Learn From The Past--And, Then, Get Over It

Release the "atrocity" pictures! Don't release the "atrocity" pictures! Prosecute the "torturers!" Don't prosecute the "torturers!" Nancy Pelosi is a down-to-the-bone liar! Nancy Pelosi was the innocent victim of CIA misleading obfuscations!

Along with those battling slogans, buried in the midst of the shouts of accusation, is the single most important issue regarding "torture" or "enhanced interrogation techniques" or the commission of "atrocities." Also lost in the fog of accusation, counter-accusation, and tear filled wails over the (mis) conduct of US personnel both military and civilian is a single, unpleasant but very plain truth.

First, the issue which really matters. It is best put as a question: Does the mix of stress filled techniques reportedly used by American interrogators produce better, more accurate, more useful information in a more rapid way than methods which do not rely on physical pressures?

Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who worked the USS Cole bombing case among others, maintains that the measures used by CIA interrogators were inherently ineffective compared with other, less physically stressful means. Former Vice President Cheney vehemently disagrees with this. In the ex-veep's view the robust methods produced vital, life-saving, actionable information when milder techniques failed.

Unless and until the documents demonstrating the accuracy of Mr Cheney's perspective emerge, the Geek, using his direct and vicarious experiences, will have to lean toward the view expressed by Ali Soufan. There is, however, one very important caveat: The Geek never had to deal hands on with a hard-core leadership cadre from an Islamist jihadist group. Nor, has his years of research dealt in sufficient, verifiable detail with the experience of those who have had to interrogate Islamist jihadists.

The historical record coming from such venues as the Algerian War of Independence and the ongoing Israeli counter-terror and counterinsurgency efforts provide a very fuzzy image of mixed results. Indeed, one can find apparent support for both the Cheney position and that of former Special Agent Soufan.

For example, during the Battle of Algiers the French forces used genuine torture on a wide spread basis. The French methods went far, very far beyond those employed by the Americans. Arguably the extreme methods used by French troops did produce actionable intelligence. It is equally to be argued that the consequences of the use of torture outweighed, both politically and psychologically, what ever positive results may have been achieved.

Perhaps the most important unintended, perhaps even unforeseen consequence of the French use of torture was the erosion of support for continuing the counterinsurgent campaign in Algeria among the members of the French elite, the country's academic, press and political classes. The emergence of knowledge regarding the methods used by the Paras in Algiers ignited a fire of condemnation which in turn caused a further factionalization of public opinion both in France and throughout the West.

Another, almost as important a consequence, again neither intended nor, perhaps foreseen, was the "free pass" given to the Algerian insurgents, the National Liberation Front, for their use of torture, summary executions and indiscriminate lethal violence against civilians. This Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card looped together with the Algerian Arab Muslim population's increased willingness to side with the National Liberation Front's war of independence.

All in all the French military success in the Battle of Algiers, brought about in large measure through the vigorous use of intelligence obtained in part from the use of torture was more than offset by the loss of political will in France and the increase in political will among the native Algerian people. The Law of Unintended Consequences can assure that battles "won" can result in wars which are well and truely lost.

The former Feeb was, perhaps, warning of this possibility.

The possibility, battles "won" so that wars are lost, would be enhanced significantly by the release of the "atrocity" imagery sought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). The release would serve no useful purpose, despite the beliefs of these groups and others of like mind.

The release would, as SecDef Gates warned weeks ago and President Obama asserted yesterday, would cause an upsurge, quite probably of a dramatic sort, in actions against the US and its troops. Certainly, given the history of such triggering acts as the release of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison photos or even the Danish cartoons, the release of the currently contested images would make the tasks of bringing stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan much more difficult.

As was the case with the French in Algeria, these photos would serve to convince many to overlook the far, far worse violations of human dignity and rights committed on a daily basis by Taliban, al-Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist entities. The use of these photos to infuriate the easily infuriated people who have a desire to lash out at the Great Satan through martyrdom operations would be easy.

The net effect of any release would not only be more American deaths. No. The net effect would be the prolongation, perhaps the expansion of Islamist jihadist actions. This means, quite simply, a hell of a lot more death. A hell of a lot more fear. A hell of a lot more human misery. More deaths, more misery, more fear, more pure human suffering without any redeeming result.

The seekers after their version of Truth should consider these implications. This is particularly the case for outfits such as HRW which proclaim their concern for human rights, since the most basic right of all is the right to be left to live.

While either losing or refraining from exercising the "right" or, better, the desire to embarrass, to humiliate the United States may deny a measure of emotional satisfaction, it would have the benefit of saving lives, lessening fear, reducing misery. And, isn't that a higher goal than getting one's rocks off bashing Uncle Sam?

The sad, underlying reality which rests, unspoken under these photos is that in all wars, at all times, involving the soldiers and para-military forces of all combatants, atrocities have been committed. In all the wars of the Twentieth Century, the memoirs, the combat diaries, the oral histories of those at or near the sharp edge of battle are universally redolent of atrocities. No armed force has been immune to the killing of civilians, the slaughtering of those who have or are trying to surrender. None have failed to mistreat prisoners of war. None have been absolutely scrupulous in their observance of the laws, customs, niceties of war.

US troops have been no different from those of other nations. Yes, times and sensitivities of a culture, a society may change, but the actions of those at war change far less.

During World War II, no one objected to Life magazine having a photo spread which showed among other images, a picture of an attractive young woman writing a letter to her guy over in the Pacific area of operations. On her table was a skull. It was identified as the skull of a Japanese soldier sent to her as a token by the guy "Over There." There were few objections to this clear violation of the American Articles of War (and moral sensitivity.)

During the American effort in Vietnam there were rumors, reports and periodic photos of grunts with trophies. Strings of ears, fingers or other members retrieved from the bodies of dead Viet Cong or North Vietnamese troops were whispered about, talked of and photographed to the revulsion of a few, the anger of some and either indifference or flat out glee to many.

In both of these previous American wars, the atrocities and violations of law were balanced in the public mind by accounts of despicable behaviour by the opposition. It was not so much that two wrongs were seen as making a right so much as that the wrongs committed by Americans were more than overmatched by those committed by the enemy.

From all reports the images in controversy today do not come within long, long cannon range of the photos in Life magazine in WW II. There are none showing grinning grunts with a string of Iraqi body parts held out for the camera like a prize swordfish taken off Florida.

The problem comes in the lack of countervailing imagery. The photos of women disfigured by acid attacks, the mutilated bodies of Americans killed in action--or killed after having been captured by the Islamist jihadists. There are no photos of Iraqi men, now fingerless or (in a couple of cases) lacking lips because they had been caught in the sinful act of smoking.

Again the argument is not that two wrongs make a right. The argument is that war itself is an atrocity rich environment in which American and other Western forces are remarkably restrained even by the (sometimes) absurd standards of today--particularly as held by the Blame America First crowd.

ACLU, HRW and kindred groups want the pictures released to the world not because it will somehow serve truth and justice. It has been acknowledged that Americans who have been proved to have violated the Laws of Land Warfare, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, have been dealt with appropriately. Justice and transparency have been served.

A similar case can be made against the proposal that a "Truth Commission" be established to root through the "torture" allegations and defenses. No truth will nor can emerge from such an exercise. It would inevitably be incomplete since some, (most?) information which might be relevant to an inquiry must of necessity be classified. Without an absolutely, utterly full release of all data and documents, can the conclusions of any "Truth Commission" be evaluated, let alone trusted. (And, who can ever be sure that all relevant documents have been released?)

Any "Truth Commission" no matter how allegedly "non-partisan" would inexorably dissolve into the usual slinging of diatribes between "progressives" and "reactionaries." Only those hostile to the US and the West would benefit from the ensuing search for truth, accountability and transparency (to employ the customary buzz words.)

Embarrassing and humiliating the United States is not a worthy goal. Placing the troops of the US and its allies at greater risk for no reason beyond satisfying emotional needs or political agenda imperatives is not laudable. Provoking more violence, more death, more fear, more misery is not an appropriate activity for groups committed to the protection of human rights.

It is for many (including the Geek) unfortunate to leave the issues of "enhanced interrogation techniques" unaddressed in totality. It may be unpleasant to accept the reality that American troops can, on rare occasions, perpetrate actions which can be seen legitimately as atrocities.

But, it is important, very important, to recognise that US personnel and institutions learn from experience, admit mistakes, try not to repeat them. It is just as important to realise and even celebrate the vast gulf which separates our conduct of and behavior in war from that of the Islamists jihadists we oppose.