Great stuff from Ken Adelman. Excerpt:
I'm having trouble figuring out why staunch conservatives aren't as outraged by the torture memos and practices as the American public. Maybe it's because they've become so estranged from the public. Republican leaders have stumbled around, since the closing of the Bush era, much like a duck whacked on the head, as Abraham Lincoln once quipped about one of his generals who was chasing Lee's forces. Or maybe it's because of high, and justified, concerns over national security. Or considerable, again justified, preference for presidential leadership over that of the Congress (especially one with the twin faces of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid).But still... It's somewhat outrageous for real conservatives not to be outraged by all this. Conservatism has never been, and should not become now, the pro-torture movement.
Clearly, a RINO squish. Release the hounds, Rushbo.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Because interventions by a larger power lead to insurgencies." Derek
TR: So Panama, Grenada, et alia also led to this kind of thing?
TR: So Panama, Grenada, et alia also led to this kind of thing?
Yeah, let's go find the oddball exceptions and build a case off of that.
MI,
I don't see why. HUMINT is HUMINT.
No, it isn't. WWII POWs had a bit of anonymity to protect them. That's not the case in places like Iraq, where networks of kith and kin operate.
As far as Zarqawi goes, from the Atlantic article you linked to:
Fear, the most useful interrogation tool, was always present. The well-publicized abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere put all detainees on edge, and assurances that the U.S. command had cracked down were not readily believed. The prospect of being shipped to the larger prison—notorious during the American occupation, and even more so during the Saddam era—was enough to persuade many subjects to talk.
The threat of torture was both credible and used.
This sounds more like Luttwak (of "Counterinsurgency Warfare as Military Malpractice" fame) than the approach favored by contemporary COIN strategists (e.g., winning the support of the populace via legitimacy, the rule of law, bread & circuses/public works/social programs, etc.).
Carrots are nice, but you need sticks, too. The success we've had has depended on us being feared, or using proxies who were feared.
WWII POWs had a bit of anonymity to protect them. That's not the case in places like Iraq, where networks of kith and kin operate.
Just to clarify: you're saying that it's the need to overcome the loyalties from those networks that (perhaps) necessitates the use of torture?
The success we've had has depended on us being feared, or using proxies who were feared.
I could see this applying in the Shia areas, but I thought the Anbar Awakening occurred (in part) 'cuz the local Sunnis got tired of AQI's harsh rule? That doesn't seem to fit w/ the notion of us being more feared than AQI.
The Japanese in WWII are actually a very good analogy. It was thought that conventional interrogations would be too soft because of their fanatacism. That was proved wrong by Moran and those he trained.
My sense about the SOI coming over to our side is that AQI broke important tribal rules (forced marriages) and continued to torture after we gave it up. There is this inherent bias that we need to get rough to get intelligence. I think this is mixed up with the desire for revenge. There is substantial evidence that conventional tactics work. Torture does work sometimes, but has the downside of eliciting much false info also. Then there is the bad PR aspect and its use by the opposition for recruiting. As Galula said, the people judge us by our actions, the insurgents by their words.
Steve
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.