Log In | Register
This week saw a flurry of discourse about the ways in which the United States has interrogated detainees captured during operations against terrorists. Among the more interesting revelations is that two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, underwent the technique of "waterboarding," designed to convince the subject that he is drowning.
First , it appears that they were waterboarded many scores of times. Executive Branch memos that were leaked also described other unpleasant techniques, some of which were used and others that were not. There will be further revelations, particularly about the involvement of members of both the Cabinet and Congress who knew and tacitly approved the techniques. And there is some evidence that the waterboarding was performed before approval of the technique.
There are many complex questions raised by all of this, and they will be examined in the media and in Congress in exquisite---and perhaps mind-numbing---detail for some time to come. But a summary of the major questions may prove enlightening.
First, terrorists are very bad people, the world would be a better place if they were vaporized, and we and our allies need to do a better job of killing them wherever we find them. In addition to other equally important goals, our mission in Afghanistan includes the objectives of killing terrorists and of teaching indigenous forces to kill terrorists, and we will be successful if Afghans learn to perform this task well.
But the enemy's ruthlessness notwithstanding, civilized people don't kill, maim or torture captives who are unable to defend themselves. A fair fight---or even an unfair fight in which you have overwhelming combat power---is a reasonable tool to use to achieve security, but once an enemy combatant is under your control, he doesn't have to be coddled, but he must be treated humanely.
I have spent some time in combat and can report that the easiest and most reliable way to glean information from the enemy is to gain their confidence, often with medical care and food. I recall visiting Guantanamo a few years ago, where interrogators got hard-case al Qaeda operatives to speak freely by giving them candy bars and American magazines they liked to read. If you torture somebody, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear so that you will stop making him miserable. Once in a great while you may get some scrap of useful information, but almost always you will get no actionable intelligence. And the fact that the authorities thought it necessary to find circuitous ways to justify waterboarding testifies that they grasped how reprehensible it is to torture captives. Well, then, why do it?
One explanation is that the government wanted intelligence quickly. Information that leads to tactical intelligence is useful only if it is fresh, and most things that captives say, no matter how accurate, has a short shelf-life. Getting captives adequately comfortable to talk freely takes time. But although torture is quicker, it produces almost nothing useful.
The president's decision to release the memos is a different story, however, and will almost certainly prove to impede exactly the kinds of things Obama wants to accomplish internationally.
Next time: more about the way in which this decision was made and the hypocrisy of the impending Congressional feeding frenzy.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
Thanks. As much as an extremist as I am---and as we all tend to be on some subjects, especially as we get older---I find it useful to cut to basics, something we all learned as brand new soldiers.
