| If we are to preserve civilization, we must first remain civilized. | |
| — Louis St. Laurent | |
| . | |
| On This Day In: | |
| 2015 | Still Struggling |
| 2014 | How To Become A Saint |
| 2013 | Not Much Change |
| Our Biggest Fear | |
| 2012 | Brain, n. |
| 2011 | Styles Of Leadership |
| 2010 | Face Front! |
Advertisements
I don’t think we learned how to be civilized.
I’m not too sure either. But, I had hoped we’d gotten beyond torture. We’ve know for quite a while it doesn’t work and that it is against our “moral” principles. At least it was for “some” of us…
Sometimes the alternative doesn’t work either. We released some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and they proceeded to go back to killing.
Hi GP,
There are two separate issues here: torturing prisoners of war and indefinte holding / releasing prisoners of war. In reverse order…
Have you seen the movie “Saving Private Ryan” with Tom Hanks? The Captain (which Hanks plays) in the movie is faced with the dilema of killing a prisoner or leaving him alive. Hanks chooses to let the prisoner live and the prisoner comes back to kill some of Hanks’ men. Does this make the decision to let the German live wrong? Does the (unknown) result (at the time of the decision) justify the murder of an unarmed prisoner?
There is no doubt that some of those released from Gitmo (and other sites) went right back to killing. Torture doesn’t stop this. Keeping them prisoners indefinitely would. But can we honestly say that everyone we’ve captured and detained at Gitmo (or other sites) were legitimately detained? We hope so. The reality is (probably) most are hostiles, but not all. Once captured, do we keep (and torture) them all indefinitely? Even (the few) those who might have been turned in for the rewards and not because of guilt? We are not able to accurately judge (in advance) recidivism for criminals among our own penal population, how are to estimate it in a prisoner population where we do not even understand the culture? But, if you (as an American) felt you were at war with a foreign power, were captured and later escaped, would you not go back to your unit and start fighting (killing) again?
The only sure answer is to execute all prisoners of war.
There is a difference between killing hostiles and killing unarmed prisoners of war. Just as there is a difference between interrogation and torture. Are we willing to cross that line? And, more importantly are we (as Americans) still “in the right” if we do such a thing?
I know it’s a cop out, but such questions and their answers are beyond my pay grade. That’s not to say I would not make (have made) decisions in real time if placed in a war time circumstance, but I am thankful I was never faced with such decisions.
War is hell. There is no getting around that. But just because we must experience the hell of war doesn’t mean we need to make it more hellish without any meaningful gain. Torture doesn’t work because ultimately the person being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to get you to stop. The alternative to torture is professional interrogation, which does work. The problem is it (real interrogation) takes time. Obviously, torture doesn’t take as much time – which is torture’s sole redeeming grace. The problem, again, is how much time / resources will you waste investigating false leads provided under duress?
I agree with you entirely that neither alternative is guaranteed or always successful, but I was raised to be better than a savage and to be an American soldier means to respect and honor the Geneva Convention. For four years of active duty, the Army drilled this into me and I have come to cherish this philosophy as much as I do my love for this country: Americans do not torture prisoners of war!
As always, thanks for consistent following and for your comments!
Kevin
I lost a son thanks to the Middle East way of dealing with war and it is a far cry from the war of WWII. They don’t adhere to the Geneva Convention, never heard of it and don’t care. One minute you speak about a Hollywood movie and the next in today’s Wars (that we do not try to win in fear of irritating bleeding hearts and politically correct people.)
If I had a sure-fire answer, I would have brought it up a long time ago, but we’re dealing with big money involved here and politicians having their backs scratched — while our sons and daughters die.
Hi GP,
First off, I would like to express my gratitude to you for your son’s service and sacrifice, and to your family, my heartfelt sorrow for his loss. You don’t say which Gulf War your gave his life in, and to me, it doesn’t matter. To me, the first was about oil and the second was about making money off of war. This does not diminish the service of those injured or lost in either war. The fact is – they were given orders to go in harm’s way and the did as they were ordered. Their service was honorable, irrespective of the politicians motives for engaging in war.
My use of the Hollywood movie example was not meant to demean or belittle your son or any of his comrades in arms. It was meant to illustrate the difficult situations war can place individual soldiers and commanders in.
You are probably correct that most terrorists (and ISIS in specific) don’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. You are probably also correct they haven’t heard of it and wouldn’t comply with it if they had. But if the standard of our enemy becomes ours, are we any better than them?
When 9/11 first happened, some friends of mine from the Middle East and other Muslim countries asked me what America’s reaction would be. I replied I expected we were going to be making some new glass in someone’s sandbox and that we were going to make those responsible glow in the dark. They were shocked and asked if I were kidding. I replied, no! America doesn’t play games with attacks like 9/11. They said, why would we not just invade and take the places over until we caught / killed those responsible. I replied the US would not be interested in a long term occupation or nation building. How wrong I was…
While I have mellowed and now realize a nuclear response would have been over the top, I am still convinced most of recent history would have been changed if our former President had allowed the military to finish the conflict in Tora Bora and been strong enough to avoid the invasion of Iraq. There was never going to be a “win” in either Afghanistan or in Iraq. That is not to say our military would not crush their military. That was (and is) a given. There was no way either country could stand up to the U.S. But, that did not mean we were going to “win”. Sec. of State Colin Powell warned of Iraq, “If you break it, you own it.” This was prophetic because the invasion of Iraq was based on lies created by the Bush/Cheney Administration.
Had we killed Bin Laden at Tora Bora and simply left Afghanistan and then not invaded Iraq, the world would be much different today and I believe much safer. Don’t mess with America because there will be consequences and we aren’t interested in owning your rocks and sand.
History is what it is, and you are correct – both wars were (and are still) about money and the military-industrial-political complex. And, yes, our sons and daughters continue to bleed and die.
But I still believe: Americans don’t torture prisoners of war. Not because of anything we (don’t) have to prove to anyone (bleeding hearts or otherwise), but because it doesn’t work and it demeans us as soldiers and as a nation. As bizarre as it may sound coming from a practicing Catholic – we’ll kill you, but we won’t torture you. We will fight for our country and our way of life, but we won’t become savages just because our enemy is.
Kevin
I agree on some points and my also being a Catholic, I don’t believe has anything to do with our opinions. Frankly I feel we are products of political upbringing one way or the other. I don’t believe in harming Arabs who do adhere to the Koran, but why don’t they ever turn the bad ones in to the authorities? I keep asking that question and never receive an answer. No one can say they didn’t know. It always comes out (after the fact) that they ranted to friends and on-line, but no says a word until after a catastrophe.
If we don’t intend to win a war – don’t go in — simple as that. What’s going on since WWII is total politically correct BS. It costs lives.
Hi GP,
I agree with you (on most points). I was referring to my being a Catholic. I did not know you are, too. I agree we are mostly products of our political upbringing, but I do think we can grow past it. I think many times Muslims do turn in other Muslims, but we don’t hear about those cases because it would bring retribution (or at least suspicion) in their own community. I also agree that most times SOMEONE knows. Just remember, security forces have to right 100% of the time. Terrorists only have to be right once. And then, yes, catastrophe.
I firmly agree that if we don’t intend to win, we should not engage. The problem is politicians redefining “win”. I also agree, almost all of what we’ve done since WWII has been BS. Again, I put it down to the military/industrial/political complex. As you said, “It’s all about the money…”
Kevin