Schmedlap.com

A weblog of periodic insights from a former know-it-all Infantry Officer

Can the political activists please find something else to do?

Posted by Schmedlap at: 08:12 AM on 20 SEP 09 | Comments (71) | Reply to this post

Amid the furor over “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the fervor with which former Vice President Dick Cheney defends the decision to use them, I have a nagging concern.

Nobody has asked or explained why

In the continual criticism levied at Cheney, we are told that everybody agrees that these techniques do not work. We are told that they only result in detainees making things up in order to get the treatment to stop. I suspect that this is almost always correct. But this clearly leads us to a question that nobody seems willing to ask: If these techniques are so prone to extracting bad information, and if there is so much consensus that they do not work, then why did highly trained interrogators use them? Could it be that, in rare circumstances, perhaps the techniques do work? Are we to assume that the former administration sought legal cover to engage in practices that “we all know” do not work, so that professional interrogators could engage in those practices to get false information? Are we to assume that the administration wanted detainees treated harshly for no constructive reason – perhaps just retribution or satisfaction?

There is a gaping hole in this narrative that, so far as I can tell, can only be filled by one of the following…

a) The administration had lots of time on its hands and no sense of urgency in preventing another attack, was more interested in pushing around detainees than in gleaning intelligence from them, and they were so willing to engage in such pointless, costly, counterproductive behavior that they would seek legal cover to do it. I know the general public holds a cynical view of the former administration, generally erring in favor of questioning the intellect and morals of the former President and Vice President. But damn, this is getting ridiculous.

b) In some rare cases, “enhanced interrogation techniques” might work. In the period following 9/11, the administration wanted interrogators to have those options available because they thought the risk to our country, at that time, justified it.

As I see it, the biggest problem with option (b) is that it would result in the administration’s decision being viewed by the courts as a “political question” that is nonjusticiable. This would deny sweet satisfaction to political activists who still desire the heads of former officials who worked in the Bush administration. I suspect that many understand this and will opt to keep this issue simmering in the public consciousness, but never quite push hard enough to get it into court. Bringing it to court would bring closure to the issue. Closure is not being sought. This is nothing but a political issue being used to keep negative perceptions of the former administration fresh in peoples’ minds.

Here’s a novel idea: let’s pretend that we’re rational adults.

Just to be clear, I agree with the argument that how we treat detainees will eventually come to light and there is a risk that our treatment will influence the recruitment efforts of our adversaries and harm our public diplomacy efforts. I think there is a strong case to be made that our interrogations of high-level al-Qaeda detainees shortly after 9/11 may have been counterproductive in the long run. Why can’t we focus the argument on that? That argument makes a ton of sense. It is a lot more convincing because it works even if you accept Cheney’s assertions. Instead, we are presented with the dumbed-down, bumper sticker argument that “torture doesn’t work!” That statement is meaningless without any consensus of what torture is. It is political nonsense.

Future decision-makers of both parties will learn from this issue. They will learn that tough decisions about national security, which should be off-limits to politics, are now fair game for political adversaries. They will find that their incentives to act in the manner that they view as most favorable to the national interests might run counter to their personal interests. There is no excuse for such a misalignment of interests, but the precedent has now been set and future leaders will have that in the back of their heads with every decision that they make – even national security decisions. This is why I hate politics and hold political activists in such low regard. It is one thing to log on to a website and bicker online about the role of government. But when your nonsense spills over into the real world and influences the decision-making process of grown-ups who are responsible for our national security, then you have gone too far.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 08:12 AM on 20 SEP 09 | Permalink | Comments (71) | Reply to this post

Comments...

1. Hrothgar says:

Couldn't agree more. It's interesting to notice that those most vocal in their criticisms of our handling of prisoners suspected of heinous attacks on Americans overlook that we remain at war. Full-fledged war. World War II and the Korean War (as I can recall) produced no such anxiety. Just the opposite. Nazi German and Japanese atrocities on their Allied prisoners, and North Korean pioneered 'brainwashing' were given huge prominence, but I can't recall that there was much concern about the way we treated our own captured enemies. If anything, the contemporary criticism was that we were too soft on those we held. There was angst over the internment of large numbers of Japanese-American civilians by Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order, but this was immediately after the destruction of our Territory at Hawaii and in the Philippines, and there was absolutely no time to do any 'security checks' on all of those potential enemies resident then in our midst. Those now most active and vocal in this current blather are most certainly the least able to grasp the current threats against our immediate security. They should grow up.

Posted at: 08:54 AM on 09/20/2009 -
4 response to this comment by: logik0o xbaby3phatx Himoita Cialis

2. Schmedlap says:

I think it's worse. There is a very strong argument to be made against Dick Cheney, but on the rare occasion when anyone makes it (for example, the Generals in my prior post) - they present it not as a counter-argument, but as a dispositive statement of the assertion that enhanced interrogation might work. Why? I don't get it. Even smart people who should know better are letting themselves get sucked into this mindless "torture" debate.

Posted at: 09:13 AM on 09/20/2009 -
3 response to this comment by: ko0k33z mksonic rybkikyo

3. Hrothgar says:

Indeed, should The Supreme Court find itself disposing of the notion that enhanced interrogation might work, (...can a sitting Attorney General pose such an argument?) and if I were Commander in Chief, I'd waste no time in issuing an Executive Order saying 'Take No Prisoners.' And, if no prisoners are to be taken, what's then to be done on a battlefield? I offer this absurd thought tongue in cheek as the end result of what we seem to be getting into. I read your piece on those Generals and thought sadly... where does this end? Precedent building upon precedent. When the British surrendered to us at Yorktown, a band supposedly played 'The World Turned Upside Down'. We'd better ruffle through the Band Sheet Music archives.

Posted at: 3:02 PM on 09/20/2009 -
4 response to this comment by: kewla1d FerrynSeth xiaoranshan Acomplia

4. ko0k33z says: