by Eric Martin
William Lind explains why so much of the military's top brass (on down the line) oppose the use of torture. It's simple really: they want to win the wars they fight.
The recent fire/counterfire between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney over Guantanamo, the prisoners held there and techniques used in their interrogation revealed a distressing ignorance in the White House. Specifically, it revealed that Obama and his advisors are ignorant of military theory.
Cheney won the debate by drawing the usual Republican distinction, that between doing what is necessary for national security and being nice. If Republicans are allowed to frame the issue that way, they will always win. But in fact, theirs is a false position. We do not have to choose between doing what works in the “war on terrorism” and doing what is morally right. The two are the same.
The military theory that allows us to see this is the work of Colonel John Boyd, USAF. Boyd argued that war is fought on three levels: the moral, the mental and the physical. Of the three, the moral level is the most powerful, the physical level is the least powerful and the mental level lies between the other two.
Cheney argued that we should sacrifice the moral level to the physical. We should engage in torture because it may gain us information that could prevent another attack like 9/11. That could be the case.
But Boyd’s theory would respond that the defeat we suffer on the moral level by adopting a policy of torture will outweigh any benefits torture might bring us on the physical level of war. How so? By pumping up the “terrorists” will, cohesion and ability to cooperate while diminishing our own.
In effect, both our enemies and our allies will come to see us as evil. That enables enemies to recruit, raise money, and generate new operations while we must focus internally on papering over cracks in our coalitions. They gain greater harmony, while we face increased friction, Boyd’s dread “many non-cooperative centers of gravity.” They pull together, we are pulled apart.
For President Obama and other opponents of torture, the important fact here is that, if we understand what Boyd is saying, we no longer face the choice Cheney offered. We need not choose between doing what military necessity commands and acting morally. Military necessity itself demands that we act morally. The real choice is between doing what wins wars and loses wars, with Cheney arguing for the latter. Suddenly, it is the Republicans who are on the wrong side of the “national security” issue.
If given the choice between a policy that makes our enemies stronger and us weaker, or a policy that makes our enemies weaker and us stronger, I'll take the latter 10 out of 10 times. But then, I've got a competitive streak in me and I like to win.
"Cheney won the debate"? Really?
Posted by: kvenlander | June 05, 2009 at 11:22 AM
"Cheney won the debate"? Really"
Opinion polls around the following issues are depressingly tilted toward the Cheney argument:
-Closing Gitmo
-Moving prisoners to the US
-Torture
The debate's not over, but Obama should heed Lind's advice.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 05, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Silly Eric, how are we going to get them to love us if we can't torture them?
Posted by: Ugh | June 05, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I certainly hope the debate is not over. I think the Cheneyites are fighting a losing battle.
If only spineless Democratic congresspeople could bring themselves to publicly laugh at Republicans' equating "bringing detainees into supermax prisons" with "releasing superterrorists into Our Neighborhoods", instead of turning into puddles of rancid jello...
Posted by: kvenlander | June 05, 2009 at 12:21 PM
kvenlander: Agreed that the Dems need to meet this head-on. Which is what Lind is saying.
BTW: If you click on the link, he provides specific advice.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 05, 2009 at 12:29 PM
"If given the choice between a policy that makes our enemies stronger and us weaker, or a policy that makes our enemies weaker and us stronger, I'll take the latter 10 out of 10 times."
I believe Cheney defines "us" differently. He is fighting two wars: the foreign war against terrorists, and the domestic political "war" against the Democrats. For years torture was effective for his side -- in the latter war.
Posted by: ...now I try to be amused | June 05, 2009 at 12:53 PM
If only spineless Democratic congresspeople could bring themselves to publicly laugh at Republicans' equating "bringing detainees into supermax prisons" with "releasing superterrorists into Our Neighborhoods"
Why would they laugh at something they agree with?
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | June 05, 2009 at 12:54 PM
It's a mistake to think that the torture supporters (Democrats and Republicans) are amenable to reason. It's not about whether it works or doesn't work, makes it easier for our enemies to recruit foot soldiers (cannon fodder)or whether it's moral or immoral. Or even about wanting to win.
This is about belief, not facts. Their core belief is that you can and should beat people in doing what you want them to do.
You can't talk them out of it. They would rather lose than question their belief.
Posted by: zak822 | June 05, 2009 at 03:36 PM
"You can't talk them out of it. They would rather lose than question their belief."
We're not trying to sway the minds of the die-hards. But rather, the movable portion of the American population that is not committed.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 05, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Another important point Lind didn't get at is that effects on the moral level are much longer lasting and more difficult to reverse than the lower levels. Failure or success on the moral level carries over into future conflicts.
For decades to come preventing the torture of our captured troops by our enemies is going to be monumentally difficult and the brass know it.
Posted by: SeanH | June 05, 2009 at 04:01 PM
"Specifically, it revealed that Obama and his advisors are ignorant of military theory."
That's a bit of a leap, I disagree that Obama failed to make the points suggested, but even if he had, you could hardly know that the omissions were made out of ignorance. In fact, you'd be on firmer ground assuming the opposite (that he felt the argument wasn't persuasive or it prematurely ceded the framing to his opponent, etc.)
But as I said, Obama has repeatedly made the point that, the moral choice is self- justifying, that it also carries with it the tactical advantage, is a bonus. Cheney may have won the news cycle, but the foundation of falsehoods he built his case on is already crumbling. Cheney will slowly twist and bleed out while Obama goes about his business in a house of bricks.
Posted by: tirebiter | June 06, 2009 at 01:23 AM
"That's a bit of a leap"
Agreed. I think Lind pushes too hard on that point. But they were, at best, too reticent about pressing the relevant military theory.
"But as I said, Obama has repeatedly made the point that, the moral choice is self- justifying, that it also carries with it the tactical advantage, is a bonus. "
It needs to be made with more force, precision and volume. Obviously, if polls are to be believed, it has not yet sunk in. And the press sure isn't playing along. Yet.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 06, 2009 at 08:52 AM
I disagree with the " Moral Aspect" of winning war. We won WW2 by targeting civilians in Dresden and dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan with the clear intention of killing civilians. Although I support those actions lets not claim they were moral. Now those who want to male moral arguments against torture thats fair but those who claim torture doesn't work are not students of history or never pulled their sisters pig tails until she told where mom hid the Christmas presents. Read Medal of Honor winner Leo Thorsness book about his torture in Vietman. He said it worked.
Posted by: Dennis D | June 07, 2009 at 09:42 AM
Sean, since signing the Geneva accords in 1949 Americans have been tortured in the following events
1) Korean War
2) Vietnam
3) USS Pueblo incident ( Korea again)
4) U2 Spy Pilot Francis Gary Powers
5) Iraq in the Gulf War
6) Lebanon CIA Chief William Buckley
7) Countless unreleased incidents of CIA agents who have been tortured.
There simply is no evidence that maintaining non torture policies keeps Americans safer when captured. None.
Another important point Lind didn't get at is that effects on the moral level are much longer lasting and more difficult to reverse than the lower levels. Failure or success on the moral level carries over into future conflicts.
For decades to come preventing the torture of our captured troops by our enemies is going to be monumentally difficult and the brass know it.
Posted by: SeanH | June 05, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Posted by: Dennis D | June 07, 2009 at 09:52 AM