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.
I apologize for the comment you didn’t like, mel. However, your response to my remarks shows that you’ve overlooked quite a lot of what I said–in fact, it seems any facts I provided with which you disagree.
I still disagree with your thesis, as do many others here, and you’ve given me no reason at all to change my mind.
Oh, and I forgot something.
All of us had to carry around Geneva Convention cards.
Do you think any of the VC gave a flying f– about the Geneva Convention?
Read about Senator McCain’s 5 years of torture and the torture of his men. Does that sound like somebody gave one tinker’s dam about the Geneva Convention to you?
Do you think people who like to behead the people they don’t like and chop off body parts cares about the Geneva Convention?
I think that everyone who’s involved in forming policy about matters as horrible as torture should have to go serve a year in a combat zone as a combatant before they get to open their yap.
Greg
I hadn’t gathered from your earlier post that you are still in the service. My deep appreciation to you for your service to your country.
You say you are in a foxhole, by which I presume that you are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thankfully, you’ve been able to procure a wi-fi connection so that you can participate in this conversation.
The fact remains, however, that the Geneva convention has served the world well for many years. And I re-iterate that the Axis forces were defeated handily without the violation of the Geneva convention – something that didn’t happen in Vietnam and hasn’t happened in Iraq.
The soldiers who defeated Hitler didn’t think of the Geneva Convention as mere “moralizing”. They thought of it as part of the civilization they were fighting – and dying – to preserve.
And they did preserve it – valiantly and triumphantly.
Mel Shortner
Mel,
I’m a VietNam veteran.
You sound like a nice guy.
When you’ve been in the military during a war, it sticks with you, and the ideas you have have been paid for at great cost.
I think I made a post about the Geneva Convention that overlapped the one you made. Although I’m a veteran, I’m not a history buff, but the idea that no enemy in World War II was coerced to give up intelligence is like something out of an Ed Woods movie.
Lookout
I apologize for overlooking any facts in your post. Looking back on your post, however, I am not sure what you’re speaking of. You said that the war in the ME is different and I alluded to that in my reponse.
You said there are ‘ridiculous constraints’ imposed on our soldiers, and I’m not sure what you mean by that. The US government has essentially turned its back on the Geneva Convention. Are whatever ‘constraints’ there are on our soldiers ‘ridiculous’ simply because they are not completely un-constrained such as the savage terrorists are?
If that’s the case, then we’re back to the idea that we’re really not defending anything if we’re simply going to be as savage as they are.
You speak of winning the war – is that the war on terror, or simply the war in Iraq? If that is the case, then what is the definition of ‘winning’? Would it be that no-one in the West, ever, would be subject to a terrorist attack again? If so, how does torture aid that cause?
Mel Shortner
Germans were captured by the British as spies during WW2. Some of them faced a sort of coercion. Do exactly as we tell you or face the hangman.
No torture mind you.
[quote]If that’s the case, then we’re back to the idea that we’re really not defending anything if we’re simply going to be as savage as they are.[/quote]
Mel Shortner,
We are defending the life of every American period. One American at a time if need be, we have a constitution that embodies individual rights. You can claim savage when we start beheading.. until then f**k off
Water Boarding is a more honorable way of getting to the “Truth” than the way scum bag Lawyers collude in a Court Of Law.
Get over your Stupid EU nonsense.
Our soldiers are NOT behaving like savages: wherever did you get that ludicrous idea? In general, they ARE following the Geneva Convention with an enemy that deserves no such concessions. See my anecdote about the 3:00 a.m. invasion of a murderous thug into your home. It’s four of your family against one of him: to be “fair”, you’re going to give him time to call for backup?
Insisting on an exit date in advance is dangerous and illogical: it’s like saying, “My children have only 18 years, 2 months, and six days to live in my house. Period. Then, they must go, no matter what.” What if the time’s not right? Wars, like kids, don’t unfold in easily predictable ways.
You’re naive, mel, if you say torture never works. The Taliban and Al Qaeda use it as a regular strategy to terrorize people. How do you think they keep women and followers of other religions in check? They’re already using threat of violence and torture—think Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh, and Daniel Pearl—to keep dhimmis (like you, I suspect) in check. “Do what we say or something very bad will happen to you.” Dhimmi: OK.
Your post illustrates that threat of violence and torture can be very effective in demoralizing the populace.
That said, I do not believe our troops generally use this kind of threat or actual behaviour. As I’ve mentioned, in order to gain intelligence, which may be crucial, there may be isolated incidences of the strategic use of limited torture technique, which are not nearly so brutal as those employed by the enemy: how you concoct an equivalency re the “savagery” of our enemy—it IS savage—and our troops—who, as professional soldiers, are not—suggests to me, to use a metaphor, that your magazine—as in argument—is still more than a few bullets short.
mel, another “equivalency” that doesn’t hold up: in WW II, the enemy, more or less, was also following the Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda most certainly do not.
Would you arrive, armed with a sword, at a showdown with a pistol packing opponent?
mel shortner
You need to read the Geneva Conventions. You obviously haven’t and you obviously don’t understand them.
Under the GC’s, a soldier caught fighting out of uniform is shot summarily as a spy. Period. The conventions were written in the way they were not to protect soldiers but to protect civilians. The protections were there to reward regular soldiers for following the law and punish offenders in the harshest manner (including death.) The aim of the GC’s was to minimize the suffering of the civilian population due to the excesses of war. Carrot and stick.
There was definitely torture going on in WWII (both legal and illegal) and to pretend otherwise is wilful blindness. The UN convention against torture wasn’t put in place until long after the end of the war (as the UN didn’t even exist then.) The conventions protected only legal combatants and civilians. Illegal combatants and spies had no rights and were subject to whatever they got.
“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.”
Utter horses**t. Germany was “occupied” for many years after the end of the war in order to stabilize the place. The only difference is that the Germans stopped fighting and didn’t start bombing their own people afterwards. One reason for this is the beating they took in the war. The allies crushed the fight out of them. The restrictions placed on troops in Iraq and Vietnam were such that the enemy didn’t have its will to resist crushed out of them. That and the nature of those enemies.
Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t make it fact. The law isn’t what you think it should be but what is written down. Something isn’t illegal just because you think it ought to be and a law isn’t “unjust” just because you don’t like it.
There were Nazis and regular German soldiers taken out and shot. They were tortured and anything else that the powers that be decided was necessary. Just because a few vets didn’t participate, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen by others.
Torture hasn’t been “proven” not to work! There are people who are against torture that have produced “studies” that say what they want to say. “Proof” is absent.
“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?”
Do you see the absurdity of not recognizing that pain and death are different? They don’t talk to save their lives, they talk to stop the waterboarding. You may thing waterboarding is too inhumane to use – a legitimate stance – but talking nonsense isn’t a argument.
I have reservations about the use of torture but fairy tales are not valid points in an argument.
Mr. Philip Shaw
I understand that American lives are being defended. They were being defended in WW2 as well. And the Axis forces were defeated in 4 years, considerably shorter than the present conflict has lasted.
I presume you’re unaware of the irony in your post. If one abhors the savage acts of the terrorists, i.e., beheading, then one must also abhor the torturing done by American soldiers. We’re not accomplishing anything by descending to their level.
Lastly, I’m troubled by your need to use an obscenity regarding me. I realize that many on the net enjoy making statements they’d not have the courage to make face to face, and that’s part of the “culture” here.
However, I don’t think it speaks well of you or of conservatism that you need to hurl a crude remark simply because we disagree. As well, as a Christian and as a conservative I reject your obscenity and am offended by it. I would appreciate an apology.
Mel Shortner
Warwick, thanks.
mel, despite many well reasoned and well documented rebuttals of your simplistic mantra—that the military of the West, using any kind of torture, under any circumstances, is both useless and puts them/us on the same moral level as our terrorist enemy—you’re still stuck in the same, incorrect spot.
Those who disagree with you have very clearly stated their case, some from on the ground experience. What is it you don’t understand? (Is there a language processing problem or are you just stubborn?)
Also, I think you need to be a little more thick skinned: there’s a lot of feisty give and take here. If it’s too rough and tumble for you, you might want to consider going to another blog.
I’m a Christian too, but, as someone once said, “It’s a blood religion”! To stand with the Truth takes guts and stamina. We WILL be maligned: it comes with the territory. (Maybe you could consider the bumps at SDA as a test run . . .) However, mel, you’re not having problems here because you’re a Christian, but because—sorry!—your argument doesn’t hold water.
Over at Mark Steyn’s blog, he quotes this from Orwell:
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc*, and of being bored and repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
*Code for: English Socialism
Mark thinks we could substitute Canval (Canadian Values) for Ingsoc.
I think Orwell’s description is a perfect parallel to what must be happening in the politically correct brain these days. God help us all!
Lookout
I won’t belabour this point because we seem to be talking at cross purposes.
Yourself and others have made opposing arguments to my original point. You seem to feel that you have refuted or disproven my argument. This is not the case.
You haven’t presented proof of the effectiveness of torture. Neither have you (or others here) refuted my point that if we abandon a standard which has served us for many years we are compromising the very thing which makes us superior to – and different from – others.
As you say, those who disagree with me have stated their case. You then impugn my ability to understand their arguments. I understand them.
But it’s not true that they have refuted my point. You can choose to say so, but that doesn’t mean it’s true, as an examination of the posts here will prove.
However, there is something else here I find more distrubing: because I disagree with you, you call me a “dhimmi”. I was not familiar with the term. I looked up and found it means one who subjugates oneself to the Muslim religion.
Lookout, I am a proud Christian, a proud conservative, and a military man. I reject your smear of me, and I think it doesn’t speak well of you or your argument that you have chosen to make it.
I think it’s a very unfortunate tendency I’ve observed on this site that people have to smear and slander those they disagree with. It really isn’t becoming that so many conservatives here resort to childish taunts from behind the safe anonymity of their computer screens.
Mel Shortner
Mr. Shortner
I respect that you are a Christian and a military man and am sorry that this converstaion has not gone well. However, despite your credentials, I’m afraid you have not made your case.
Assertions, no matter how firmly held, do not make either an argument or a rebuttal to the facts presented by those with whom you disagree. However, I see that no matter what one says here, you are not going to alter your viewpoint. That is your right.
And I hope and pray that our fighting men and women may prevail against a barbaric enemy, which, if it wins, will see that our rights are severely diminished. You might check out the word “dhimmi”, Mr. Shortner. The West’s present kow-towing to immature, intolerant Muslims, who threaten us with violence if we do not do what they say, shows that our dhimmitude has already started.
In my opinion, it’s later than you think, sir.
Lookout
You say that “assertions, no matter how firmly held…are not a rebuttal to facts.”
However, it is I who have presented facts. You and your friends have vented your assertions. “Warwick” claims that studies which prove torture is ineffective can be ignored. Yet why this is so he does not explain.
It seems to me that a great deal of your positions on this subject are a matter of “talking tough” from people who have never been on a battlefield or even in the military.
I am still deeply offended by your implication that I am somehow on the side of the enemy (Radical Islam) because of my position. Perhaps it is an obsolete code of honour (not unlike the Geneva Convention) which makes me painfully aware of the absence of a meaningful apology for this outrageous slur.
Mel Shortner