Michael Yon on Torture

Michael Yon gives what I think is a pretty balanced take on torture.

Ideologies traffic in received ideas, which give people the illusion of thinking, without actually having to do the hard work of thought. Received ideas, like some religious and cult beliefs, are not challenged, merely accepted, and repeated until they become so important to those who hold them that to challenge these ideas would be to question one’s very identity. People who hold received ideas seem to feel personally threatened by the prospect of being wrong. Instead of reading and listening to possibly change their minds, they seek to reinforce the received ideas they already hold dear. On the Left, one received idea is that the Iraq War is lost. On the Right, one received idea is that torture is acceptable. The Left is wrong. We are winning the war in Iraq. The Right is wrong. Torture is unacceptable.

There is no way to know how many American lives were lost in Iraq due to the tortures we inflicted upon Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and other places. This is no argument of moral equivalence. I have seen the atrocities committed by al Qaeda and other terrorists, and I am not saying that Americans have ever come close to those acts. New Yorkers saw the atrocities of al Qaeda, as did many others.

Yet, when we tortured detainees, we lost something very important, something that America and its allies need in order to prevail against terrorists, not just in Iraq, but all over the world. We scarred our honor.

Torture works. There is no doubt that we can squeeze information from people. A lot of people say that information derived from torture is useless and suspect, and, of course, torture can make someone say anything just to stop the pain. But the fact is, torture does work. That does not mean we should do it.

And this is where I differ with at least one Human Intelligence Collector. He frames his argument as a "utilitarian" argument, and declares that Torture Doesn't Work. This is to be taken as received wisdom, and on the strength of this doctrine, torture is supposed to be completely beyond consideration.

But his "utilitarian argument" is only as strong as the data, and he has to explain away any and all contradictory data that pops up. Either the facts are being misinterpreted, or somewhere, someone along the line is misrepresenting them. The third option – that the reports are factually correct – is not to be considered. His argument loses its power as a result.

While torture might provide tactical gains, it delivers a strategic blunder. Let’s not argue whether it works or not. Let’s have the hard argument – whether or not it’s consistent with our values. We can obtain short term benefits from using torture, but in the long run we inflict far more pain on ourselves. The scars of torture never heal. Conversely, when detainees are treated with respect, they never forget it. Obviously, there are some hardcore prisoners who should be kept locked away until they die, but there is a much larger part who just want to go back to life without war.

Hint to certain Human Intelligence Collectors: Don't lie to me. Don't think you can build your case on a lie. It doesn't work, and it taints the rest of what you say, much the way torture taints the rest of what we do.