“Enhanced” Interrogation Undermines American Security and Violates Military Values
Guest post by J.F. Murphy
J.F. Murphy is a former Marine infantry officer and Iraq veteran who graduated from the US Navy’s SERE program. He is a fellow of the Truman National Security Project.
Given the many stumbles we have experienced in our fight against global terrorism, it is crucial that we get the current debate on effective interrogation methods right. As a Marine who both served in Iraq and graduated from the Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school, I believe that the “enhanced” techniques employed, which a reasonable person on both the American and the Arab street would think of as “torture,” following 9/11 actually endanger the lives of American troops while also betraying the endurance and sacrifice of American prisoners of war from past conflicts.
Such techniques compromise American troops fighting overseas, both providing a recruiting tool that swells the ranks of terrorist forces and potentially misdirecting intelligence resources along false paths. Moreover, using interrogation techniques culled from SERE training, a highly effective military program, fails to honor the courage and endurance of the American service members on whose experience the SERE is based.
As Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has pointed out, whatever intelligence may have been gained by enhanced techniques has been outweighed by the cost to our reputation, to our ability to win hearts and minds, and to our promotion of moderate voices in the Muslim world. Those who have served in Iraq experienced these costs in blood, as the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay scandals prompted droves of angry young men to take up arms and join the anti-American insurgency. There is little reason to believe that subjecting terrorist operatives to cruel, inhuman or degrading practices, yields more or better intelligence than other methods.
Those who defend the use of overly aggressive methods assert that the only pertinent question is whether or not useful intelligence was collected. Just as important however is whether false intelligence has been obtained. If these interrogations produced false intelligence that led us astray and diverted resources in Iraq, Afghanistan or globally, then these methods are worse than inefficient; they are counterproductive and ultimately undermine our national security.
Take the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who described to his Egyptian captors a false link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in order to avoid torture. Torture arguably contributed to the creation of a false premise that led us into an unnecessary war, distracting us from locating and destroying the real terrorist threat in Afghanistan.
As for the military’s various SERE programs, they are predicated on the understanding that torture has been historically used and has proven most effective in producing false confessions, not effective military intelligence. Senator John McCain and many other American POW’s during the Vietnam War “confessed” to various war crimes after being tortured. It’s human nature to say whatever it takes to make the pain go away.
The military’s various SERE programs implicitly recognize that these methods are not effective in producing quality intelligence. SERE is an outstanding training experience, a physically and psychologically grueling program rooted in the inspiring story of the men who endured isolation, pain, and suffering at the hands of the North Vietnamese. It gives American service members the confidence, knowledge, and skills required to survive the challenges of isolation in hostile environments and avoid giving false confessions.
It is ironic to learn that the knowledge and experience embodied in the SERE program – which was used heavily by those officials who pushed for “enhanced” interrogation techniques – has been used in ways that ultimately make our nation less secure. This is a betrayal of the experiences and courage of the service members who endured torture at the hands of our nation’s enemies almost forty years ago.
And it’s a betrayal of our mission to vanquish the enemies we face today to use self-defeating techniques that swell the ranks of terrorist organizations, undermine our moral authority, waste our intelligence resources, and ultimately make the nation less secure.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to ““Enhanced” Interrogation Undermines American Security and Violates Military Values”
Mr. Murphy,
Thank you for your service.
As a fellow veteran, I’m trying to understand your point of view. If I understand your article correctly, you are making two points.
One – That enhanced interrogation techniques so offend the sensibilities of potential Islamic terrorists that they are more likely to join groups sawing the heads off of civilians if we continue this practice.
Two – That these techniques produce false information that we would blindly act on, instead of the true, actionable information as reported by 4 former CIA directors and National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair.
I’m sure you have a sincere belief that these interrogation techniques are torture and that the country would be better off if we didn’t employ them on the few high-value terrorists that were questioned this way, but I’ll go with the expert’s opinion. Let’s hope our new president comes up with an equally effective method to avoid attacks in the future.
What has become of us that this rational, measured assessment of national interests based on facts and personal and historical experience cannot instantly and once and for all clinch the argument (and here I fall prey to my pessimism which says, what with Former VP Cheney's bully pulpit and a bevy of Jack Bauer fans and all, that it won't) over torture? Torture isn't a “policy disagreement.” It is a national principle. As horrified as I am at our implementation of torture in this “brave” new world I am also aghast that we even have to engage the debate: “…o'er the land of the free and the home of the BRAVE.” What has become of us?
What Mr. Murphy actually said is:
“Such techniques compromise American troops fighting overseas, both providing a recruiting tool that swells the ranks of terrorist forces and potentially misdirecting intelligence resources along false paths.” He didn't say anything about ” sawing the heads off of civilians if we continue this practice.”
The terrorists have been sawing off heads long before torture on our part was revealed.
For every “expert” tha claims that “actionable information” was obtained through torture, there is another expert that claims just the opposite ( e.g. John McCain…and he should know)
“I'll go with the experts' opnion” Me too
Mr. Murphy, from another veteran, thank you for your service and thank you for expressing your experienced and honest opinion.
DE,
We’re going to work together on that reading comprehension problem of yours.
Don’t worry. Before long we’ll have you up to the 8th grade level.
JWest: “We’re going to work together on…”
JWest, Must you always go out of your way to come across as an ass?
SteveK, you're assuming he (JWest) has a choice in the matter.
You know, you’re probably right on this one.
Sometimes it just seems like D.E. and a few others here don’t even take the time to fully read a comment or they are just so set in their opinion of conservatives they come out with a totally different interpretation than what was written.
In this instance, I could have left the snark out.
jwest:
I'll ignore your personal insults. It comes with the territory, but I'll compare my English reading comprehension with you any time—and in Spanish, and in Dutch, and in German, and in French. And while we are at it, lets' compare academ ic and military service records, too. And most imporantly, let's compare manners and decorum, too.
Thank you, Sir
Dorian de Wind
The United States has been torturing “enemy combatants” at least since the Spanish-American War. And every president since, both Democrat and Republican, has allowed it. Obama is going to allow it to happen too.
Shivering naked, dog collared teenagers being urinated and defecated on, and sexually humiliated and degraded. That's what you are defending. Perverts. I wonder if jwest masturbates to the Abu Ghraib pictures.
RogerWilco:
Could you provide us with sources for your allegations?
Thank you
P.S. If in fact we tortured during the Spanish-American War, don't you think we have progressed at least a little bit since then?
You know, “we” owned African slaves at one time, too. And some even lynched people; also, up to very recently, we had segregation in our country…do I need to go on?
“A CIA inspector general's report from May 2004 that is set to be declassified by the Obama White House will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances with effective results.
On Monday, the Washington Post reported the impending release of a May 7, 2004 IG report that, the paper added, would show that in several circumstances the techniques used to interrogate terrorist suspects “appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture” and did not produce desired results. It is difficult, the report will conclude, “to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.”
Dorian,
I’ve reviewed your impressive resume and must assume that your lack of understanding concerning my comment was due to fatigue caused by overachievement.
By your answer, you are stating that Islamic terrorists who have no compunction about beheading people of different beliefs would be so shocked by waterboarding that they would be more likely to “torture”.
You have arrived at the nexus that most liberals eventually find when their beliefs are challenged – the point where your feelings and logic collide. Gumballs, rainbows and Unicorns have a hard time existing side by side with reality in a world where some think killing innocent civilians brings them closer to Allah. Considering your background, I would have thought that you had faced the situation where the responsibility for protecting lives conflicted with moral purity, but apparently not.
Today is not the day we find common ground.
Jwest:
Well, I assume that I shold be very grateful to you for, after condemning my reading comprehension level, now evaluating my background and impugning my
motives and even the situations I faced and decisions I made during my military service.
By the way, “Jwest,” my name is Dorian de Wind. Perhaps you can state yours so that we can discuss this person to person, rather than person to anonymous, incognito.
Dorian,
Impugning your motives, judgment and actions are an unfortunate consequence of responding to your views of the previous administration and conservatives in general.
By addressing each subject with the preconceived idea that those not on the left are evil, uncaring, torture-loving oppressors of the poor, you make it difficult to counter your arguments without pointing to the source of the viewpoints.
I notice you have been commenting under the D.E. Rodriguez name. You apparently had a reason for that and I respect it. For myself, I do business throughout the world with people who do not necessarily share my views. At some point in the future when I retire, I’ll be glad to comment under my name.
Mr. or Mrs. Jwest:
“Impugning your motives, judgment and actions are an unfortunate consequence of responding to your views of the previous administration and conservatives in general.”
That is quite refreshing to hear. So, if one doesn't agree with the views of a person, then it is perfectly OK to impugn that person's “motives, judgment and actions.”
“By addressing each subject with the preconceived idea that those not on the left are evil, uncaring, torture-loving oppressors of the poor, you make it difficult to counter your arguments without pointing to the source of the viewpoints.”
While I doubt that I have stated that “those not on the left are evil, uncaring, torture-loving oppressors of the poor,” if I had made such generalized implications, it is still does not call for you to make personal insults or to berate a person.
“I notice you have been commenting under the D.E. Rodriguez name. You apparently had a reason for that and I respect it.”
If you go back to my comments as far as you wish to go–and I know you have a higher reading comprehension level than my eigth-grade level–you'll find that I often sign my comment with Dorian or Dorian de Wind. No secret there.
“For myself, I do business throughout the world with people who do not necessarily share my views.”
What has happened to principles and the strength of one's convictions? I guess sometimes the interests of doing “business throughout the world” trump that.
“At some point in the future when I retire, I’ll be glad to comment under my name.”
Yes, please do that. Then we can continue this very intelectual debate.
For now, however, Mr. or Mrs. Jwest, I believe we have reached the end of a very enlightening debate.
Thank you
Dorian de Wind
Dorian,
“…….So, if one doesn't agree with the views of a person, then it is perfectly OK to impugn that person's “motives, judgment and actions.””
You don’t agree with Dick Cheney’s views, but you feel perfectly OK to impugn his motives, judgment and actions concerning interrogation techniques, correct?
“…if I had made such generalized implications, it is still does not call for you to make personal insults…”
In the course of your “generalizations”, you don’t realize that by characterizing people on the right as evil, racist, uncaring, etc. it won’t be taken as personal? Perhaps in the circle of people you associate with it is simply understood that non-liberals are not “enlightened”, but when this attitude leaks out in your writing you shouldn’t be surprised when you are called for it.
“……you'll find that I often sign my comment with Dorian or Dorian de Wind.”
As I mentioned, I couldn’t care less what you sign your name as. It’s the content I take issue with.
You seem to have a hard time comprehending why someone in business would prefer to remain anonymous concerning political views. If you had, in fact, been involved in business at any substantial level I doubt you would have problem realizing the benefits of this.
Dorian, you can write, comment or respond as you see fit. It makes absolutely no difference to me. So now, as Glenn Greenwald’s sock puppet is fond of saying….
Good Day, Sir.
Wikipedia:
“cognitive dissonance: An uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The ‘ideas’ or ‘cognitions’ in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior.”
“True-believer syndrome is an example of immunity to cognitive dissonance.”
jwest:
“We’re going to work together on that reading comprehension problem of yours. Don’t worry. Before long we’ll have you up to the 8th grade level.”
-and-
“Mr. Murphy …If I understand your article correctly, you are making two points.
One – That enhanced interrogation techniques so offend the sensibilities of potential Islamic terrorists that they are more likely to join groups sawing the heads off of civilians if we continue this practice.
Two – That these techniques produce false information that we would blindly act on, instead of the true, actionable information as reported by 4 former CIA directors and National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair.”
J. F. Murphy:
“Such techniques compromise American troops fighting overseas, both providing a recruiting tool [note: link to Senate Armed Services Committee report with findings consistent with this position] that swells the ranks of terrorist forces and potentially misdirecting intelligence resources along false paths.” [note: no references to civilian-head-sawing-off-terrorists in the entire commentary]
-and-
If [IF – my emphasis] these interrogations produced false intelligence that led us astray and diverted resources in Iraq, Afghanistan or globally, then these methods are worse than inefficient; they are counterproductive and ultimately undermine our national security.
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair:
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”