On Joe Galloway
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Last week, I was invited by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, one of the world’s leading experts on al Qaeda, to speak to a group of about two dozen experts and graduate students at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore. This was a closed-door talk, and I was speaking alongside a close friend of mine who is an expert on Afghanistan. The room was filled with people from countries like India, Singapore, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of these countries enjoy the freedom of speech that we have in America. No writer from any of these countries could dare publish the things that I can freely publish, or that readers can freely publish as comments. Singapore is a great ally of the United States and one of my favorite destinations. The people are well educated, peaceful and diverse. Still, our friends in Singapore do not have freedom of speech. Despite the limits of expression that they live under, this group of experts and graduate students in Singapore asked some of the most well-informed questions I have heard about the war in Iraq. No doubt, there were some who disapproved of America’s involvement in Iraq, but how can we challenge our own views if we do not listen to others who disagree with us? One of the main reasons we made so many mistakes in Iraq was that high officials in the Bush Administration were often afraid of the truth and viewed a serious foreign policy question with ideological blinders. Instead of honestly appraising the facts on the ground, they saw only what they wanted to see. And instead of encouraging candor and even dissent, they ignored or attacked those who disagreed with them.
Groupthink can be deadly. In my book Danger Close I wrote about the Special Forces Qualification Course (Q-Course), which had a land navigation section so difficult that it caused many people to fail the course. I saw Vietnam combat veterans get lost on land navigation. They flunked the course. Sure, it wasn’t easy to make your way through swamps during heavy rains at midnight while freezing and carrying a heavy load. But worse than the physical challenges were the mental hurdles. Soldiers were strictly forbidden to cooperate with each other on this particular section. But they did it anyway, thinking that they would have a better chance as a group. And they were wrong. I saw soldiers form into groups. The most confident soldier would embark on an azimuth and the others would follow behind. They would all get lost because they were following a leader who was wrong. The soldiers who passed the course tended to be those who thought for themselves. Combat veterans get lost on land navigation.
Even though most of us seem to recognize the perils of groupthink, we still constantly fall into its trap. That’s human nature, our herding instinct, perhaps. Yet one thing that makes America so strong is our ability to break from the herd, or even turn it around. Back in 2005 I wrote what no one else dared to say, or didn’t see – even if it was painfully obvious – that Iraq was falling into civil war. During a period of peak casualties in mid-2007, when folks were saying the Surge had failed, I wrote and said on radio that the Surge appeared to be succeeding. In 2006, when I was in Afghanistan reporting that the war was being lost, many readers were angry. Now we have greater casualties in Afghanistan than in Iraq, while we have far fewer troops deployed to Afghanistan. I believe the war in Iraq is nearly over - knock on wood - while the war in Afghanistan is just getting started.
One way to foil groupthink is to listen to others. Really listen. Not just think up counterarguments while waiting for them to run out of breath. Listening to others does not mean we have to agree with their words. But it does mean respecting them enough to take what they say seriously, especially when we disagree with them. Honest and serious people do this. Meanwhile, there is a lot of noise on both ends of the American political spectrum that deserve our attention even if it is biased and wrong. Read the websites of the far-Right and Left-wing. These groups rarely, if ever, give a dissenting voice the chance to speak. Their sites are examples of groupthink run amok. That doesn’t mean the participants are dumb or bad. Often these sites are created by very smart people who got their brains caught in the ideological bear trap. Getting caught in a trap doesn’t make a bear dumb or deserving; traps tend to be well camouflaged. I saw a bear caught in a trap one time. Boy, was that bear mad. And it sure did stink. It crawled into a trap, right behind our tent in Cataloochee up in the mountains. We kids ran out with a flashlight and peered in at the angry bear. The rangers hauled it off the next day, saying they would release it far away. Some of these far-Right and far-Left websites are like bear traps, only we cannot release those people far away. We live with them, and often they are our friends and family, victims of ideology.
Ideologies traffic in received ideas, which give people the illusion of thinking, without actually having to do the hard work of thought. Received ideas, like some religious and cult beliefs, are not challenged, merely accepted, and repeated until they become so important to those who hold them that to challenge these ideas would be to question one’s very identity. People who hold received ideas seem to feel personally threatened by the prospect of being wrong. Instead of reading and listening to possibly change their minds, they seek to reinforce the received ideas they already hold dear. On the Left, one received idea is that the Iraq War is lost. On the Right, one received idea is that torture is acceptable. The Left is wrong. We are winning the war in Iraq. The Right is wrong. Torture is unacceptable.
There is no way to know how many American lives were lost in Iraq due to the tortures we inflicted upon Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and other places. This is no argument of moral equivalence. I have seen the atrocities committed by al Qaeda and other terrorists, and I am not saying that Americans have ever come close to those acts. New Yorkers saw the atrocities of al Qaeda, as did many others.
Yet, when we tortured detainees, we lost something very important, something that America and its allies need in order to prevail against terrorists, not just in Iraq, but all over the world. We scarred our honor.
Torture works. There is no doubt that we can squeeze information from people. A lot of people say that information derived from torture is useless and suspect, and, of course, torture can make someone say anything just to stop the pain. But the fact is, torture does work. That does not mean we should do it. While torture might provide tactical gains, it delivers a strategic blunder. Let’s not argue whether it works or not. Let’s have the hard argument – whether or not it’s consistent with our values. We can obtain short term benefits from using torture, but in the long run we inflict far more pain on ourselves. The scars of torture never heal. Conversely, when detainees are treated with respect, they never forget it. Obviously, there are some hardcore prisoners who should be kept locked away until they die, but there is a much larger part who just want to go back to life without war.
While stationed in Germany with the 10th Special Forces Group, I spoke to many older Germans. I speak German and many of the older Germans did not speak English. These men and women lived through World War II. They often apologized for the younger generation of Germans who did not respect the United States. They told me stories of their days as POWs under American control, and described the honorable and respectful treatment they received. One of my grandfathers was a guard on a ship that brought German prisoners to the United States. My grandfather said they treated the Germans well. When the ship steamed into New York, the Germans were astonished to see the city lights. They had been told that New York City was being bombed and was blacked out. When those young German soldiers were eventually released, they went on to become thousands upon thousands of ambassadors for the United States. It is difficult to convey how good it made me feel when old Germans would tell me that Americans, our grandparents, were honorable people, far more honorable than the Nazis who committed industrial-sized genocide. The Nazis broke all the rules, and we beat them, not only because of our superior resources and fighting abilities, but the strategic advantage of our values. Atrocities occurred on all sides, but at least we considered atrocities to be war crimes, even when committed by our own people. When our soldiers were convicted of rape, they were executed. Still, our “Greatest Generation” harbored ill feelings toward the “Japs.” These feelings lasted long after the war was over. Why? Because, the Japanese had tortured and murdered our people after they were captured. And no doubt partially because of these crimes, we detonated two nuclear weapons over Japanese cities.
But once we defeated the Axis, we helped rebuild their countries. Our Greatest Generation acted with honor and great wisdom. It was the right thing to do, but also the strategically intelligent thing to do. Now Germany and Japan are stable, prosperous democracies and close allies.
When this war is over in Iraq, we do not want a generation of Iraqis thinking that all we did was invade their country and torture and kill people. We want them to know that, despite whatever mistakes we made, we have no ill-feelings toward Iraqis. A lot of people call this type of thinking “naïve,” but I would argue it is the opposite of naiveté. We recognize that there is good and evil in every man. We seek to fight the evil while nurturing the good. We want the Iraqis to know that Americans are warriors, but not barbarians. They already know that our young folks will fight like wolverines. The Iraqi insurgents learned that lesson the hard way. American soldiers and Marines have died fighting, with great honor, to bring the region a step forward. By contrast, al Qaeda has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, and committed atrocities that have turned the people against them. Al Qaeda and other terrorists fight without honor. And simply put, that’s why we’re winning in Iraq. We recaptured the most important strategic territory in guerrilla war – the moral high ground, while never laying down our sword. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are fought not over land, but for the will of the people. If it was the land we wanted, and if we lacked goodwill and honor, these wars would have been simple matters. Yet we want something better for these nations and the world, as we did following World War II. Honor is never easy to uphold and savage behavior begets savage behavior. That’s why it’s important to remember that when we give up the moral high ground, we lose a fantastically important battle. And we have defeated ourselves.
Ask Colonel Ricky Gibbs (U.S. Army) about high ground. Colonel Gibbs told me the story of an Iraqi man who brought his sons to American soldiers, saying that he knew justice would be served. After an investigation, Colonel Gibbs kept one son and released the other. I have seen so many instances of Iraqis being relieved that American soldiers were holding their sons and not Iraqis, because Iraqis too often mistreat and even torture prisoners. And so, by the hand of his own father, an insurgent was taken off the streets. To defeat the terrorists, we need intelligence, which the people have and will only provide if they trust us. That father likely would never have turned in his sons if he thought we were dishonorable torturers.
Back in 2003-2004, when we were conducting mass arrests and torturing prisoners, al Qaeda and other enemies grew very strong, and our people suffered at the hands of an enemy that we were at least partially responsible for creating. We locked away huge numbers of Iraqis simply because they were “military aged” males (basically, anyone who had reached puberty) at the wrong place at the wrong time, which could be in their homes in a suspect village. I’ve seen men flex-cuffed without the slightest evidence, thrown to Iraqi “justice” and essentially lost. Now imagine that you or your son or husband or brother were arrested and tortured. You might have been neutral to begin with, but you and your entire family might soon learn to hate. Instead of picking up the phone when you saw an ambush being laid, you might simply call the kids inside and go back to washing dishes. Or you might set an ambush yourself.
That’s why I agree with Joe Galloway. He might be a mean old man, and he might be wrong about some things. Wrong in my mind, at least. But he’s right about torture. Now it’s time that our government make a clear and unambiguous promise to the world that Americans will not torture. If President Bush is concerned about a possible scenario where a terrorist under interrogation has precise knowledge of an imminent catastrophic attack, then he can always offer a presidential pardon to an interrogator who, resorting to torture, got accurate information that led to the thwarting of such an attack. In every other case, American government personnel or contractors who commit torture should be prosecuted under American law. And the President should make that clear. If the President believes torture is okay, then he should put his fingerprints on every approval he signs.
We can win without torture. President Bush saw the strategic advantages of the Surge when many thought the Iraq War was lost. Yet he refuses to categorically condemn and outlaw torture. His unwillingness to do so has put the United States and its allies at strategic disadvantage, one that will take us a long time to overcome. And it has cost American lives.
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
| Recurring Paypal Support | One Time Paypal Support | For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net | ||
 |
||||
|
(Recurring subscriptions |
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
"Torture" isn't a tightly defined or agreed-upon concept. I suspect the reason President Bush refuses to make a statement on torture is that as soon as he does, the left-wing media will immediately campaign to make any kind of interrogation into "torture." If you would, could you tell us what you consider to qualify as torture, and what interrogation methods (although unpleasant) you find to be acceptable? As with almost everything, the devil is in the details.
RLTW
By the way, you are totally correct in asserting the effects of group think in isolation of opposing views. I myself used to be a flaming liberal. Of course that was before a serious brain injury resulted from my living in the fast lane. However, after the brain injury I became a pretty strong conservative with liberal friends ƒ?? I like it that way.
As to Joe Galloway, he has very little credibility to me because of his gross exaggerations. When writing about water boarding he spoke of lungs filling with water and obviously expected his readers to not know what the definition and result of drowning is. Exaggerate to prove a point sure... but donƒ??t do it in a way that insults my intelligence. Unfortunately, Mr. Galloway prefers the later.
I don't think it matters if bush knew about the the torture being used in the first place by not comdeming torture he has given it his tacit approval. Bush's silence on the matter only damages the reputation of the states more as he either actively supports these methods or he doesn't have have the guts to take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates.
Whoever is elected as the next president is going to have a bloody mountain to climb to restore America's reputation.
Thank you for the response to your readers.
You say that the Right says "torture is acceptable". I don't hear that from the Right at all. Instead, I hear disagreement on what constitutes "torture", which is an important and different question. Loud music, hooding, long periods of standing, sleep deprivation; these were techniques that were authorized by the Pentagon. Is it your belief that any technique that is uncomfortable physically or mentally surrenders the moral high ground as much as any heinous act the interrogators in Saddam's prisons used? As a previous responder mentioned, the devil is in the details. By arrogating to the Right a philosophy of "torture is acceptable", you are falling into a trap yourself; using hyperbole to ascribe a lack of honor on those who have reasonable disagreement with your perspective of where exactly the line should be drawn.
My reaction to Joe Galloway's article is not because I believe torture is acceptable or because I think Abu Ghraib was much ado about nothing. There is no excuse for the lax leadership and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib. However, Joe Galloway takes this a step further, as has General Taguba in more recent years, alleging that the abuse that occurred was condoned and authorized by our President or Sec. Rumsfeld. That is an outrageous accusation, and it is one that is not supported by the facts revealed during the investigations.
I am not unwilling to accept perspectives that are unflattering to our country if they are based on an honest and good faith presentation of the available facts. I read your works because when the facts are painful, you don't hide them, but you also don't revel in portraying our countrymen or leaders as fools or evil; you are fair and evenhanded. Joe Galloway's screeds are quite the opposite. They are offensive because they are accusations maligning our leaders with a clear bias, supported with conjecture, and they ignore any facts that don't fit the story. They have no journalistic value, serving only to inflame those who won't delve deeper and learn just how little truth is laced within these rants. Lending these diatribes credibility by posting them on your website is not to your credit.
If you must continue supporting such unfounded screeds, at the very least please put more emphasis on the byline. I'll certainly continue reading your works and recommending your book to friends, but I'll be skipping Mr. Galloway's poor faith partisan writings.
V/R
Your response to your readers neatly, if inadvertently, points out the difference between you and Joe Galloway.
You deal in facts and reasoned argument. Galloway, even when he is right, (not often IMAO) deals in spleen and bile. His columns are, by and large, one long tantrum. At best he's out to score rhetorical points and most of the time he's simply venting.
You're quite right that you can learn a lot from people with opposing views, but only if they have something substantive to say. There are such people who are critical of the Iraq war. Galloway is not one of them.
That is why his columns are a complete waste of time.
I frequent many web-sites and support those I feel provide sincere and unwavering support for our men at war, as yours truly does, with your own boots on the ground. I can look elsewhere for nuanced editorials and fevered sentiments against war. Respectfully submitted to you and continued safe journeys.
I have often been willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, particularly when the attacks on him are the same refrains repeated over and over without tying them back to their justification. This is why I appreciate your criticism of the administration while dismissing Mr. Galloway. I do not know how well reasoned his opinions are, because he never shares his reason, only his browbeating conclusions. I dismiss him not because I disagree with him, but because he can't seem to explain himself in civil fashion--or won't. I don't mind hearing criticism of the administration. I want to know about mistakes that have been made. As a citizen and a voter, I consider it my responsibility to be informed on these matters.
You express information and some opinions. He expresses anger and not much else.
Thank you for posting your clarification. I hope that readers will comment on your posting of Galloway's article in light of your thoughts. You present very valid points - and very rationally.
I agree that it is important to be exposed to, and consider, alternative points of view. Some of the previous posters on the article appeared to be unwilling to discuss why they disagreed with Galloway with any rational discussion. I didn't enjoy reading the article because of the tone. However, the topic is due for serious thought.
The use of torture is a very complicated topic. To pretend that it is something that can be either supported or rejected simply and out of hand is naive and ignorant. I respect your thoughts, and appreciate the fact that you think for yourself. Thank you for challenging us to do the same.
I would argue that much of the debate over torture has been hysterical and completely lacking in overall context. Throwing a prisoner into a cell with the air conditioner turned up to full blast is not even close to torture. Waking a guy up so he doesn't get 9 hours of REM sleep is not torture. Making a guy kneel for a few hours, then stand for a few hours, or hold their hands out at their sides, is not torture. It's uncomfortable, but it's not torture. Long interrogation sessions are not torture.
What IS torture are the blatant sadistic abuses at Abu Ghraib. Bush's biggest mistake of his presidency was not accepting Rumsfeld's offer to resign when the pictures surfaced. He should have accepted the resignation right there and then. It would have showed accountability still mattered. And it would have allowed the Army to recommend putting more Soldiers into Iraq and possibly to change strategy more quickly than actually happened. Rumsfeld was absolutely obsessed with winning wars with as few bodies on the ground as humanly possible. He allowed his fascination with a "light footprint" to get in the way of sound military counterinsurgen cy strategy. And sadly, the apparent early success in Afghanistan -- where a few thousand Special Forces and 10th Mountain Division forces routed the Taliban in a few months -- provided Rumsfeld with a potent cudgel to beat down all the suggestions from the Army that more Soldiers were needed in Iraq to protect the population from terrorist intimidation.
Personally, I think water boarding is probably torture. But waterboarding three people is not the end of the universe. It doesn't even come close to surrendering the moral high ground. Anti-war and anti-Bush critics are so desperate to discredit everything about their political opponents that they have turned what should have been a PR blunder, into a self-inflicted PR disaster.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that waterboarding a detainee might result in intelligence which could prevent the deaths of innocent civilians - Civilians which could very well be living in the warzone, and would have otherwise been subjected to collateral damage.
So... Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Frankly, waterboarding seems like the path of least resistance in some cases. It gets the job done, quickly, with a minimum of discomfort, and no lasting damage. It's clearly not something you would use as a matter of course, but in some circumstances it seems like the most sensible option.
In addition, I've not seen anything from Abu that I would classify as torture - we have fraternity hazing that is more severe and painful that what those prisoners endured. And our treatment of captures is generally far superior to that that the German's experienced. However, what we face today is a risk far greater than that of the Germans. And while you say you've no idea of how many American lives were lost due to AG, you neglected to mention you have no idea how many American lives have been saved by more intense interrogation techniques. Playing Metallica for 48 hours straight just does not rise to the level of torture in my book, I don't care what some of the Gitmo defense attorneys say.
Also, we're not dealing with civilized, honorable prisoners who believe in the rules of war. We're dealing with people who believe its stupendous to strap a bomb on a retarded kid and send them into a crowd to kill innocent civilians. We're dealing with radical, ideologically motivated people who think anyone who doesn't agree with them deserves immediate execution and a quick trip to hell. We're never going to win a single devoted terrorist over to our side by treating them like we'd treat prisoners from a nation's authorized armed forces. We treat them well and they believe it shows weakness.
I don't think its right to do physical damage to any prisoner but I don't causing them mental anguish is any problem at all. I think we need to be very careful what we consider torture and what we do not.
Any procedure (regardless of the discomfort it causes) that causes no lasting physical damage and that so many Americans have actually volunteered to undergo cannot be classified as torture.
And since waterboarding fails to meet the definition of torture, the entire "Bush supports torture" accusation has no basis in fact.
As for Galloway and his fighting alongside American troops: Hurray for him! His bravery is to be commended. And yet brave, heroic men have in later life been guilty of terrible crimes and have been punished for them. Now Galloway's writing isn't exactly a crime (though there may be grounds for libel and slander) but to give him a pass for the rest of his life based on his fighting "side by side" with American troops makes as much since as letting a MOH winner go if he were later accused of a crime. Galloways actions in the Ia Drang valley do not give him license to do and say anything he pleases for the remainder of his life. His present day writings should be judged on their own merits, or lack thereof. And on that count I find his columns to be sorely lacking.
Even with the casualties inflicted, it may be that we have brought the Iraqis a great gift of freedom but if things work out wonderfully for them in the future, I do not believe we will be regarded as friends by them. I do not believe they think we are there because of a deep seated desire to spread the joys of democracy and freedom to our Arab brothers. I do not blame them. I do not know a single American who believes that or pretends to believe that. Do you?
"...due to the tortures we inflicted upon Iraqis at Abu Ghraib..."
THAT was not torture and you saying so invalidates anything that follows. You fall into your own rhetorical trap. Also, making a statement that the Right believes torture is okay as a blanket is just plain dishonest.
I bought your book, support your efforts but if you are reverting to a type with anti-conservative rhetoric then you will have lost me and a lot of those who have supported you and your work.
Harsh interrogation is not torture. Torture leaves lasting physical damage. And you know it. If the perpetually aggrieved in the world are to be believed then anything that makes them the slightest bit uncomfortable is torture. They consider pleasure to be our screams of pain as they saw our heads off.
Thank you, again, Michael. Am in my second assignment to Germany, and I'm about to head back to Iraq. I was in Anbar from September '03 to September '04, and I clearly recall how violence ratcheted up yet again after actions at AG became public. I'll be in MND-N this time. Last time, I got to help rebuild a school, as well as help employ local nationals on our FOB. But before we left, as Anbar was building hard and fast toward November '04, we didn't get to our school for over two months, and we don't know if it even survived. As a near-certified Fobbit this time around, doesn't sound like we'll get to do any civil missions, but a few of us aren't going to let it rest; working with Iraqis was too valuable an experience, and yes, Friends, some of them do appreciate us. MTF. Please take care of yourself, Michael. If I can help you out in MND-N for the next, oh, whole-freaking-bunch-of-months, let me know.
Does torture work? Yep
Does it work well? Yep
Have our forces done it? Yep
Has the enemy done it? Yep
Is it a "global" public lose/lose issue by using it? Yep
If your going to torture, call it that. Don't candy coat it.
I think that as a former Special Forces Soldier Michael understands all to the clear the appropriate application of torture. However, I think that he is saying in this application, the negative impact that torture has, far outweighs any information you might get from using it.
I think that in the correct environment torture is effective and a useful tactic, with the correct application of torture people WILL tell you the truth. However, using a tactic like torture can cost you everything strategically.
Generally saying I think that if you have to pause for a moment and ask yourself if something is torture or not----- Well you know the rest.
Ref: GreggS-- WTF are you talking about, keep up dude, Michael is back over seas and has been nothing but supportive for our warriors.
I enjoy your dispatches. My youngest went to the big sandbox. His unit will return there or to Afghanistan this coming year. He's USAR after 5 years in the USMC.
I wish I could agree with your position.
Unfortunately, every time this enemy has captured one of our guys, the poor troop ends up in pieces.
The rules of war to do not apply to terrorists.
We apply them, anyway, because we are better than they are. However, like the LTC that pulled the 9mm on the Iraqi and fired a shot to shock him into spilling his guts to prevent U.S. troops from walking into an ambush, whatever it takes, within reason, and as the situation dictates.
What we do is not torture. Torture leaves scars, inflicts pain, and is a violation of human rights. That's what they do. What we do is play psychological games with sleep deprivation, time disorientation, and play upon their paranoia. That is not torture, that is interrogation.
If the issue is time sensitive, then water boarding is justified.
I don't recall Al Qaeda personnel being dismembered as a lesson to the infidel for sullying the Dawa of Islam.
Keep up the good work.
Even though I disagree with you, I understand what you are getting at.
It is just that this is an enemy that is fanatic and has no compunction about doing whatever it takes to win.
Ask a veteren of Guadalcanal what happened to the Japanese prisoners?
Or, the Fallschirmjaege r captured at Monte Casino by the Brits?
In 1970, I went to Austria as part of the Civil Air Patrol's International Air Cadet Exchange Program. We were hosted by the Austrian Aero Club. The secretary general of which was one Joseph Fozo (umlats over the Os) and a former Luftwaffe MAJ, a veteran of the Battle of Britain and a member of the Condor Legion in Spain. (I actuall wrestled this guy, who was 56 at the time--I won, but, man, could he fly a Zlin 526!) He was one of many ex-Luftwaffe fighter pilots we met, who were also ex-Condor Legion, and who all were appreciative and highly complimentary regarding their treatment in captivity, whether it was in the U.S. or Canada. However, they also showed us where the U.S. bombed. They were definitely thankful that they had been captured by the western allies and not the Russians. They abhored the Russians as nature abhors a vacuum.
There is a place for treating the enemy with respect, and there is a place of necessity where the needs of the moment dictate getting the information however it necessary.
God Bless, be safe and I look forward to reading more from you.
And since waterboarding fails to meet the definition of torture, the entire "Bush supports torture" accusation has no basis in fact."
POST 19
That is total crap, by that definition electrical methods of torture doesn't count, sensory deprivation techniques doesn't count, subject a child to waterbording to force its parents to talk is, by your definition, perfectly acceptable... Its hiding behind pathetic excuses, its torture if your going to support it man up and admit it. To be honest I can't think of the words to describe the level of disgust I feel towards people who can somehow justify torture and treat it as acceptable behaviour.
And there is great big difference between a journalist volunteering to undergo waterboarding in a control environment as publicity stunt, compared to someone who has been dragged out of a cell (by people that they have been indoctrinated to believe are the devil incarnate) in place, they believe, anything can be done to them.
Sure there will be hard-line elements that will never back down and will always wish to destroy us by any means possible. They may be scum but that doesn't give us the right to fall to there level and fear doesn't give us an excuse.
What you may have read and misinterpreted is that we believe that there are some non-torture methods that can and should (sparingly) be used to extract life-saving intelligence.
I've been reading you for a couple of years now, and I've seen you repeatedly misunderstand what the right has been saying since the beginning of the war, then attack the right for what you have misinterpreted that we think.
Your war correspondence is the best since WWII, but your political rhetoric is incredibly naive and reeks of the groupthink that you rightfully criticize. You state that we should listen to others more and seriously consider their arguments before proceeding with our own, but you clearly have formulated an opinion of the far right based on what the far left publishes in the MSM.
But anyway...your article is spot on and I think you should continue mentioning the astonshing job that Gen. Petraeus has done in turning around the war from a hopeless case of Vietnamism to an undeniable path to victory. When this period in history has passed, Gen. Petraeus will stand out as the clear hero of our generation, at least one building at USMC will bear his name, and he will have a monument in D.C.
To the people who want to debate the niceties of what is torture and what is not torture: if you have to ask the question, the technique in question is wrong. America should not be quibbling over the "acceptable" level of mental and/or physical humiliation and pain that we can PURPOSEFULLY subject another human being to who is in our custody. The answer is there is NO acceptable level. America's ethics on this matter are not morally relative.
It is of no matter what they do to us, we have the courage of our convictions and will not bend them out of anger or revenge. Nor will we lay our convictions down for the perceived purpose of saving innocent lives because, I for one, believe saving my biological life is less important than saving the moral foundation that I base and orient that life around. To save the fact of our existence through disregarding the meaning of our existence is to save merely matter while ignoring the much more important substance.
I think we all do well to adapt the saying of one of my favorite [albeit fake] cultures: "A Klingon's honor means more to him than his life!"
Of course this is just my opinion of how America should conduct herself. But I think esteeming honor and ethics above ALL else is a very American concept.
Anyway Michael, thank you for keeping your head above the flood of emotion and partisanship that seems to drown out nearly all attempts at a reasonably unbiased and humanist view of Iraq and the war in terrorism in general. As soon as I'm done with my current book, I will pick up yours to help with my continuing education on Iraq. Thanks for your woefully unique services and keep up the good work!
But I feel that Mr. Galloway is giving his views as a member of the "far left" and you said we should listen to those that live amongst us , even when we disagree. Point taken.
Question: since I consider you fair and balanced...(can I say truthful), when do we get to read some article written by the "far right"?
But to the courageous and tenacious - from Bush to Rumsfeld to Gates to Petraeus to Michael Yon to all the good military, our Iraqi allies,
and the soldier I know best -
You have my utmost respect.
And I am sure that this conflict is historical in its nature -
that something so incredible is happening,
no one can really take it in.
God bless you all and your friends and your allies.
You are human, but you are great.
a soldier's mom
Does waterboarding, etc, constitute torture? I'm not sure, but I don't like the idea of us resorting to those techniques. I'd like to think we have more Hanns Scharffs in our ranks... well-trained, moral Americans who don't have to toe that line to get the job done. Our enemies will manipulate the truth regardless of our behavior; we can't afford to give them any extra ammunition.
As for Mr. Galloway's article: as a former journalist, I consider it irresponsible journalism at best, borderline libelous at worst. But thank God we live in a country in which all of these issues are open for debate.
From what I gathered in the brief interview I she offered excellent counter arguments to questions with were formulated entirely upon the news media's perspective; just from her responses the listener could immediately gather she had her facts and details together.
I cannot help but notice that throught the war in Iraq there has been a real drive by the majority journalists to prove the American military is doing things worthy of condemation yet after all these years the only instance that has received overwelming attention was Abu Graib (I believe it has already been pointed out that the military was already taking action months before the NY TImes took notice)
My point is; I am left with an impression that one event, which the military was already addressing long before media endlessly plastered it in every American's mind several months after CENTCOM gave a press conference in January (I remember watching that press conference) seems to be the exception to the rule yet media portrays as the rule not the exception.
I heard Bush condemn torture numerous times and as for GITMO I plan on reading Major Rotunda's, she really offered detailed counter-arguments to the populist impression.
Lastly, since Sept 2001 I have been tracking events (I read about four to five hours a day) and I don't recall instances in which the right side has encouraged torture, there has been a healthy debate over the use of waterboarding and whether it is constituted as torture. As for Abu Graib, from a civilian my perspective much of what occured there was more along the lines of humiliation particulairly when a lot of that stuff is actually done in various sado-masochist clubs across America. If you want to discusss whether Americans are involved in creepy freaky chains, cages, dungeons, crapping in peoples faces, whipping, beating, electro-shock(seriously there people who hook other people up to car batteries to shock their gentials) perhaps Mr. Galloway could do an expose about that form of 'American torture'
There seems to be a vast group of folks like Larry, and I humbly include myself, that go through life with a handle on things based in reality and common sense. Not just ideology and legality. And we are never heard or presented with the opportunity to be represented. Perhaps this will change in time.
Michael, keep up the great work. I may not agree with all you write. However, it is appreciated that you write it.
A quote from your article, "On the Right, one received idea is that torture is acceptable." I would like to see some references ......
I first encountered you and your mission either through references in National Review or the Wall Street Journal, visited your web site & read your dispatches. Until your dispatches from Basra.
I was an avid fan of Steven Vincent's dispatches from Iraq. His early criticism of Britain's interpretation of their troop's mission and effectiveness alarmed me at the time. His vicious and untimely death placed an exclamation point to those dispatches.
I hesitated in supporting you or in ordering your books after reading your dispatches from Basra. While I cannot find fault with your praise of the British troops, your lack of insight into their effectiveness disturbed me.
Despite that hesitancy, I ordered your recent book - directly from you - in the interest of supporting your activities. However, I am still choking on the first two chapters of your book where you vacillate between American troop's effectiveness and our early errors (at all levels) while keeping the reader informed of your origins and high purpose. By page 2 I became outraged by your reference to ".... rape and torture of the prisoners. We did all that by ourselves."
Your (& Galloway's) continued reference to the abuse & humiliation of prisoners at Abu Graib interferes with America's understanding of our progress (Strategically & Tactically) and effectiveness in the conduct of the war on terror within our multiple theaters.
I will finish your book & pass it on to others. However, I really do not know how long I can stomach the smears, like my initial quote and your respect for Galloway.
I have been reading your dispatches since 2005 and find your insight most illuminating. Your book "Moment of Truth" is a masterpiece which should be read by every citizen in the country.
I always say that there a three sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle and strive to find the truth. That is how I found your dispatches.
I hope you are not falling into the same propaganda trap as the rest of our country. As far as I can tell, President Bush has on repeated occasions condemned torture.
Was Abu Ghraib disgraceful and disgusting? Absolutely. There is no excuse for our soldiers behaving in such a manner. These abuses occurred in 2004 and were under investigation at the time the story broke. Yet we still hear about it every day. How can a scab heal if you keep picking at it all the time?
Waterboarding may, or may not be, torture. But the US actually only used this method 3 times between 2001 and 2003 when it's use was discontinued. However, due to our news media most people think we still use this as an interrogation technique.
Is Sleep Deprivation torture? If so, every mother in the world has been tortured after the birth of their children.
Is loud music torture? I certainly think so, especially if it is Led Zepplin
Seven out of eight Marines have been acquitted in the so-called "Haditha Massacres". Do most people in the US or the world know this? Of course not. Headline: Marines massacre civilians. Truth: Not important enough to print.
Our Congress just held it's 60th hearing into detainee treatment! Who is actually served by this other than the people who want us to lose this war which include most of the media who refuse to cover it properly.
I would hope that if we are pushing the line of what is torture it because we have very compelling reasons to believe that the person has timely information that can be used to disrupt a deadly operation or gain access to deadly individuals.
Using heavy pressure as part of a dragnet to see what we might come up with is wrong. Vengeful acts are wrong. There must be accountability.
But let's not kid ourselves, we are blowing things up and killing people in Iraq to protect our freedom. Some of those people are innocent. Innocent people will put up with the destruction and pay to repair a large part of it.
Keep up the good work.
Joe needs to get up close and personal with Iraq war veterans, or maybe even visit Iraq himself. What is he? A Harry Reid democrat?
As for torture: If Joe thinks Iƒ??m going to lose sleep over the ƒ??tortureƒ? of a terrorist scumbag to extract information that will save American lives, he's nuts.
BLUF: Stop taking prisoners.
The idea Michael is clearly trying to espouse is that our enemy may be ruthless, he may break all the rules, but one of the ways we beat him is simply by being better than him. On the other point, Michael stated himself that his mention of Galloway's name is an example of how even the people stuck in the wrong and at the wrong end of the spectrum can be sometimes correct and have useful ideas. Unfortunately we are too stuck in groupthink and automatically write them off (hint to several responders here). We'll destroy a good idea in our heads, because we simply don't like the source, it's someone we won't allow ourselves to listen to.
As for the people who reply "Where is the evidence of people defending the use of torture?", I'd reply to look at the several replies that support the use of waterboarding.
"Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure."
So if I did that to you, it'd be ok then because it isn't torture? Because we're not pulling fingernails out, it makes us better than those torturers who were?
(More details at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm)
Anyway, I initially came on just to say great post Michael, I agree 100% and was shocked at some of the replies you received. Good on you for having the courage to break the group ethic and say when something is plain wrong. Keep up the good work.
The danger here, in forums such as these and others that opposing views may be censured and possibly censored. This will eventually lead to one point of view that could be extremist. This is how the likes of Al Qaeda spread their teachings, by teaching to the uneducated and not allowing opposing views to be heard.
We who live is a well-educated, free-thinking society must listen to opposing voices, if not to change our opinions, but to see a different point of view, then to reflect on, intelligently discuss and debate the issues. I appauld Michael for posting Joe Gallaway's views, even if I do not agree with them. And I applaud the people who post comments here for not insulting, abusing and dismissive of other people's opinions. There is too much of that in other forums.
As for torture, with all the symantics being thown around, I prefer a different litmus test found in ancient teachings:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
A very powerful argument.
However, I believe torture - both soft and hard - should definitely remain an option, and should definitely NOT be banned by the USA or its allies.
I am not convinced that the "torture option" is ALWAYS worse than than the no-torture option, regardless of context or circumstances.
What you've most eloquently spelled out (and argued in the manner of a truly honorable American) however, is that the "torture option" has consequences.
It may assist in winning part of a War, but it can also make it that much harder - after the War is won - to develop the sort of friendship and harmony that prevents further Wars. On this, I agree.
However, just as the decision to assassinate an enemy is not carried out willy-nilly - it requires evidence, clearly spelled out goals, clearly defined limitations on what is being done and what is not to be done, a thorough understanding and taking of responsibility of short, medium, and long-term consequences, etc. - so, should a deliberate decision to employ a particular mode of torture of a clearly defined degree on a particular individual or group of individuals be defined and limited.
The "torture option" - like any and every other military option - should not be treated in any sort of arbitrary manner. For public servants, police officers, and soldiers, ALL arbitrary actions are ALWAYS illegal. That includes everything from spying to detaining a suspect, from handing out a speeding ticket to nuking a city, from how you treat your subordinates to how you might employ torture upon a captive.
The scope for justifiably employing some degree of some types of torture in some limited instances is, however, quite tiny in my view.
All the Way with the USA,
PRODOS
Your article indicates that you want us to look at both sides and choose the most fitting conclusion. Well, I've been on both sides, very far left, and now much more conservative. I can tell you that no conservative friend or acquaintance ever has expressed a tolerance for torture nor have I read any respected writers who have expressed that. However, I have heard terrible, unreasoning hatred from my leftist friends and read such from "respected"writers of the Left. Your statement: "That father likely would never have turned in his sons if he thought we were dishonorable torturers" indicates that Iraqis know that their perception of Abu Ghraib as a torture chamber was not well-founded. You say that those "tortured" came out of prison and took revenge by joining terrorists. Could it be rather that the detainees were terrorists going in and coming out? How do we know they weren't? You say that many American lives were taken because of Abu Ghraib. How many? 4000? 100? 5? Prove it.
Our nation's honor has not been impugned by actions of American military personnel or our President. It has been impugned by the likes of Galloway and his leftist friends. Remember that proverbial pointed one finger with three pointing back is still apt, Michael.
In my opinion, reading a Galloway article should fall under the list of banned forms of torture. If fighiting in "pitched combat side by side with our troops" is the only criteria for receiving respect, then we need to rethink our historical position on Benedict Arnold.
When Joe Galloway begins to present argument based in fact over opinion, I will consider giving him credibility and respect. Until then, I think printing his diatribes on an otherwise noble web blog is a waste of good bandwidth.
It's sad that you claim those of us on the "Right" are all about "groupthink" and "supporting torture". I don't read it that way. I read comments from human beings who are downright angry and sick of the daily stories of beheadings and murders in the name of Allah all over the world. Because so few positive stories come out in the mainstream media about our troops' successes in addition to seeing articles like Galloway's on your website, many in this country continue to this day to believe that we are torturing our enemy at this moment and we're losing this war. They continue to lose faith and are hating the war more and more each day. I will always wonder how different it would have been if the politicians who voted for the war would have continued to support our president and our troops throughout this war, especially when he made mistakes and when it wasn't going so well.
I believe history will prove you wrong. All the politically-correct actions you want our brave men and women to take to somehow prove "we're better than them" may never stop the killings. No matter how well we treat the enemies, it may never change their ideology. It's embedded in their psyche for generations to come. I look forward to your dispatches after Obama takes office ... if he wins.
It's interesting to read the comments from the "groupthink Right" angry with the murderers and then compare that with the comments by you and those who are angry/dissappointed/disgusted with our president, his administration, some of our troops and even people like me. Big difference.
In response to some of the subsequent comments, I would only point out this.
Humans gravitate to the lower denominator, whether they're American or not. No war is perfectly ethical, and every circumstance is different.
So there's a very big difference between understanding that in a time critical situation a gunny might smack a person to discover where an IED has been placed, and a specific POLICY allowing rough treatment. No one will condemn a gunny in that particular instance, so the policy is superfluous. But the policy will guarantee that other troops elsewhere will smack around people for sport, whom they know to be innocent -- and THAT works directly against us.
There are people who have died from rough treatment in American hands, people who even military investigations show were not only innocent, but that were KNOWN to be innocent. I pray it is only a few, because I am assured that their families and close friends cannot be sympathetic to American goals. In those instances, instead of discovering information to lead to extremists, we actually created them.
I write this, firmly convinced that in most circumstances, most of the time, American forces have behaved with restraint, and it was this demonstration of tough but ethical behavior which is turning the tide in Iraq.
They're the people who could be persuaded we're better than the enemy, and that we just want to live secure and free, and would like the same for them. They're also the people who could become convinced we're just another bunch of murdering scum, trying to use them to our advantage or force this or that ideology on them.
That's what Michael and others mean when they say torture is bad strategically - if it convinces the average person that we're just as bad as AQI - or, in the days before AQI became known for the evil is is, worse - they'll either help AQI (or other terrorist groups in future conflicts) or, at best, sit the thing out. Either way, we lose. The only way to kill an insurgency with popular support is to get the populace to end their support - through persuasion, through our own terrorism, or through wiping them off the face of the planet.
No, refraining from torture won't convince AQI to come over to our side. But it might some average Iraqis to come over to our side. And in the end, that's what we need to do.
And as far as that father and his sons - yes, he didn't believe Abu-Graihb represented our true character, because it was an and distant incident, and he'd had contact with Americans - a certain group in particular - that had convinced him that that's not what Americans usually did to prisoners. If we'd made "torture", or even "rough interrogation tactics" a regular part of our treatment of prisoners, he might well have declined to turn in his sons at all.
I agree that torture should not be used by our country and that waterboarding shouldnt be used.
Yet I disagree with the majority of Gallowayƒ??s writing.
Lets take a look at the Democratic Party for a momentƒ?? I agree with them on the issue of abortion rights, welfare, immigration, same sex marriage and as an atheist I am further to the left on the issue of religion than many of them.
But I donƒ??t agree with almost any of their policies concerning Iraq.
SO I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO GROUPTHINK
Michael, you admit that Galloway is a ƒ??mean old manƒ?. That meanness carries over into his writing. I have said in the past and I will say it againƒ??
I have no problem with the inclusion of such agitprop (as Gallowayƒ??s rants) in this website as long as I am allowed to criticize Joeƒ??s work as harshly as he criticizes our government.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity.
As for myself, I'm with you on the Torture issue Michael. Torture is not a choice for us. There is a "line" that we stand behind and shouldn't cross. Like Sarah F said; "...there's a very big difference between understanding that in a time critical situation a gunny might smack a person to discover where an IED has been placed, and a specific POLICY allowing rough treatment."
Thanks for writing and thanks for posting the Crabby Old Guys stuff occasionally. I don't agree with him in the main but I do agree with some of his issues.
Hey. Maybe that's the point?
In my comment on Joe's article I called him old and mentally unfit. I don't take those observations back. But, it offends me that anyone would assume I support "torture" because I didn't address my comments to that end. The message is understandable and logical--we should do our human best to take the "moral" high ground, I do believe that. However, let me be clear, I find it hard to listen to someone like Joe speak condescendingly about the "moral high ground", when they obviously lack a moral compass themselves and are blinded by hate and spew false accusations--like the President being guilty of torture.
Conservatives do NOT say torture is okay--I too have NOT heard that from any conservative websites. I've heard it from Liberals who try to paint us Conservatives as barbaric. I agree with what others have mentioned here: what Republicans struggle with is the question of WHAT is torture. You yourself mentioned Michael that the ends justify the means (torture) if an imminent attack is averted. However, that line of thinking begs multiple questions, like:
1. What if a series of intelligence obtained via torture helps avert imminent disaster--is the torture that led to a preservation of lives and peace via several incidences of torture (of possibly several individuals) still amoral then?
2. What is the TRUE definition of torture--not the definition deemed useful for political purposes?
3. What if we take the "moral high ground" and don't "torture" at all and consequently we are attacked on our own soil again? What then? Would torture be temporarily okay then? If so, for how long?
4. Are we fighting the same war as was fought during WW1, WW2, Korea, and even Vietnam? (No!)
I'm asking questions that require a lot of thought and hopefully distill to the reader the complexity of the situation we face in fighting the war on terror. Anyone have ALL the answers? I think not--least of all myself. All I know is I want myself, my spouse, and my children to be safe. They are MY first priority. I respect and even love people of differing faiths, ethnicity, and moral codes but I know where my priorities lie. Perhaps, could this be what President Bush and the other leaders of his administration are doing--aligning their priorities and their top priority being the safety of the American people? Some times it is okay to draw a line in the sand, especially when there is REAL evil in the world and that evil threatens our families and our way of life.
K, my 2 cents or 2 dollars, whatever it's worth.
Domestically, the usual caveats apply: no religious or racial incitement; the rules of common law defamation apply. Some would say that defamation suits are used by the government to chill political speech by opposition politicians, and I would agree. But that occupies only a fairly small sphere of public life and public speech here. To the extent that people engage in self-censorship because they fear broaching subjects of "sensitive" provenance, I would say that it is only slightly worse than the atmosphere of stiflement -- namely, political correctness -- that obtains in the West. Since nothing of global significance ever happens domestically, it doesn't really bother me. I hardly even read the local press, since news of interest is available online; and when I do read the local press for local news coverage, I take it with a fairly appropriate dose of salt.
That said, the local press coverage of Asia, East Asia, and China especially -- is superb. None of that China-phobic nonsense we get from most of the Western press. Unfortunately, its coverage of the U.S. and the Middle East is unavoidably tainted by what it chooses to syndicate -- organs of the MSM in AFP, AP, and the like.
I hope this explains how it is possible for people here to be more or less "informed" about foreign affairs while living in a relatively arid, constricted domestic speech environment. It's not such a paradox if you view this country as essentially open and porous to the world yet relatively uptight within its own borders on questions of local consequence.
But I do like your idea in general. Every case of 'vigorous interrogation' could undergo independent military judicial review, with the potential of trial and conviction. Myselfy, I'd glady work over KSM and serve 3 to 5 if need be to get what we got from him. The people in our military face death for intel; risking jail time if the information is critical enough should be a considered risk.
RSS feed for comments to this post