I’ll state my position as plainly as I can – the CIA could waterboard “Mahmoud” once a week, and western democracies would be nowhere in danger of becoming “no better than the enemy” or “losing our soul” or other such nonsense. Some of the tactics employed during WW2 in defeating the Axis feel rather short of pleasure thresholds, but the victors emerged from the morass as the “greatest generation” nonetheless. (Of course, give it time. Another 20 years and we’ll could well be sending reparations and “never again” mea culpas to the descendants of Hiroshima.)
But then again, relativism was never my strong suit. Try as I might, I cannot place “water up the nose” on the same ethical plane as say, the application of a cordless drill to a prisoner’s temple or forcing him to watch while his children are raped and then slaughtered.
Not so the readers of the Guardian!
What’s interesting to me is how the subject is currently being discussed, or rather reacted against, very often with wholesale fantasy. For every partially serious response to a particular point, there are two, perhaps three, comments that are unhinged and simply perverse, albeit in a broadly similar way. I stopped counting after a dozen different commenters asserted, smugly, that no war against terrorism exists, or that the West shouldn’t have made efforts to defend itself, or that the US is some kind of fascist autocracy, or that Osama bin Laden and his associates weren’t responsible for 9/11, or that the US government killed its own citizens for unspecified reasons, or that Bush and Blair are morally indistinguishable from homicidal jihadists. As a thumbnail sketch of Guardianista opinion, or a large part thereof, these reactions are worth noting.
And then, there’s the whole question of, you know – winning. One of the most maddening arguments utilized by the political left that goes largely unchallenged is the assertion that “you cannot win a war against an insurgency”.
Well, speaking as a lowly citizen, may I make a suggestion? Could we please get busy and come up with a way to defeat insurgencies, because if we don’t, western civilization as we know it is doomed.
“Dear Mahmoud. Sorry about that dunking thing a while back. We’ve voted those dreadful people out and replaced them with Enlightened Diplomats. Here’s the thing – you and I both know we are incapable of defeating an enemy who wears no uniform, obeys no rules of combat, engages in terrorism and random attacks on civilians, but this is of little concern because we are confident that you will never bring those tactics to our soil.”
Perhaps that’s the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 – the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part.
Morality in the art of survival is the province of those facing no personal risk. Bringing your morality into war only ensures a game of Russian Roulette, which, if morality is important to you, pretty much handicaps your success and heavily favours your opponent. Survival belongs to those who are able to set morality aside… Bring the threat of irreversible violence to my family and waterboarding will be the least of your concerns.
Afghans and Iraqis die at the hands of the Taliban and Al Quaeda every time the west debates its morality in public. Unless you can convince your enemy to fear you, you will never know peace. The answer to “can’t we all get along” is “no”. Never has been true, and never will be. Ever.
The fate of western civilization does not hinge upon waterboarding.
Nor does the war on terror.
Two of the tenets western civilization are the rights of the accused, and the humane treatment of prisoners.
Even though I do not consider water boarding torture, I also do not approve of the use of water boarding by anybody, particularly by the government or military. I don’t care how many people claim the future of our civilization is at stake when water is poured down somebody’s nostrils.
It is just as much baloney as those who claim global warming is a threat to our survival.
Just to add something else to the debate – I’ve been reading the Looming Tower, which looks at the history of Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of Al-Qaeda and the author suggests that the torture of Ayman Al-Zawahari (the ideological leader of Al-Qaeda) in Egypt in the 60s transformed him from a moderate to a committed violent and radical fundamentalist.
So the question is, what are the by-products of torture? Who is being radicalized by torture? Are we really getting good info from it? And how can we trust GW Bush that they’ve only tortured three and that they got good info out of it after his history of truth telling?
fdsafasf
What you refer to isn’t the official, lets get some intel violence but the kind of thuggery you’d get at any jail if there was no oversight. Jail guards tend to be bullies. They have to be policed. This is why if you allow torture, it’s very difficult if not impossible to codify and police its use. Any power a government has, a government will eventually abuse.
But what the creeps did in abu ghraib did was for their sick amusement, not for some strategic or tactical purpose.
No one is arguing in favour of torture for fun.
Gray,
In the world wars, there was useful intel procured by torturing people. Unlike what you claim, it can be useful. The “it’s ineffective” argument is used by people ideologically opposed to its use under any circumstances. It’s dishonest.
This issue is not black or white. It is decidedly gray – pun inteded 😉
This is “survival of the fittest” time, folks. Surf’s up.
1. Waterboarding was a bad idea. Period. The US should have known better; it was a path they never needed to go down.
2. “you cannot win a war against an insurgency”
If you believe this as an essential article of faith, then it becomes a mantra and you can’t help but lose. The British didn’t believe it in Malaya and they throttled that insurgency. Also, not all insurgencies are alike; some succeed, some fail.
3. If you attempt to defeat terrorism by a legalistic approach (not “legal” you’ll note but “legalistic” – the two are not synonymous except to lawyers) such as treating it merely as a criminal law issue, you’ll probably lose.
“An Ottawa Police spokesperson was quoted in the news recently that their force doesn’t keep statistics on Taser use because “we’d be writing ten reports a day”.
Ten taserings a day in dull Ottawa?”
Is it the same ten Liberals or is the OPD spreading things around to be inclusive of NDP & PQ dolts as well ???
“It’s fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense.”
Yes, fundamental the legal right of self-defence, but absolutely irrelevant to the idea of self defense in war.
BTW, even the court defined idea of justifiable force in self defence isn’t based on a minimum; it’s what seems reasonable for a person in that situation. For example, if a person knew you were a boxer, it might be considered reasonable for them to hit you with a plank. They don’t have to spend an instant figuring out if it’s necessary.
Moral relativism is garbage. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and no amount of hypothetical quibbling is going to change that.
Utilitarian means of measuring right and wrong leads to no good place.
I am all for using overwhelming force to settle our conflicts. “Carthage must be destroyed” and all that. I forget who said that the duration of peace in the middle east is directly proportional to the scale of the slaughter, but he was right.
I am unwilling to comprise on our Western morals, our sense of right and wrong, while doing it. Nor am I willing to abstract away the personal responsibility. If someone decides to use torture, then that person is guilty of torture, no matter how good the outcome.
We have acceptable rules of engagement. Torture is not in there, and I don’t think it should be.
“reasonable for them to hit you with a plank”
If you were threatening them, i mean, not just cause they didn’t like your suit.
What is lacking here is a clear hierarchy of priorities, the non-negotiable principles, as it were. Be it “the dignity of man” or the safety and security of the state, once you chose which god to worship, you must subordinate everything else. If you don’t think this is true, then either your “most important thing” isn’t, or you refuse to acknowledge that priorities can conflict.
So, why do we have “issues”? Because on one side, the list of priorities is short and well-defined; one the other, indistinct and unrealistic. This WILL change. Unfortunately, by then the butcher’s bill may be truly appalling.
Yes friends, torture and rape are always wrong.
Well, unless you name is Conrad Black. Then your anticipated sufferings are the subject of cartoons in the Toronto (Red) Star.
In Newspeak this phenomenon is called “nuance”.
Dean:
My whole point is that the concept of self defense could be transplanted to that of “justifiable torture”, although I admit that war-time conditions might stress the analogy a bit.
Regarding “minimum force” and “reasonable force”, I believe we are talking about the same thing. Here’s a quote from some weird self-defense site (www.bojuka.ca/self-defense-canadian-law.shtml):
In general, reasonable force can be defined as the minimal force required to deter or prevent an assault from occuring or being repeated.
And the best defense against a boxer is to throw them a steak, whether they be human or dog.
A little background on … Seymour Hersh !
” Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation. ”
Ignore the idiot leftarded troll (s)!
I guess the Malay insurgency was never defeated either? Funny also how Europe was able to take over most of the globe with some wheel locks and wooden sailing ships, yet we “can’t win an insurgency”. We could ask the Syrians how they dealt with their radicals…
I do have a tough time with torture, in the army we were subjected to various forms of psychological and simulated physical torture as part of our ‘escape and evasion” exercise. There is nothing nice about it. I can see the dark road ahead if we allow torture to easily, yet at the same time I know the mere ability to be able to carry it out can be enough of a threat to get some very nasty people to talk. It’s easy to say that torture is not worth it, would it be easy if you knew a thousand lives hung in the balance? How about your family? Moral decisions from the comfort of our couch are easy, in the real world it’s about deciding what is the most right and least harmful in a world of shifting grey.
I also don’t fool myself with what would happen to me or my comrades if we were taken hostage/prisoner by the Taliban or AQ. AQI has shown themselves to be so brutal that they would have horrified some Medieval jailors. In the end I would allow limited torture, with strict oversights, I would also not discuss what those oversights are, no sense in letting the bad guys know where we draw the line. A quick comment on propaganda, everyone thinks of the US photo’s when they think of Iraqi prisons, yet few are aware that the same prisons were used by Saddam as slaughterhouses and many have mass graves beside them.
Rabbit said: “The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It’s fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense.”
No not really. The origin of the idea is “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. That creed was considered merciful at the time, as killing an accused man’s entire family was considered reasonable. Kept them from looking for some payback later.
The “right” of self defense comes almost entirely from British Common Law, and is fairly recent. Serfs and slaves have no such rights, only free men do and even then they are subject to the Crown, against whom they have no right to defend themselves. Its what the word “subject” means.
Phantom:
I don’t know what you thought that I thought that I said, but the Canadian criminal code states the following…
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
I suspect most criminal codes place similar limitations on self defense. Texas might be an exception.
This is what I meant when I said “The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It’s fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense.”
Texas Canuck writes, @1:26: “Okay, I’ll say it: Nothing here that a good old fashioned crusade wouldn’t cure.
“The definition of torture has, like so many words today, been altered to satisfy people with an agenda. That’s like ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in Canada’s prisons is the term used when they don’t get steak night every week.”
(Yeah, TC! And regarding “cruel and unusual punishment”, I’m “tortured” every day by the extreme psychological and emotional abuses of the CBC, which deliberately disregard the dignity of my person and my freedom of expression rights by viciously skewing the “news” with innuendo and downright, calculated lies, all the time, and on my dime, to boot.)
Fair play is definitely important, but in a fight for one’s very life, against a sadistic, evil (yes, that’s the word) enemy—imagine that person, masked, armed, and willing to do extreme harm, in your house at 3:00 a.m., terrorizing your family—one does what one has to do. Yes, it may be quite dehumanizing—I can imagine the “atrocities” I’d be willing to commit to save my children from a sadistic monster—but, in that situation, I believe the end would justify the means. (I didn’t either plan or start the vicious attack.)
Concerning the jihadists, I believe it’s like fighting an evil, sadistic monster. Making nice and playing by the rules, which this enemy boldly and proudly disdains, is both stuck on stupid and a recipe for suicide.
No thanks.
Surely everybody in Canada knows by now that I am a VietNam vet.
I was never an interrogator myself, but have friends who were.
And I have to say that there is always a tendency on the part of those who have never taken the field to over-intellectualize this subject. Sometimes they have good ideas and sometimes bad ones.
But all of this intellectualization turns a very difficult subject into a very abstract one. In the field unless you enjoy some incredible superiority, necessity is your guide. What you do is based on what is necessary.
Let me give you an example. The enemy has abducted your wife, your mother, your daughter, and your sister. They will begin to torture them to death in 24 hours.
You have a prisoner who knows where they are located, but he will not tell you, and so a rescue mission is impossible.
What are you going to do? What are you going to do? They begin raping them and cutting off body part in 24 hours, so what principles, what intellectualization are you going to use?
All you have to do is get your prisoner to talk and give the location.
Now let me add another component. Let’s say your sister is my wife, and so if you stand by because of some abstraction and refuse to do everything necessary to get information out of this prisoner and they chop up my wife because of this, I’m going to find you, gentle poster. And I’m going to gut you like a fish.
That’s where the whole thing begins. Not in a bunch of abstract notions by people in various ivory towers.
Torture is used to extract inte — when you can’t get it any other way or plain don’t have time for a long process.
You know, in the field in the American armed forces if I as a combatant refuse a order from a superior when time crucial, they can shoot me dead for putting my own comrades at risk.
“I will walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within my sight or hearing.”
If I fail to do this in a combat zone and fall asleep or otherwise am negligent, they have the right to take me out and shoot me.
So when it all gets down to it, my education about these things was formed in a rough school. I was one of the people that they take of the chain when the fertilizer hits the fan. And in a tight spot, I’m going to do whatever is necessary. And I’m going to expect you to do what’s necessary to.
rabbit, nothing personal, but treating a war situation, being waged by an unscrupulous, evil enemy, as if it were a criminal justice matter is ludicrous. (This is another one of the West’s Achilles Heels.)
If that’s the way you think the West should proceed—and you’re by no means the only dupe to think so—get ready to put up the white flag and say good-bye to the freedoms of democracy. (If you have any females in your family, I suggest you buy some burqas right now. Get ready to home school too if you want your females to be educated: for what, though? Also, if you don’t already, be prepared to worship Allah five times a day and live under Sharia law.)
THINK about it . . .
We’re in a war…
…and I want to be on the winning side.
Let the water flow!
“you cannot win a war against an insurgency”. What’s this,has North America not been successfully colonized? (Caledonia, Ont. aside of course)
Torture is an unpleasant subject, to be sure. While I’m sure all of us from time to time entertain fantasies of seeing some horrible monster of a terrorist tortured to a painful death, we know that, in practice, the best solution is a simple gunshot to the head.
When it comes to using torture methods to extract information from prisoners, I’d suggest that it remain illegal, but allow those charged with acts of torture to claim the defense of necessity. “Necessity” would be considered proven if, and only if, the information that one might extract by said act of torture could reasonably be expected to prevent the deaths of civilians or troops, or enable a significant military victory.
That, it seems to me, would cover the hypothetical situation where you have captured a member of a terrorist gang, and are convinced he knows where the hidden nuclear device is located. You torture the guy, knowing full well you put yourself at risk of imprisonment by so doing. If you are put on trial for torture, your defense is either the obvious, the bomb is found and defused, thanks to the torture of the terrorist; or alternatively, the bomb is not found but subsequent investigation shows clearly that it was reasonable to expect that the torture subject did have the information sought.
Lookout:
There are many entries, and you probably missed the thread of my argument amongst them.
I was proposing guidelines for when torture might be allowed, not guidelines on how to conduct war. Given that torture is (we can all agree) repugnant, it must either not be used at all or used with the utmost discretion.
I suggested using the same guidelines as for how we determine whether self defense is justified in the criminal code – that is to say, it must be kept to a minimum and only in response to a serious and immediate threat.
Thank you, rabbit, I appreciate your response.
However, it seems to me that your formula, indeed, adheres to the criminal justice model of waging war that I reject: as you know from my recent post, I believe this model to be unintelligent, self-defeating, and, in fact, suicidal when dealing with a deranged and barbaric enemy.
Please refer to the examples both I and Greg in Dallas have recently given re “the necessity of the moment”, when evil is actually ravaging good. In such circumstances, nice ideas of fairness and balance have already been desecrated.
Given that fact, on what grounds would you accord equal rights, under our criminal justice system, to a vicious enemy that operates quite outside such constraints?
The only thing our current enemy understands is sheer brute force, nothing else. Well, maybe one other thing, the power of their comrades in the West, the green shirts of the left. They follow very closely what the left has to say and the pressure they put on our political leaders. The green shirts are directly responsible for prolonging the war and the CASULITIES we sustain. Directly. I wish I had saved the article published years ago quoting the two North Vietnam Generals now living in the States. They stated that they would have given up had it not been for the likes of Hanoi Jane and her fellow war protesters. The left was their biggest ally and had it not been for them and the hope it gave them they would have given up years ago. If anyone out there knows where to get a hold of that particular article please let me know.
For the record, I am against the war and our guys being over there. I am against it for the same reason I was against the Vietnam War. It’s become a political war dictated by politicians and the press more so than those that are doing the fighting. Fight with no holds bared or get out. I do however, agree with the reason for being there. At one time the Hanoi Jane’s of this world would have been shot as traitors aiding the enemy, so it should still be. The time for open discussion and reflection is when it’s over not when our guys are still in harms way. Discuss and debate it when you come home, with your tail between your legs as the green shirts would have, or when you WIN.
Lookout:
I read Greg’s scenario. It would easily pass the guidelines I proposed.
I know that we are fighting a war against an enemy that don’t follow our – or any – rules, but that fact does not liberate our forces to take any action without restraint. They must still behave in a way that Canadian or U.S. citizens find acceptable. That might not always be fair, but that’s the situation.
It’s probably a case of either disallowing torture completely, or satisfying the public that torture is used with restraint and only in dire situations. Clear, official guidelines is likely the only way to achieve the second outcome.
A second advantage to a “legalistic” approach is that it would make it clear to the armed forces what the situation is. They would not be handcuffed by a fog of uncertainty surrounding the use of torture.
Spot on, Greg.
Shit happens, deal with it, move on.
This may seem flippant, but playing Hamlet is gonna drive you nuts. Torture is like p*rn – hard to define, but you will know it when you see it. Otherwise, it’s merely “harsh measures” dictated by necessity, with the moral culpability borne by the instigator of the conflict.
To over-simplify, it’s “harsh measures” when it’s a reactive event, it’s torture when it’s pre-emptive.
Does anyone here believe that information obtained under torture has anywhere near a good chance of being accurate? Forget the morality issue for a moment and think of this: a person suffering will say almost anything to end the suffering. You can have a low grade jihadist with an IQ at room temperature confessing to setting a suitcase bomb under the White House if he’s in enough pain. A determined fanatic will tell you lies under torture.
The best way to get accurate information isn’t via physical pain. It’s by getting inside the guy’s head.
Now back to the morality play….
Dear rabbit –
You are obviously a very decent person. I respect that.
But you say, re the actions of our troops, including, it seems, in extremis, and when having to act from necessity, “They must still behave in a way that Canadian or U.S. citizens find acceptable.” (To find out, do our troops stop, in theatre, post an email poll and wait for the results?)
And, to which citizens do you refer: those preferred by our weasel MSM, like Jack Bin Layton et al? (You probably won’t have a choice.)
If so, God help us.
As I’ve said before, please THINK through the logical consequences of your “pleasant” scenario. (When it doesn’t make sense, the most pleasant idea can end up in disaster.)
Sincerely –
lookout
We realize it would take a fatal leap of imagination, but try to read “insurgency” as “people who believe they are defending their country from an invasion” and perhaps it will help explain their tenacity, and the stupidity of the idea that it can be exported.
Dilettante, is that the Royal “We”? If not, to whom are you referring?
Any of the sanctimonious assweasels here who, nose aloft, condemn any aggressive interrogation of terrorists as an abomination against Humanity, would, in a heartbeat, torture the shit out of somebody if they thought it might save the life of their child, or themselves, and they know it.
Dilletante,
Where have you been during the war?
“people who believe they are defending their country from an invasion”
Have you heard of Al Queda in Iraq? It’s apparent you are ignorant of the fact that many, if not most of the insurgents aren’t even from Iraq, for that matter.
Same for Afghanistan.
So whose country are they defending if it is not their own? Might it be a “Muslim” country? I suppose you haven’t heard of the ummah either. Or the Islamic pledge to win back all countries that were so-called formerly Muslim, such as Andalusia, and establish a worldwide caliphate.
“and the stupidity of the idea that it can be exported.”
The only stupidity is the preposterous notion that you think you have a clue.
As it happens, I’m at this very moment daydreaming about subjecting Kate to some “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Not necessary. I’d sell my soul along with every state secret I know, for a Cheeze Whiz and celery sandwich.
Dunked in neocitron.
kingstonlad: bad!
And, Kate, if I could deliver Neocitron, along with a Cheeze Whiz and celery sandwich, I would.
Get well soon!
Game, set and match, to Caveman for 9.25pm post
nwars (that’s evident), not so.
Please see my 9:43 p.m. letter to rabbit.
We’re talking war here, not merely convenient, self-serving secrets.
Shake your head.
It’s been proven that torture doesn’t work.
It is a fact that using torture deprives us of the moral high ground. It makes us no better than our enemies.
Why would we do it, considering it doesn’t work, and also makes us like the very thing we’re supposed to be fighting against?
Did any of you see the 90 year old WW2 veterans protesting against the US gov’t.’s use of torture?
They were angry because they defeated Hitler and never had to resort to using torture.
I take exception to people who talk about the idea that “we” should have obliterated our enemies at the end of WW2.
“You” had nothing to do with it. “You” weren’t on the battlefield in that war – nor in any war.
Where do “you” get the gall to start talking tough about what soldiers in the field should do?
Mel Shortner
mel shortner – Your ideas are interesting. Could you document that there was no torture in WW II, in which my father and grandfathers fought?
It was a very different war: the Axis soldiers were usually well trained civilians, fighting for their country under the Geneva Convention. (Soldiers, sailors, and airmen on both sides of the line often had a high “professional” regard for one another. See “Band of Brothers”.) Our fighting men were not constrained by politically correct shackles imposed by the MSM, opportunistic lefty politicians, and an infantile “armchair” populace propagandized into being unrealistic panty waists at home.
On the other hand, the present war in the ME is an altogether different proposition: while our enemies are every bit as committed to imposing their ideology—religious, versus racial purity—and taking control of the rest of us as Hitler was, they are fighting a downright dirty guerrilla war: they do not wear identifiable uniforms, they hide behind the civilian population, the gross mistreatment of prisoners is a regular occurrence and part of their strategy, and they use the most vile forms of torture as an every day tactic against both military personnel and innocent civilians.
Especially considering the ridiculous constraints imposed on our troops, fighting a vicious enemy, by the unrealistic “armchair” Pollyannas in the West, the strategic use of torture may, on occasion, be necessary, in order to preserve other lives and WIN THE WAR. As the terrorists have chosen to remove themselves from both civil behaviour and following the rules of military engagement in their every day tactics, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention. To constantly accord them such privileges is ludicrous: why deliberately handicap the West’s chances of defeating a vile enemy, that has made a calculated CHOICE to fight outside the clear conventions of war, all the while fighting dirty to enslave the rest of us and remove our hard won freedoms?
The strategic use of waterboarding—horrible, but almost benign compared to the Taliban or Al Qaeda’s methods—with guerrilla terrorists like this most certainly does not lower us to their moral level. As I’ve said before, people need to THINK THROUGH their ideas to their logical or illogical conclusions: in the present discussion, there is no equivalency between the military of the West strategically using torture, under necessity, which is probably a rare occurrence, and a vicious, playing dirty enemy, which shows no compassion or mercy, even for its own civilians, as it uses extreme torture on a daily basis as one of its main strategies.
mel, I think your proposition is a few bullets short of a full magazine.
Over 90% of all insurgencies were defeated in the 20th century. Places like Yemen, Malaysia are examples were an insurgency was defeated and in those cases was defeated by the military. Perhaps those that think an insurgency is a successful means to an end should suggest a case where it was successful.
One of the most significant writers I’ve found WRT the war on terror – anywhere – is Ralph Peters, writer of several books, including “Beyond Terror” and “Never Quit the Fight” Following is his take on what must be done to WIN. Many of these points apply to soft powers as well, such as Canada. For this debate his item #11 is the most relevant:
25 Things a Superpower must do to fight terrorism.
From the Ralph Peters’ book, “Beyond Terror”
chapter “When Devils Walk the Earth”
1. BE FEARED.
2. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF TERRORISTS YOU FACE, AND KNOW YOUR ENEMY AS WELL AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.
3. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO BE POWERFUL.
Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialogue may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.
4. SPEAK BLUNTLY.
Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.
5. CONCENTRATE ON WINNING THE PROPAGANDA WAR WHERE IT IS WINNABLE.
Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.
6. DO NOT BE DRAWN INTO A PUBLIC DIALOGUE WITH TERRORISTS, ESPECIALLY NOT WITH APOCALYPTIC TERRORISTS.
You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy’s claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.
7. AVOID PLANNING CREEP.
Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal–intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigour you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance-consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.
8. MAINTAIN RESOLVE.
Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist’s unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.
9. WHEN IN DOUBT, HIT HARDER THAN YOU THINK NECESSARY.
Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knife-point operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but, whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show, don’t tell.
10. WHENEVER LEGAL CONDITIONS PERMIT, KILL TERRORISTS ON THE SPOT (DO NOT GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SURRENDER, IF YOU CAN HELP IT).
Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnapping, highjackings and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.
11. NEVER LISTEN TO THOSE WHO WARN THAT FEROCITY ON OUR PART REDUCES US TO THE LEVEL OF THE TERRORISTS.
That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America’s service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation’s moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behaviour).
12. SPARE AND PROTECT INNOCENT CIVILIANS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BUT DO NOT LET THE PROSPECT OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES INTERFERE WITH ULTIMATE MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT.
This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between us and them, the choice is always us.
13. DO NOT ALLOW THE TERRORISTS TO HIDE BEHIND RELIGION.
Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy’s ranks and his resolve.
14. DO NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO BROKER A PEACE, A TRUCE, OR ANY PAUSE IN OPERATIONS.
One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.
15. DON’T FLINCH.
If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military’s image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren’t badly hurt or deterred in the least.
16. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT ALIENATING ALREADY-HOSTILE POPULATIONS.
17. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, HUMILIATE YOUR ENEMY IN THE EYES OF HIS OWN PEOPLE.
Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.
18. IF THE TERRORISTS HIDE, STRIKE WHAT THEY HOLD DEAR, USING CLANDESTINE MEANS AND, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, FOREIGN AGENTS TO PROVOKE THEM TO BREAK COVER AND REACT.
Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not a superpower strength but the raw power to do that which is necessary is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us–or complain of our inhumanity–no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America’s magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalised are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.
19. DO NOT ALLOW THE TERRORISTS SANCTUARY IN ANY COUNTRY, AT ANY TIME, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway, sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.
20. NEVER DECLARE VICTORY.
Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.
21. IMPRESS UPON THE MINDS OF TERRORISTS AND POTENTIAL TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE, AND UPON THE POPULATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLINED TO SUPPORT THEM, THAT AMERICAN RETALIATION WILL BE POWERFUL AND UNCOMPROMISING.
You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.
22. DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE TERRORISTS AND THEIR ACTIVE SUPPORTERS LIVE IN TERROR THEMSELVES.
Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hardcore apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.
23. NEVER ACCEPT THE CONSENSUS OF THE WASHINGTON INTELLIGENTSIA, WHICH LOOKS BACKWARD TO PAST FAILURES, NOT FORWARD TO FUTURE SUCCESSES.
24. IN DEALING WITH ISLAMIC APOCALYPTIC TERRORISTS, REMEMBER THAT THEIR MOST CHERISHED SYMBOLS ARE FEWER AND FAR MORE VULNERABLE THAN ARE THE WEST’S.
Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.
25. DO NOT LOOK FOR ANSWERS IN RECENT HISTORY, WHICH IS STILL UNCLEAR AND SUBJECT TO PERSONAL EMOTION.
Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire’s attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.
When you point a nuke at someone there are four nukes pointing back at you.
All this tough talk is wonderful until you remember that Russia and China still have enough ICBMs pointed at us to render Western Civilization dust.
Remember, Russia has a significantly more credible claim to winning WWII than England or the USA, who were bystanders in comparison and, in USA’s case, fact. America didn’t care about Hitler or England; it twiddled its thumbs for two years and only entered when attacked by Japan. No surprise, given that America is ethnically more German than English.
By tough guy logic, Moscow should have nuked the USA for not being on the winning team from the start and sitting idly while the Germans took over Europe.
[quote]By tough guy logic, Moscow should have nuked the USA for not being on the winning team from the start and sitting idly while the Germans took over Europe. [/quote]
dfsafsa,
Since Moscow didn’t have nukes at that time, but we did, the Russians stopped at Berlin. You are right! The eastern (Russia) front was definitive in the defeat of Germany
The Nuclear threat is not an academic exercise; our Military have those Options on the table as we speak. I would guess that the Anti-Bush rhetoric is actually more of a nervous twitch to the stark reality of what may happen, by way of justified response or by dumb accident.
In the Aftermath of 9/11, and before we knew who was responsible, the CBC Town meetings suggested Canada had a role. I, for one, was in Canada at the time & swear I could hear the ND silo’s targeting. Stupid shit-heads.
dfsafsa:
Don’t forget that for the first year and a half the Germans and the Soviets were nominal allies in the invasion and division of Poland!
Lookout:
It may be of interest to you to know that our soldiers were constrained as well by the Geneva Convention during WW2- the Geneva Convention which has now been thrown out and deemed “quaint” by the present American government.
However “quaint” it might have been, American soldiers were able to defeat Hitler while abiding by it – and in less time than the present war in Iraq has lasted.
That’s likely why the 90 year old WW2 veterans were a little angry at the way the government has thrown out the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, the enemy is evil. But do you not see the obvious absurdity of waterboarding – performing ‘simulated drowning’ – on a Jihadi who’s already sworn to die for Allah and is glad to do so? What information do you expect to get from one who does not care if they die?
All of this is quite aside from the fact that torture simply doesn’t work, as any military person knows.
All that it accomplishes is for us to lose our claim of being civilized. Which is supposedly what we’re fighting for.
Further, I’d ask you to stop using derogatory terms such as ‘pantywaist’ to refer to those who oppose torture. None of the soldiers who won WW2 were “pantywaists”, and a lot of their blood was spilled to protect the very values which deem torture an obscenity. To them it was worth fighting for, and, as I said, they were able to defeat the Nazis in four years while our present torturers have been unable to bring Bin Laden to justice in seven years.
Lastly, though I know people regularly state things on the internet they’d not have the courage to say in real life, I don’t appreciate your ad hominem towards me in the last line of your post. Please just deal with the issue at hand.
Mel Shortner
I don’t think it has been mentioned yet here, but Yahoo News (McClatchy Newspapers) by Hannah Allam, gives the tragic details of five hostages in Iraq. They are four Americans and an Austrian. I can hardly believe it but….. five severed fingers have been delivered to American officials. Confirmation is that they are of the hostages who have been held for over a year.
The do gooders are crying about detainees, to boot yet, this in Afghanistan. Do not give them to the Americans say they. Such consideration. (sarc)
Some people here are insisting that torture never works.
That’s absurd. It’s every bit as absurd as saying that torture always works.
Not every enemy combatant is some superhero progranmmed in some inscrutable manner to resist all pain and pressure. As someone who has been in war myself, I can tell you that is nuts.
A lot of people will cave as soon as you sock them in the jaw. A lot of people will spill their guts if you just threaten to harm them.
I despise torture, war, violence, and everything connected to them. However, for my sins I have had to serve in combat zones and have a picture of this formed by the reality of what actually occurs.
As detestable as it is, sometimes intel that saves people’s lives can be gathered by shooting someone in the leg.
You know, wars and the people who fight in wars are not an immaculate priesthood who joined so they could serve the heavenly choir.
Necessity is the absolute. You know, it’s all about survival. The survival of yourself, the survival of your colleagues, the the survival of your country, the survival of your allies, and you want to be very careful about how you tie the hands of the men who are going to risk their lives to ensure that survival.
I can promise you right now, I don’t want to be in a foxhole with any of you people who are not willing to slap somebody around to make sure that I live or the people I love live. Please stay away from my unit. We have a tough enough time without your moralizing.