(This is another guest piece by MajorMatthew--the military's senior interrogator in Iraq in 2006. We hope to hear a lot more from him in the coming weeks and months--especially as the torture argument intensifies with John McCain's run for President. From the diaries - promoted by Brandon Friedman)
Smarter, not harsher.
In my humble opinion, which is not always so humble, The Global War on Terrorism (a name I despise, by the way) will not be won by national policy or advanced weapons or economic might. It will be won, like all wars, by intellect (imagine that).
The interrogation debate has made headlines since the start of this war, but especially after the events of Abu Ghraib and the allegations of torture at the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The debate spread to arguments between Congress and the President, between the military and the courts, and between citizens of The United States and citizens around the world. And now I'm chipping in my two cents for no reason other than because I've been there.
I was the most senior interrogator in Iraq during the worst of the civil war and my team played by the rules, followed Geneva Conventions, and, get this, accomplished our mission. We did it without resorting to torture or using enhanced interrogation methods (which is just a technical three word description for the word torture).
Let me start off here with a quote, since that seems to be a very popular thing to do in today's culture:
"It is a fundamental mistake to see the enemy as a set of targets. The enemy in war is a group of people. Some of them will have to be killed. Others will have to be captured or driven into hiding. The overwhelming majority, however, have to be persuaded." -- Frederick Kagan, "War and Aftermath"
Television shows like 24 (FYI, I know the real Jack) incorporate interrogation and the use of torture under the "ticking bomb" scenario because it is dramatic and entertaining and sells commercial space. The myriad of cop shows, including NYPD Blue, CSI, Law & Order, and The Shield, consistently use harsh and forceful interrogation scenes to build excitement, and it is a favorite topic of talking head political shows, and currently a major topic in political debates.
What's interesting to me is that the debate over torture in interrogations is morally important but pragmatically irrelevant. Politicians and bureaucrats supporting the current administration have put in Herculean efforts to legalize harsh techniques, labeled "enhanced interrogation techniques," and to keep them classified, but these methods are in complete contradiction to the standards that we expect our own troops, when captured, to be afforded. Enhanced interrogation techniques are torture by the standards of the Geneva Conventions which we proclaim to uphold, and what's more important is that they are neither the most efficient nor reliable methods of achieving cooperation. There are rare circumstances where force and threats would be more effective and timely than intellectual methods, but in those rare circumstances, if we resort to torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the actual harm done to us is greater than any benefit that we could obtain. Abu Ghraib is the perfect example.
If the Abu Ghraib abuses had occurred in the process of obtaining critical intelligence information that would have prevented a major terrorist attack, it still would have had an overall negative impact in The Global War on Terrorism for the United States. Working side by side with the chief of interrogations for foreign fighters in Iraq, my duties included monitoring their interrogations for compliance and offering advice on interrogation strategies.
The foreign fighters consistently cited Abu Ghraib as their number one reason for deciding to come to Iraq and it is al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. You heard that correctly. Abu Ghraib is al Qaeda's "Army of One" commercial. No, they didn't come because they drank the Caliphate Kool Aid. They came because, and you'll get this if you've ever watched Band of Brothers, they fight for the guy next to them, just like us, who just got tortured, shamed, and humiliated.
Torture or inhumane treatment, even in isolated cases, such as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, is not worth the price. The integrity of our country is more important than any singular terrorist attack, even if it costs American lives. We must come to understand that the measure of our country is not in lives or resources, it is in the validity of our ideas of liberty and justice. We cannot sacrifice those values, even to stop a terrorist attack because if we do, then we allow the Islamic extremists to achieve one of their major goals - to defeat the idea of freedom. Yes, I said the idea, because that's what's important.
In interrogation, what's more important than the methods is our own intellectual ability to outsmart the enemy within the rules. We will win the war by being smarter, not harsher. By yielding to harsh techniques we are displaying our lack of confidence in our ability to defeat the enemy on an intellectual level.
In Iraq, a small group of us abandoned the Army mentality of approaching interrogations as a force-on-force exercise using controlling techniques, which often involves harsh methods. Instead, we viewed interrogations as an opportunity for compromise and negotiation. We listened, showed compassion, applied cultural awareness and sensitivity, took the time to understand personal motivations, and then created appropriate incentives. And, yes, we tricked our enemies by outwitting them. We applied our intellect, not our hands, and we learned to take risks.
Our enemies in this war are smart and prepared and they understand traditional interrogation techniques (just read the al Qaeda manual; it tells them what to do if interrogated). It is time for the advancement of our methods of interrogation. We must be smarter, more effective, and more humane in our treatment of prisoners and we need to improve our capability to conduct interrogations and prevent future terrorist attacks.
I told my soldiers in Iraq that you don't stop being a human when you start being a soldier. Those two things should never be exclusive.
I'm against torture and I know from personal experience how tempting it is when you've just watched a videotape of the guy you are interrogating cut somebody's head off with a knife. It draws up in you a primal desire for revenge. But you know it's wrong and so you don't do it. We cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him. We cannot resort to torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. I know what works because I've been there and it's not force.
We must work smarter, not harsher. |
