Torture in Iraq: Why we should not do it.

There may be tactical justification for torture in some cases, but it is almost never justifiable strategically. The US loses much more than a few points in world opinion polls. Some of the justification used is that it is necessary for key information, humane treatment won't work with zealots, and that the enemy does not respect the conventions, so we don't have to either. I don't believe these hold up against US strategic interests.

I think the main flaw with an eye for an eye attitude (that they don't comply with the conventions, so why should we) is the respective goals of the 2 forces in Iraq. Our mission is to stabilize and their mission is to destabilize. Torture and random killings is a great way to destabilize. It is not a great way to get a population to trust you to do the right thing, particularly when you are a foreign force. Humane, civilized treatment during the occupation in Japan was able to overcome even though there was a core group who were willing to be suicide attackers (kamikazes), and the Japanese Army was as ruthless as any in the last century. Certainly there was a higher percentage of Japanese who had lost a member of the family during WWII than is true in Iraq. Showing a humane face during occupation in my mind helped prevent long term insurgency within Japan, and allowed democracy to come to fruition. Japan certainly had the capacity to make that occupation miserable, but American forces did their best to not give them a reason to. The vast majority of Iraqis (according to polls) want to vote and have a government of their choosing. Keeping this majority on the side of democracy is the center of gravity for our mission, and losing it is losing the war.

Another argument is that humane treatment won't work to influence zealots. However, all accounts indicate that the people who are beheading and suicide bombing are a small group numbering in the thousands. The entire insurgency numbers around 200,000. It is the vast majority of the enemy that we would seek to influence, not the core group of zealots.

Rigidly applying the Geneva Conventions is a combat multiplier and saves lives. It aids in all future fights with the enemy. When the enemy is reasonably sure that he will be treated well when captured, he is much more likely to surrender rather than fight to the death. American casualties always mount during mopping up of enemy combatants.

Reciprocity is not a real issue. We don't want reciprocity for our combat effectiveness (though we would certainly appreciate it for captured soldiers). American soldiers know that they will be burned at the stake, beheaded, or dragged through the street if captured. Because of this, American soldiers continue to fight against incredible odds (think Blackhawk Down). If there was a reasonable expectation of three hots and a cot, and a later prisoner exchange, American soldiers in impossible positions probably would be willing to surrender. Instead they almost invariably fight to the death rather than surrender. This was not always true when fighting civilized enemies. Tthe treatment of American soldiers at the hands of various enemy forces has certainly cost America's enemies much more in lives in the long run than it has cost the US.

Now, the propaganda machines of the enemy can show what happens to those who surrender to Americans, just as our soldiers know what will happen to them if they surrender. Regardless of how often or how painful the treatment was, we know that some people were beaten and killed, and the enemy knows it as well. Many will likely to choose to fight and die rather than be stacked naked with electrodes attached, or beaten to death in prison.

The canard about getting information that will save lives fails to account for the reality that losing the combat multiplier of the Geneva Conventions costs more lives than whatever information gained is likely to save. Rooting out individuals from the rubble who might have otherwise surrendered but now prefer to die rather than be captured is the most intensive and dangerous fight we can face, and the most likely to continue to costs American lives. Think of Japanese sodiers in caves on Pacific Islands and the terrible cost in lives that we incurred. This is not going to be our last war, so even if it was true that in this circumstance torture and inhumane treatment would be more successful in ending the war or gaining key information, it does not account for the loss of lives in future wars due to the enemy not being willing to surrender for fear of expected treatment in American custody.

During the first Gulf War and in the early stages of this war, we saw that the Iraqi Army would surrender, sometimes en masse. Many of these same people are the ones we are fighting now. I believe that the potential of torture in American hands has changed this dynamic, and we will lose a lot of soldiers because of it.

Torturing prisoners is not only illegal and immoral: it is stupid, and harms US strategic interests far beyond public opinion polls.