Word definitions seem to change over time which generates a situation ripe for miscommunication. Then too, ideology plays a very large part in how a person defines a word. To me, “marriage” is a matrimonial unification of a man and a woman. There has been a creep in the definition to now include unities not involving people, as two corporations engaging in a “marriage” for a given project, etc. “Torture” is another word that has had a definition creep and is now steeped in ideology.
According to my Second College Edition Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus of the American Language, copyrighted in 1970:
tor • ture 1. the inflicting of severe pain to force information or confession, get revenge, etc. 2. any method by which such pain is inflicted 3. any severe physical or mental pain; agony; anguish 4. a cause of such pain or agony 5. [Rare] a violent twisting, distortion, perversion, etc.
My frame of reference includes: Privates First Class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, as well as many more Islamic jihadist executed beheadings, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hirohito’s soldiers, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and a litany of other principals and regimes. I am also a subscriber to the modifier “severe” when talking pain and anguish; as Webster defined it in 1970.
The stimulus for this article is of course the recent news about President Obama declassifying policy memos issued under President Bush’s administration and making them public. To wit, the once staunch position of no prosecution has been softened and potentially reversed by President Obama. So who knows what the final outcome will be; as I see it, the president hasn’t finished making up his mind yet.
A weak justification was issued by Rahm Emmanuel stating the information already resided in the public domain. My response to that is: it wasn’t officially acknowledged by the government until President Obama ordered the declassification and release of the classified memo. With the full acknowledgement of the government, we just handed our self-proclaimed enemy some propaganda material and have officially disclosed that we are no longer going to employ such [interrogation] techniques. One of the basic tenants or principles of conducting warfare is to deny the enemy any useful information regarding our intentions and tactics. Our Commander in Chief has just blown that little military principle straight out of the water.
I know there are folks who align with President Obama’s statement, “What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.” I will suggest that ideology is easy if you haven’t had the distinct pleasure of suffering for it. Yes, there are those who have worn and those who wear the uniform who classify some forms of interrogation as torture. They are certainly welcomed to their opinion, just like those of us who happen to not agree with their assessment. Those very same people will pull the trigger when the time comes – if they don’t they become yet another ward of our graves registration teams. They will take another life to save their own or that of their comrade – because that is what is required to win battles and thus the war.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs fired off the statement… “That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country.” It should not be necessary to remind such a learned professional as the WH press secretary that our forefathers fought a very unconventional war… employing tactics thought to be cowardly at the time. Hiding behind rocks, stone walls, trees, or camouflaging soldiers with hay or harvest roughage was scorned upon not only by the British Generals, but by our own colonists as well – it just was not the way to wager a battle – it was borderline immoral. Had we fought in the traditional rank and file manner, we would still be British subjects; we simply did not have the numbers to be able to trade musket fire in open rank and file battles and be victorious. In essence, we traded our [conventional battlefield] values for something unconventional which evened the odds or turned the odds toward our favor. We compromised our [tactical/warfare] principles for victory!
I do not condone torture – torture likened to what PFCs Menchaca and Tucker experienced; torture likened to what our POWs suffered at the hands of the VC and NVA; torture likened to what Saddam’s goons inflicted upon Iraqis, etc., etc. Whether or not water boarding and any of the other interrogation techniques classified as ‘harsh’ are of value will not be determined by us. There are documented cases of harsh techniques producing actionable intelligence and there are cases whereby nothing was gained. Remaining to be seen (and can never truly be established) is whether or not lesser harsh techniques might have worked. I believe strongly in the ability of the interrogator to determine what technique should be utilized based upon his/her training. I just do not believe we should be scrapping ‘harsh’ techniques and limiting the tools available to our interrogators.
We can debate interrogation technique morality ‘til the cows come home, but we should certainly give the experts all the tools necessary to be successful. Nationally disgracing ourselves will not improve our image with anyone – it will merely confuse our allies and make them uncertain of what to expect from us.
Old Soldier 