds to."

Uh, it's "McClain" actually, but yeah, why DIDN'T you say anything to me, gosh-darn-it!?
I have plenty of mockery to go around: step right up!

Torture as a sentence?

What world do you live in?

George,

Well I’ll accept that it isn’t my place to judge you as unpleasant, I probably took that out of the place the sun don’t shine:)

As for me not taking anyone else to task, I promise you have hit no nerve special or otherwise, there is only so much one can do. I started with you, that is where I’ll stop. Unfair to you as you are right many are much worse. I don’t get the need to spew such things, but many obviously get off on it. I am not “so upset” I just felt you needed to be called on what I feel is a mischaracterization of what she said, but any writer must take at least some responsibility for what a reader takes from a passage, so fair enough.

I didn’t demand an apology, I said “please” give him an apology. I thought it was a rather polite way to say it, but I guess such niceties are taken by many as a sign of contempt.

As for: “I have NEVER argued that George (or Jane for that matter) called the goings on "bad manners".

I offer: “What went on at A.G. was not "bad manners."

Now obviously you felt someone had made that claim.

However, I’ll leave it at that and move on to what you say is your issue.

“I think most of us know that belching at the dinner table, drinking directly from the water pitcher and wiping your hands on the dog is not the same thing as beating a prison (sic) to get him to talk.”

Now, I don’t think anyone who read Jane’s post could get the impression that she felt otherwise. I doubt George is guilty of this either. Nobody else seems to have gotten that impression, so I suggest that you are reading this way too literally and defining bad manners in a rather limited way to boot.

I don’t want to get lumped in with those who excuse what happened at Abu Ghraib by comparing it to frat boy hazing, but some people (once again not necessarily you) have criticized things which are pretty analogous. That other things which go way beyond that occurred doesn’t change that we have to decide what of the things we have heard about under interrogation we are willing to accept. Some things at this point I find beyond the pale. Some I think I have no big problem with as long as they are being done for some end beyond Graner and England getting their rocks off. Some I have mixed feelings about. That includes some things which while they may be no worse than what a frat inflicts on its pledges, I still don’t necessarily want done to prisoners, but maybe I am too squeamish. These things I am certainly willing to consider are boorish, crude, offensive and even cruel in a social setting. I think that is what Jane is talking about in using the quote from George. Of course people are boorish, crude offensive and even cruel quite often yet we wouldn’t normally suggest putting them in jail. Of course I find frats offensive many times and wouldn’t participate in any of such things myself. However are they really so abusive I wouldn’t use them as tactics to break the will of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? That is what we need to think through. When I look at KSM in particular, am I even so concerned about waterboarding as long as it was done in a controlled manner (which certainly goes way beyond bad manners?) I am not sure. I sit on the fence at this point, but given what it is claimed we obtained from him I honestly am glad we did it. I just feel a little guilty about it and feel that maybe we should forbid it anyway.

Whatever the case I think what Jane meant by including the statement bad manners in her post was things like panties on the head, etc. It is no defense of what occurred at Abu Ghraib to say that some of this in a controlled interrogation may be acceptable. She may be wrong in many people’s eyes, but that is what she meant, not sticking a nightclub up someone’s rectum. I think that is obvious in the context of her post. So I still stand by my claim you were unfair whether you meant to claim she was saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was merely bad manners or not.

Tim,

I have been following your posts and I think you bring up some relevant points. I’d like to play devil’s advocate.

“Furthermore, these (explicit or implicit) agreements aren't purely bilateral - particularly given our enormous power, a lot of what matters is what potential future enemies think we are willing to do as policy. Given that we've ghosted prisoners, rendered prisoners, and the like, I doubt that they'll take our word that "this time we're really not down for the abuse thing”

True, but doesn’t that work in other ways. While it is true that no enemy (or friend for that matter) has kept to the accords (The French for example have been far worse, and we have done worse in every previous war, though I admit both we and the world have set a rather low bar here) most in the west have at least generally kept to the conventions as have we in this instance. Especially since most of those we are concerned about do not have much in the way of protection under the accords anyway. Still, if our enemies know that if you yourself do not follow at least generally the conventions where they apply we will feel less than bound by them as well. In other words isn’t it possibly good that they know we will not be bound by them? That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold ourselves to them as much as possible, even when they formally shouldn’t bind us, but I don’ see any reason to suppose that Zarqawi and crew are more likely to want to abuse our troops and citizens because of our behavior and fear can be effective.

A good case is the Russians, I don’t know where I got this, so discount it if you will, but I believe it was Hamas (maybe Hezbollah) that kidnapped three Russians some time ago. The Russians captured a leader in Syria, cut off his genitals, shoved them in his mouth, mutilated his body and dumped it where they got the message. Negotiations to return the prisoners went surprisingly well and they have kept a wide berth of Russian citizens ever since. I don’t feel they fear we’ll go into Syria and do such a thing at all. Should we? A different debate, but fear of reprisal can have a positive effect.

Therefore future enemies may decide to adhere as much as possible to the conventions themselves just to avoid giving us the excuse to untie our hands as long as we limit as much as possible such tactics to illegal combatants such as Al Qaeda and irregular Baathists. This is the realist view if you will and doesn’t address directly many of the other morally compelling arguments, but I think it is why reciprocity in such agreements is built into the agreements themselves. It can fairly be argued that by holding ourselves to the agreements when they wouldn’t normally apply weakens the conventions and increases the likelihood of torture and other violations in the future.

Tim,

In fairness to Jane, I assume that in this statement:

...First, I think the reciprocation issue is a blind. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that no enemy of ours has been entirely scrupulous in its applications of reciprocated agreements; to my knowledge, that hasn't been used to tear up that agreement...

you are referring to the Geneva conventions, though there are others. If you are talking about agreements in general then lack of reciprocity has been the reason for the death of many agreements. In fact I would suggest that ending an agreement pretty much implies that you are deciding to not reciprocate for any number of reasons, including that the other side is not following it anyway. In the case of the Geneva conventions or other such agreements, not holding non-signatories or violators to the same standards of treatment doesn't "tear up" the agreement anyway. Here I am not playing "Devil's advocate. I just think you are wrong here.

Oh, by the way, the post starting with George was supposed to be addressed to Raining Ketchup. My apologies to you both.

Tim- More devils advocate.

“The time to sort out how much bad we're willing to do for our own benefit is when we are facing a truly frightening enemy (the Germans, arguably the Japanese, the Sovs, etc.); not when we're fighting the remnants of fourth rate regional power (Israel stronger? Check. Turkey stronger? Check. Iran stronger? Check.) under circumstances where no sane person believes we had to go to war. Or against an enemy whose best attack depended upon active participation by maybe 50 people with a half-million dollars.”

Well, had to go to war is far different than was it the best thing to do. Therefore I’ll assume most people on either side can be lumped into the sane but quite possibly very wrong category.

I am not sure that we shouldn’t be more frightened of our present foes than Nazi Germany for example. If all we are concerned about is our own safety, any likelihood that Germany would have been able to attack the continental US was quite a way off. Obviously AQ proved that is not true today. As for the Middle East giving rise to a military power strong enough to attack us in a couple of generations, maybe not as likely as Germany eventually being able to, but it is likely they are more inclined to do so. Either way it would be a long way off. The greater threats are attacks which are not designed to occupy us and those are more likely with who we are now fighting than Nazi Germany. We didn’t go to war and keep at it when we could have asked for peace in the 1940’s because we faced any imminent threat of invasion, but because we felt once we were in it the evil they represented was worth defeating anyway. Because that was our rationale many, from isolationist conservatives to democratic socialists, opposed the war then. I think that is as reasonable a rationale now as then, wise is another matter, but the same could (and was) have been said then.

More directly I would suggest that one can argue abusive interrogation methods can be considered more justified now than in WWII. The nature of the threat is different. This is not WWII where one can fly a plane over France or the Atlantic and see the massed divisions or invasion fleets (should one have departed the port of Brest bound for the Florida panhandle.) Getting information close enough will not do now. We need to know about specific people immersed in a large population and even though Jane was talking about Gitmo, not Abu Ghraib, the same is true to a large extent in Iraq. Human intelligence is the key. Such things were very important in WWII (The Battle of the Bulge shows how given the right weather conditions even large armies could move in secret) but hardly to the extent they are now, and if the human intelligence is wrong the consequences to our own civilians are far worse. The primacy of intelligence in this war has been used to argue against the invasion of Iraq a lot, and whatever one’s opinion of the war, the point about the importance of getting such information still stands. Once again however, this doesn’t exhaust the moral question, or the efficacy of various techniques. It does however, I think, give one to wonder if the time is not ripe in most people’s mind for such introspection, maybe it should be.

“I assume in any war, we'll be (as a matter of direct causation) responsible for by far the larger number of civilian casualties.”

Here I am not just furthering the discussion. This is just a wrong assumption. It could be true, but better weapons, especially in our case because the weapons have been designed in large part to reduce casualties, do not necessarily or even mean it is more likely that more civilians will die. In the case of Iraq, the best evidence I can see is that direct civilian casualties from either side have been predominantly from the opposition. How to apportion blame for excess deaths from disease, etc. depends on whether one feels the ongoing chaos is to be blamed on the US or the “resistance.” Either way it isn’t due to our superior firepower.

Back to the topic at hand, the need to avoid blunt tactics like urban assault which would make us responsible for more civilian casualties seems to strengthen the case for effective intelligence gathering and therefore the increased importance of effective interrogation as opposed to WWII where needed strategic objectives and information was far more dispersed for retrieval, didn’t need to be as specific, and where by the end of the war we were just not that concerned with civilian casualties. We just bombed wide swaths with the goal of getting what was important in the process. We have decided to avoid such actions where possible in this conflict, so we compensate with better, more precise weapons and value highly the intelligence to target them in a focused manner. Of course, that in and of itself does not justify any particular tactic or show it is effective.

Also,

“Which is why we might want some sort of risk assesment thrown in befor we start throwing away our base-level understanding of America, like freedom of association”

I think I know what the commenter was trying to get at and I believe he probably regrets putting it that way, but I think your concern for freedom of association is spot on. That kind of thinking is what can lead to sweeps in the night. Far too many are willing to give up far to much without thought for things which are not likely to help much in any case. That is why I guess I am discussing these issues with you now. What am I prepared to give up? Of course I feel the same way when people want to allow the authorities to run through my personal life and records trying to catch money launderers, tax cheats, corporate fraud, discrimination, etc. Not accusing you of anything Tim, but I find many who are huge critics of the Patriot Act far less exercised at the same kinds of abuses proposed under the Clinton administration for other purposes. That is not a defense of the Bush administration by the way before the hounds of hell descend upon me explaining how evil Bushitler is.

First, the purpose of interrogation is to get useful information. Sometimes torture is the only way. Sometimes it is counterproductive.

In Vietnam the US military would arrest people and turn them over to the CIA under the Pheonix project. None were released because the torture techniques used on them pretty much guaranteed they would actively hate the US. Why are we doing the same stupid thing again? What do we do with the interogation subjects after we finish with them? If we kill them, why should they cooperate with us? If we don't, then do we hold them until natural death? Or release them to aid and abet our enemies? Or release them, tag them and let them lead us to our enemies.

Is torture part of US history? Yes. One that was common during the Mindinao War was force someone to drink water until their stomache was distended then kick them in the gut. Repeat. In front of witnesses. Shouting questions at the witnesses.

The information gathered through torture has a lower relibility than information gathered through other techniques that are not "questionable". My question then becomes "why bother with torture in the first place". And defense becomes an issue of utility rather than "morality".

"release them, tag them and let them lead us to our enemies."

Now we're talking!
Hope this is already going on.
Remember those gov't-implanted microchips that paranoid, coked-up rappers used to rant about in the 90's?
Picture 'em with some GPS capability, as an anti-terrorist tool....
Sweeet!

"Rather profound" distinctions between mild torture and extreme bad manners are rather irrelevant when more hearts & minds are lost by torture, however defined, than secrets won.

The republican attorney general who once said "if you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow" spoke truth, in one sense, but even a competent US administration couldn't juggle that many balls.

Everyone is missing the big picture. Bin Laden has said in tapes and interviews he feels he can attack the U.S. with impunity because we won't respond. His followers who are captured feel free to keep the information they have to themselves because we won't touch them for fear of some misguided ACLU lawyer crying foul. Thankfully, we have disabused Bin Laden of his foolish notion by spanking Afganistan and Iraq. However as Abu Ghraib and blog posts like this one, we will continue trying to hamstring out military when it comes to gathering intel. The Geneva convention only applies to soldiers of a country in uniform. This is because, as noted in earlier posts, it cuts down on civilian casualties. If a person has the courage to set themselves apart as targets(military) to spare civilians, they deserve special treatment. Terrorists do not belong to a state and do not wear uniforms. We owe them nothing. If fact, we owe the innocents in Iraq a crackdown on the a**holes. We have killed many innocents in both theaters, this happens in war. The U.S. spends more time and money than any other military in history on limiting civilian casualties. Affording insurgents Geneva protections only ensures we deny ourself the opportunity to limit more deaths.
Now I'm not for wholesale slaughter or for real torture, but anyone who was ever in the military, as I was, knows that long periods of standing, sleep and food deprivation, physical exhaustion and emotional strain are longstanding methods used in training OUR recruits BY US! How these methods can be construed as torture by our enemies and find traction among our citizens is beyond me.

The U.S. spends more time and money than any other military in history on limiting civilian casualties.

A debatable proposition at best,given the U.S.'s history of Hiroshim, Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam etc.

"Spends," not "spent."
Present tense.
Not even close to debatable.
Keep trying, you'll find a good excuse for your anti-American bigotry sooner or later....
:-)

Not even close to debatable

Of course it is. For starters, the proposition of spending money to prevent civilian casualties is somewhat silly, since every dollar spent in conducting a military activity makes civilian casualties more likely, not less. Second, no one has provided any figures and I am not sure that there are figures for spending money on limiting civilian casualties. So in the absence of a statistic, which may not even be calculable, it's clearly debateable. Again, since the U.S. spends tons of money on the military, that money increases the probability of civilian casualties. Nations that don't spend money of the military, like Iceland, never commit civilian casualties.

Don't be an ass. How well equipped was Iceland to deal with Nazi Germany when it tried to overrun Europe and almost succeeded? How many innocent civilians would have died if we had to depend on countries like that? Sure, more war means more innocent deaths in a more or less linear fashion, unless you refuse to wage war. Then 0 war equals massive civilian casualties. Ask Poland which approach they would prefer: The European appeasement approach of the 1930's or the direct approach of W today? Wait, they're part of the coalition of the willing.....

Don't be an ass. How well equipped was Iceland to deal with Nazi Germany when it tried to overrun Europe and almost succeeded? How many innocent civilians would have died if we had to depend on countries like that? Sure, more war means more innocent deaths in a more or less linear fashion, unless you refuse to wage war. Then 0 war equals massive civilian casualties. Ask Poland which approach they would prefer: The European appeasement approach of the 1930's or the direct approach of W today? Wait, they're part of the coalition of the willing.....

None of this is relevant to the debate at hand. You claimed the US spends more time and money preventing civilian casualties.I say there is no evidence of that, at least not that you have provided. Whatever one thinks of what the U.S. did in WWII, it sure as hell didn't spend a lot of time and money trying to prevent civilian casualties. Now, caught in a logical flaw you are failing about, my good man. Which route Poland prefers has nothing to do with proving your point. Red herrings, cavil, straw man, take your pick. You are evading the question.

If we didn't care about civilian casualties, we could scrap our entire military budget and just use the nuclear missiles we currently possess to nuke into submission any nation that disobeyed us.
Ergo: the entire U.S. military budget is spent on preventing civilian casualties.

Footnote: Iceland, like Japan, is protected by U.S. power.

If we didn't care about civilian casualties, we could scrap our entire military budget and just use the nuclear missiles we currently possess to nuke into submission any nation that disobeyed us.

I am hoping that this is the facetious argument it appears to be, because it is pretty damned weird.I didn't say the U.S. didn't care, I question whether the statement that it spends more time and money in preventing civilian casualties is true. And you wouldn't be able to nuke anyone into submission if you scrapped the entire military budget, because military spending is required to maintain, operate and launch the nukes.

Facetious? Me?
;-P

Sorry for the delay, I have a life you know....
I did not raise the word du jour- a straw man. I don't have hard numbers...I'm lazy. Hell at least I admit it. I could be like Rather and read you the impeachable bit of data my 14yr old sister just handed me supporting my case. I used relevent stories to amuse and educate you. The Poland example is very valid. When Hitler brought his Blitzkreig to bear on Poland, the world let him because they thought like you; that if they went to war a lot of innocent Poles would die. As it turns out, a lot of innocent Poles DID die, then we had to go to war anyway, so even more innocent civilians died.
Now if you want more on-point examples of U.S. expenditures, which I admit to getting away from, I can tell you a Tomahawk costs well over $1 mil. I know cause I used to actually sleep snuggled up against one on my submarine. Now a Tomahawks job is to fly very far and kill precisely one target. When you figure that conventional bombs cost more towards the hundreds of dollars you can see that a few planes carrying a few hundred conventional bombs can take out the same target much cheaper, but with a lot more collateral damage. Now, we launched a lot of smart Tomahawks at Iraq, but almost if not all the conventional weapons we have used is in the desolate wastes of Afganistan. The reason is that smart weapons were developed, BY US, to limit civilian casualties while still letting us destroy military targets cowards hid in heavily populated areas. We are the only country with the whole satelite system(GPS), weapons and training to use these weapons extensively. Other countries use them some, but they use our GPS system. A few countries are developing their own system, but it is much cheaper and easier once someone has demonstrated its feasibility. Is that a more on-point example?

Peter,

The only way to win a war is to completely destroy your enemy and his supporters, kill their will to continue the fight. Showing them mercy does not help our troops, it only shows weakness on our part. Dropping two A Bombs on Japan killed their spirit to fight rather quickly. Halting bombing North Vietnam only caused us to lose a war. When citizens know that they are going to die if they harbor or do not turn in our adversaries they will do a lot more informing.

I differ here. Mercy is a strategy that often works. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about who can use "mercy" as a strategy. Only a strong economic power can "show mercy". Using the same strategy in all situations is a weakness, but never confuse mercy with weakness.

"When Hitler brought his Blitzkreig to bear on Poland, the world let him".

This is not quite true. Perhaps you are thinking of Czechoslovakia? This was why the UK declared war in Germnay, precisely because commitments not to invade Poland had not been kept. Although it did take the US another two years to enter the war, so perhaps this is what you were referring to?

Comments are Closed.