After some private discussions with Paul of Arms Control Wonk, it occurred to me that the issue of how prisoners are treated in Gitmo revolves around the following question:

Does the value of intelligence gathered through using physical coercion to interrogate prisoners outweigh the harm caused by reports of "torture" being used as morale-boosting propaganda by the enemy?

And after phrasing it that way, I realized that I'm probably one of the least-qualified people on the face of the planet to answer that question.

Why?

Because I have NO idea what value to place on the intelligence gathered from the terrorists. I don't know what the prisoners are saying. I don't know how the information is being used. And even Pentagon decision-makers can only guess at how many lives have been saved by acting on this information.

On the second half of the question... good luck attaching numbers to the value of morale. The best you can do is guess whether it's trending up or down over time.

So I don't know the answer except to say "it depends". There are people in Washington being paid good money to have a better answer, and for now I choose to trust their judgment.

However, I do know this: every report of "torture" that reaches the enemy has propaganda value for them, improves their morale, costs American lives, and makes it harder for the US to answer "yes" to the intelligence vs. propaganda question.

Some liberals would probably justify their "unintentional" propaganda-spreading by saying "we're not trying to undermine the war effort. We don't intend for any more Soldiers to die. Our target is the US government. We just want to make "torture" an unattractive policy position out of concern for the broader ideal of human rights."

But regardless of their intentions, they ARE undermining the war effort. So the "stop the torture" crowd has its own question to answer:

Does the value of protecting the human rights of non-US-citizens outweigh the increased death toll on US soldiers due the increased morale of the enemy?

Stretching my imagination a bit, I could see myself answering "yes" IF the US government were condoning the physical mutilation or murder of innocent Iraqi civilians on a massive scale.

Of course, if that were true, I'd be ashamed to call myself an American, and I'd move to a civilized nation to apply for citizenship. Same reason Einstein left Germany in 1932.

But to answer "yes" when the balance is "discomforted terrorists" vs. "dead Americans"? AND still live in this country and call myself an American?...

Sorry, my imagination doesn't stretch THAT far.

But I'm not asking anyone to leave.

What I *am* asking is simply this:

If you're going to publicly oppose the government's actions, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that there IS a price to be paid for doing so, that you're willing to ask American Soldiers to pay it, and that you're willing to accept the consequences for doing so.

Now, to be fair, I'll admit that - because of the physical coercion techniques being used - the "torture" propaganda has more power to increase enemy morale than it would have if no physical coercion were being used at all. This will cost the lives of American Soldiers on the battlefield.

I am willing to ask them to pay this price because I believe that - in the long run - it will save more American lives than it costs, and I accept the consequences of my choice.

Your turn.

Posted by: Harvey at 02:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.