(cross-posted at The Crossed Pond. The writing is geared for a more conservative audience (so forgive the falling-into of vernacular like "Islamofacism", which annoys me too), but the message, I think, is for everybody. Nevertheless, I'm still preaching to the unconverted, so excuse the right-lean of some of the language and references).
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters flags a WaPo article about a new report by the Army surveying its troops and their feelings on torture and respect for civilians in a war zone. Morrissey chides the WaPo for its negative characterization of the report (the WaPo headline "Troops at Odds with Ethics Standards"), instead preferring his own half-full perspective. Me, I think the report is a much more mixed bag than either are admitting to. It's the sort of report that people on either side could take either way, and the truth, as it often is, strikes me as a lot more thorny.
The Bad: A third of troops "believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents". Four out of ten "approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier".
That is indeed disturbing, and a much more serious issue than Morrissey allows it. However, he is right to note that that would probably mirror about how civilian Americans view the issue back here. Of course, the difference is, we don't have access to supine Iraqis, a reason to believe any given one might have information, or the power and wherewithall to torture them. Frankly, I'd almost rather 49% of Americans believed in torture, and 5% of troops, as far as that goes (just so long as that 49 never hits 51). A third of troops is a big, big problem, particularly when any given one of them can act on it, and it really only TAKES a very small number to create an international incident that vitally threatens our ability to fight and win the War on Terror. The Army, in commenting on this report, notes that it's actually a good thing that so many of our troops believe in torture, and so few seem to practice it. That's both correct and obfuscatory at the same time.
There is NO greater threat to our ability to win the war against Islamofascism--not car bombs, not lazy Iraqi politicians, not material support from Iran, not Democrats in the legislature, nothing--than global to-the-bone PR victories for Islamic fundamentalists and the ensuing irrevocable losses of the moral high ground for us on the level that a single torture incident can create. Bottom line, exclamation point. The greatest obstacle to our victory in Iraq and anywhere else is and always has been us, first and foremost.
(Also in the "bad news" category is the 10% of soldiers that say they have mistreated civilians or destroyed property in the course of doing their duty. Here, I side with Morrissey however; I don't think kicking a civilian in a raid or breaking down a door or overturning a table or what have you belongs on the same level as torture. I don't think it should be glossed over either--and commanders on the ground, as they always do, have to work hard to maintain the strictest discipline they can get out of their troops on such things. But, Morrissey is right that we're not talking about the same thing when we're mixing that in with torture or "coercive interrogation". It's not to be dismissed, and probably has some relationship, but for now, that finding belongs in a separate discussion, one of stricter discipline and a change-of-emphasis in the Army's operational execution (the related finding, that 2/3s wouldn't report a fellow soldier for engaging in such behavior, is equally problematic and equally one we can set aside given the mushy wording and lack of clarity in what's being asked about. The Report would have been much more interesting had it asked that question more pointedly, in regard to torture specifically).)
The Good: By extension, a solid 2/3s of troops do NOT believe torture should be allowed, and a solid majority holds that, even in cases where such illegal abuse would save the life of a fellow soldier, still no.
I take issue with the wording of the question--it remains, as it always has been a false choice, this "torture, or don't get the vital information you need that could save the lives of your fellow troops". Maybe, after asking the question, the pollsters could have given the soldiers the AMPLE opinion of some of the greatest military leaders--current and all time--that torture simply IS NOT an effective way of gaining information PERIOD in wartime (particularly in religious wars). This is not an issue the jury is still out on when it comes to the opinions of the most senior level militarymen, the most trained and effective interrogators, or the people who love the armed forces and pine for their successes the most. That point needs to never get lost in any discussion of this issue.
What's good about it--but still equally problematic to the pro-torture folks (and I'm not pulling punches in that designation anymore)--is that, as has always been the case, the people closest to the conflict are the people least likely to agree with the pro-torture position. It's problematic because, in Morrissey's post, he forgets for a second that he's been part of the echo chamber that, at worst, calls for the de facto (or explicit) legalization of torture, and at best, wants a kind of national, codified looking-the-other-way on it. Here's the rub: THE MILITARY DOES NOT WANT AND IS NOT ASKING FOR YOUR HELP. This is an extension of the point in my last paragraph, in part, but is really part of a larger issue (that my discussions of "war hero Republicanism" also gets at).
Namely, there is much talk on the right of "letting the soldiers/brass do what needs to get done", and yet, time and time again, it isn't about that at all. It's about letting egghead civilian safe-at-home Republican hawks foist their own conceptualization of War and Peace onto the military and policy architects, whether, frankly, they want it or not. That comes in all shades, from saying "let's listen to the generals" and then pointedly NOT listening to any that don't say what you want to hear, to "these guys know what they're doing in interrogation, we need to get out of their way" and then sending in civie-inspired lickspittles to train them or, in many instances, take over for them, to "let's let the troops do what needs to get done, because we need to not tie their hands when they could get vital information about the insurgency or save the lives of their fellow soldiers," when a solid majority, six out of ten, of those soldiers say "I would not truck with torture even in cases where I could get vital information or save lives". Who, then, are pro-torture Republicans speaking for?
They are speaking for themselves, and themselves always. That has always been the case.
The Ugly: "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
That's the finding that should give the most worry, and which frankly is nearly impenetrable for me. Even recognizing that war is a process, for the boots on the ground, that (some might argue necessarily) dehumanizes the enemy we are, again, fighting a war less about tactics and military success/failure and much more about culture, perception, PR, and contrary views of humanity and freedom.
To that end, perhaps, what it really speaks to is even more fundamental, something that the torture issue generally gets at as well (but in a broader way). Namely: the military is an extension of the United States of a very particular sort. Its job is to engage with an enemy armed forces, and to defeat them. End of list. What some very small, very ignored voices within the conservative party have been saying for awhile now--you heard Dr. Paul speak it at the debates this week, to a decidedly cold shoulder--is that it is not the job of the military to nation-build, to keep peace, to enforce law, to build governments, to build goodwill and culture. Not only is the military unsuited for it, but they are bad at it (which is not the fault of the individual soldier, of course, but due to the fact that it is not what the military is for, it is not what it is structured and designed and drilled to do). A process and mindset that generates or even necessitates a degree of dehumanization is not just poorly designed for, but almost working at cross-purposes to, the goal of democratization and liberalization which is, if anything, a process of humanization.
The torture issue should not be ignored, not by a longshot, but it might not even be the real story of this particular report.
And, one final note on the Army Report that bears highlighting. It's not a "sexy" finding or one easily parlayed into partisan gotchya-ing (what the WaPo and Morrissey seem more inclined towards), but it's heartbreaking just the same.
"The Army is spread very thin, and we need it to be a larger force for the number of missions that we were being asked to address for our nation," Pollock said.
The authors of the Army document argued that the strains placed on troops in Iraq are in some ways more severe than those borne by the combat forces of World War II. "A considerable number of Soldiers and Marines are conducting combat operations everyday of the week, 10-12 hours per day seven days a week for months on end," wrote Col. Carl Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, both psychologists. "At no time in our military history have Soldiers or Marines been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of 6-7 months."
And although U.S. casualties in Iraq are far lower than in the Vietnam War, for example, military experts say that Iraq can be a more stressful environment. In Vietnam, there were rear areas that were considered safe, but in Iraq there are no truly secure areas outside big bases. "The front in Iraq is any place not on a base camp" or a forward operating base, the report noted.
Compare the beginning of that blockquote to the end (and the second page of the WaPo article), and the problems in Iraq are clear and unmistakable. We're asking more of our individual soldiers than we have any right to. We're asking more of our military than they are capable of. And even in so doing, victory in any military sense of it in Iraq may very well not even be possible.
The strain, which these findings only scratch the surface of, is enormous.
Kudos, by the way, to Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., now chief of staff for the Army, for tailoring this survey to look at these things, and to specifically include questions of how his men view the enemy and what they deem acceptable in terms of engagement and ethics. We have much to learn from it.