Much is sure to be made of the Surgeon General’s report on the mental health of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. If you go to the PDF version of the report and flip to the "Battlefield Ethics" section, you’ll find some details that some news reports are glossing over.
After the accounts of the massacre at Haditha and other distressing incidents involving U.S. troops, I often read or heard war apologists insist that 99 percent of our troops would never do such a thing, or cover it up. It appears that that assessment was way off.
According to the report, only 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of Marines agreed that "noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
The report states that "well over a third of Soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed, whether to save the life of a fellow Soldier or Marine (41% and 44%, respectively) or to obtain important information about insurgents (36% and 39%, respectively)."
Most of the news reports I’ve seen are trying to soften the blow of this information by reporting only the "save the life" angle. It creates the impression that more than 40 percent of the troops would only favor torture in the direst of circumstances.
The media is soft-pedaling the finding that a somewhat smaller proportion thinks torture is acceptable even if only to obtain "important information about insurgents." A whole lot of information about insurgents could be considered "important." In fact, when in the history of military interrogation has anyone tortured a captive to learn trivial information?
Equally troubling, only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of Marines said they would report a member of their unit for "injuring or killing an innocent non-combatant."