The top US commander in Iraq made waves recently by coming out against torture. Many top ranking officials in the administration have sent approving messages about torture. The attorney general wrote memos rationalizing it. The vice president called for its legalization. Many Americans agree.
It is sickening how many people believe that the way to advance freedom (said breathlessly) is to employ such barbarity.
But Gen. David Petraeus realizes its counterproductive effect. He says that the US must reject torture if it's to maintain the 'moral high ground.'
Petraeus' comments came a week after an army mental health advisory team released a survey of troops in Iraq, which found a wide tolerance for torture and abuse.
More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.
About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so [emphasis mine]
Bear in mind that this is simply asking soldiers to judge for themselves whether such actions were necessary; in other words, 'mistreatment' by their own definition.
I wish this were surprising but it's not. I've written many times on this blog that if you people put in unreasonable situations, they will act in unreasonable ways. Contrary to popular myth, American soldiers are human, not superhuman, and thus subject to human nature. It's also not surprising that such abuses
But although it's surprising, it's still disturbing. The 'war on terror' can never be won militarily. Much like the Cold War, it will only be won ultimately by 'winning hearts and minds,' by convincing people that the American way is morally superior. This can never occur if the 'American way' is to promote or accept savage behavior like torture and abuse. Either we're better than the Evil Doers or we're not. Either we're civilized or we're savage. End of story.
One of the most famous renunciations of torture came from former Gen. Jacques Massu, the French military commander during the Battle of Algiers. France was fighting a brutal guerrilla war against Algerian nationalists. It was their equivalent of Vietnam.
Massu came to conclude that torture was more part of the atmosphere than militarily necessary. And that it was counterproductive in the 'hearts and minds' battle, which the French lost, before eventually losing the war. Massu said, "Torture is not indispensible during times of war. You can easily pass it up."
He added tellingly, "Torture was part of a certain ambiance. We could have done things differently."
The LA Times has an op-ed piece on a major terrorist the US government is aiding and abetting.
3 comments:
Good post.
The excuse the US government gives for protecting Posada, is that supposedly the Venezuelan government would torture him. Chavez has offered anything the US wants to show he won't be tortured. He could even have his own 24 hour TV station.
RE, I see. Of course, this is the same US government that 'renditions' people to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, right?
Yes, a good post.
I wonder how many recognize this as a two-way street. In other words, if the question were, "Would torturing you or your fellow U.S. soldiers by the enemy be justified if the life of an enemy soldier might depend on it.?" then I wonder if a third of American soldiers would still answer in the affirmative.
When Cheney advocates the general legalization of torture, he is also advocating legalization of torture of Americans. If I were an American soldier I would certainly have this on my list of reasons not to agree with the Vice President.
Post a Comment