![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
US special ops interrogator going by the pseudonym "Matthew Alexander" has been doing the rounds on the liberal media lately, promoting his book "How To Break A Terrorist." He also wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post. You may have heard of him, but maybe you haven't. And it seemed well worth sharing.
If you're curious, you can see an interview with him here:
ETA: Direct link, since embedding doesn't seem to be working.
(No, I don't understand why he has to use a pseudonym but can appear with his actual face on television. Apparently, though, he had to sue the Department of Defense to get the right to publish his book. So maybe that has something to do with it.)
The long and the short of it is this:
Torture is counter-productive.
It makes people uncooperative. If and when you do get information from them, you can't trust it.
On the other hand, by sitting down and building a rapport with them, by showing them that you understand where they're coming from, respect their culture, etc., you can achieve some pretty amazing things. Within 6 hours, "Matthew" was able to build a working relationship with a key suspect. A relationship which gave them the information needed to catch Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Another prisoner said that he had expected to be tortured, and the fact that he wasn't made him reconsider everything he'd been told about the evils of our country.
In the meantime, the fact that we have been torturing and abusing our prisoners has been the leading cause of recruitment for our enemies. From the Post piece:
(Emphasis mine.)
Wow.
There's a major lesson to be learned.
And...
Kind of seems like the final nail in the coffin on this whole Iraq thing. (Well, if you don't count the guys who decided, on Nov 4, to plead guilty, probably so that they could be properly martyred before Obama takes office... only to then withdraw the pleas when the authority of the sketchy tribunals - over which prosecutors have resigned, unable to live with what they were being asked to do - to execute them was called into question.)
First, Bush implied that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Later, he outright said it. (He now denies this, but there's video.) Turns out... not the case.
Then he said there were WMDs. Based on what turned out to be intelligence "evidence" which was cherry-picked by browbeaten officials who suffered from repeated visits from the VP, who told them what he wanted and expected and refused to accept anything else. Oh, and further evidence which was actually planted. Oh, and let's not forget what happened to Valarie Plame and anyone else who spoke up to say that the evidence didn't actually support those claims. Turns out that there were no WMDs (unless you count the chemical leftovers from Bush, Sr.'s invasion, sitting in rusty barrels that hadn't been touched since... and no one but Fox News does). Even Bush admits that now (trying to rewrite history by claiming it was an "intelligence failure").
Then he said that he was keeping Iraqis safe by taking down the regime. Except that his doing so (particularly without the necessary number of troops, since he also told us that it'd be quick and easy, and we'd be greeted as liberators) through the entire country into chaos and civil war.
Then he told us that he was keeping us safe and creating an ally in the middle east. Except that he actually made Iran more dangerous, ignored threats from other sources, hurt our standing with our existing allies, and drove up the recruitment amongst our growing enemies. In short, he made us less safe. And while some point to the fact that we haven't had an attack since 9/11, the fact is that 9/11 happened on his watch, and that the last attack on our soil was more than 7 years before 9/11/01. And the span between that one and the one prior to it was considerably longer. So, really, 7 years without another attack is not that much of an accomplishment.
Then he told us about this great idea, "the surge." A move pushed for by left-wing generals long before his people advanced it. In fact, one general in particular retired after top Bush officials ridiculed him for saying (before the invasion even started) that we'd need more troops, and in particular, according to one of the most basic tenets he'd learned in training, we'd need more troops to occupy the country than we would to take it over.
Then he claimed we weren't torturing. Except we were.
Then he claimed that torture was giving us valuable information that we couldn't get any other way. Which... also not the case.
Oh, and let's not forget the whole situation with not giving our troops proper armor, not sending them the armored vehicles they needed to protect them from IEDs, ignoring the pre-war reports that an insurgency was likely to develop and that they would likely use IEDs, and all the troubles caused by using mercenaries to bolster our troop numbers (without raising the statistics on casualties and such, since they didn't officially count). Mercs who were paid considerably more than our soldiers, and who were much better equipped. Oh yeah, and sending our troops back in, or even refusing to let them leave (even when their contracts/tours were up)... even when they were suffering from major bouts of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Just give them some happy pills. They'll be fine.
Is there anything done right in this whole war? If there was, I missed it.
If you're curious, you can see an interview with him here:
ETA: Direct link, since embedding doesn't seem to be working.
(No, I don't understand why he has to use a pseudonym but can appear with his actual face on television. Apparently, though, he had to sue the Department of Defense to get the right to publish his book. So maybe that has something to do with it.)
The long and the short of it is this:
Torture is counter-productive.
It makes people uncooperative. If and when you do get information from them, you can't trust it.
On the other hand, by sitting down and building a rapport with them, by showing them that you understand where they're coming from, respect their culture, etc., you can achieve some pretty amazing things. Within 6 hours, "Matthew" was able to build a working relationship with a key suspect. A relationship which gave them the information needed to catch Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Another prisoner said that he had expected to be tortured, and the fact that he wasn't made him reconsider everything he'd been told about the evils of our country.
In the meantime, the fact that we have been torturing and abusing our prisoners has been the leading cause of recruitment for our enemies. From the Post piece:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
(Emphasis mine.)
Wow.
There's a major lesson to be learned.
And...
Kind of seems like the final nail in the coffin on this whole Iraq thing. (Well, if you don't count the guys who decided, on Nov 4, to plead guilty, probably so that they could be properly martyred before Obama takes office... only to then withdraw the pleas when the authority of the sketchy tribunals - over which prosecutors have resigned, unable to live with what they were being asked to do - to execute them was called into question.)
First, Bush implied that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Later, he outright said it. (He now denies this, but there's video.) Turns out... not the case.
Then he said there were WMDs. Based on what turned out to be intelligence "evidence" which was cherry-picked by browbeaten officials who suffered from repeated visits from the VP, who told them what he wanted and expected and refused to accept anything else. Oh, and further evidence which was actually planted. Oh, and let's not forget what happened to Valarie Plame and anyone else who spoke up to say that the evidence didn't actually support those claims. Turns out that there were no WMDs (unless you count the chemical leftovers from Bush, Sr.'s invasion, sitting in rusty barrels that hadn't been touched since... and no one but Fox News does). Even Bush admits that now (trying to rewrite history by claiming it was an "intelligence failure").
Then he said that he was keeping Iraqis safe by taking down the regime. Except that his doing so (particularly without the necessary number of troops, since he also told us that it'd be quick and easy, and we'd be greeted as liberators) through the entire country into chaos and civil war.
Then he told us that he was keeping us safe and creating an ally in the middle east. Except that he actually made Iran more dangerous, ignored threats from other sources, hurt our standing with our existing allies, and drove up the recruitment amongst our growing enemies. In short, he made us less safe. And while some point to the fact that we haven't had an attack since 9/11, the fact is that 9/11 happened on his watch, and that the last attack on our soil was more than 7 years before 9/11/01. And the span between that one and the one prior to it was considerably longer. So, really, 7 years without another attack is not that much of an accomplishment.
Then he told us about this great idea, "the surge." A move pushed for by left-wing generals long before his people advanced it. In fact, one general in particular retired after top Bush officials ridiculed him for saying (before the invasion even started) that we'd need more troops, and in particular, according to one of the most basic tenets he'd learned in training, we'd need more troops to occupy the country than we would to take it over.
Then he claimed we weren't torturing. Except we were.
Then he claimed that torture was giving us valuable information that we couldn't get any other way. Which... also not the case.
Oh, and let's not forget the whole situation with not giving our troops proper armor, not sending them the armored vehicles they needed to protect them from IEDs, ignoring the pre-war reports that an insurgency was likely to develop and that they would likely use IEDs, and all the troubles caused by using mercenaries to bolster our troop numbers (without raising the statistics on casualties and such, since they didn't officially count). Mercs who were paid considerably more than our soldiers, and who were much better equipped. Oh yeah, and sending our troops back in, or even refusing to let them leave (even when their contracts/tours were up)... even when they were suffering from major bouts of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Just give them some happy pills. They'll be fine.
Is there anything done right in this whole war? If there was, I missed it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
If it ever does end...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Sorry, I had to giggle at this just in the context of interrogating a terrorist. It just blows my mind to try and understand hate, but I'm sure someone has to in order to get anything accomplished. One of my dad's doctors that he trained used to work in Guantanamo Bay, and he used to tell others just unbelievable stories of the pure hate that exists there. 2000 years of bred hate. Anyway just some things I'm thinking about...
And as far as Iraq goes, all the military in my family says, "When we're attacking them, they're not over here attacking us." :P :P
This isn't entirely related, but I've been thinking about a conversation I had with my uncle on various topics. I side with my uncle in that one man doesn't run a country, but we seem to blame Bush for a lot of things. When Obama makes his mistakes, as all presidents do, will we blame him, or will we blame his advisors that he says he's so interested in for their advice?
From:
no subject
A friend of mine met a couple of young Arabs a while back and they took him back to show him "the truth." (Luckily, they never learned the actual truth that he was Jewish...) They told him, with complete conviction, that "Pepsi" stands for "Paying Every Penny Supports Israel." And they showed him a bunch of poorly photoshopped pictures of Arabs being abused and murdered... pictures which they firmly believed were real.
If you show them that we're not really like that, that things don't really work the way they're told... they can start to doubt, and then to cooperate. That's what Alexander, an actual interrogator with years of military experience, is saying. And he's made it happen.
No, you won't be able to do it all the time. No, a few hours of friendly chat won't always lead to a major bust. But it's more productive than the alternative. And, unlike the alternative, it doesn't serve to fill others with hate, fear, and anger... giving us more enemies, and making the ones we already have more firmly entrenched.
As for "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"... I've heard that one. It's not an easy theory to prove or disprove. But it doesn't hold much water with my gut. And the number of reports that have come out (from our own intelligence service and elsewhere) saying that, in fact, we have more enemies now and are less safe than before the war would seem to bear that out. We've driven up enemy recruitment by proving the propaganda right.
As for blaming Bush... he's probably taken more heat than he truly deserves. It's a risk of being a visible figurehead. But... he does have a lot of power. An unprecedented amount, actually, thanks to his administration's constant grabbing of unconstitutional levels of power. If Bush himself isn't personally responsible for everything that's gone wrong, a lot of what he isn't directly responsible for happened because of his choices... the people he picked to do the jobs, the directives his staff gave them, the license he allowed them, and the rewards and punishments they doled out.
As for Obama... he'll make mistakes. Of course he will. He's said so himself. But I believe he'll do something that Bush hasn't once done... he'll admit to them. And, instead of pretending that they don't exist and that he made the right choices, he'll work to fix things.
But yes, he'll be held just as accountable for those mistakes. The liberal media has already begun to question his decisions. Are his cabinet appointments too Clintonian? Is he delivering on his promises of change, or is it still politics as usual? And what about all the appointees who are on record as disagreeing with him on key points? Nice in theory, but will that make them (and his administration) less effective?
The tough questions are still being asked. But it still seems like he's done more good in a month of being President-Elect than Bush has in 8 years of being President. At least, it does to liberal old me.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject