Sow the wind, reap the hurricane -- Blowback Revisited

November 3, 2005 11:10 PM

President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, once asked of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” Today, the Bush administration is implicitly arguing a similar point: that the establishment of a democratic Iraqi state is a project of overriding importance for the United States and the world, which in due course will eclipse memories of the insurgency. But such a viewpoint minimizes the fact that the war in Iraq is already breeding a new generation of terrorists. The lesson of the decade of terror that followed the Afghan war was that underestimating the importance of blowback has severe consequences. Repeating the mistake in regard to Iraq could lead to even deadlier outcomes...

Blowback Revisited
Rest assured, torture is a gift which will keep on giving back to us--for years.
posted by y2karl (21 comments total)

Some of the detainees, such as Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, are indeed reported to have been tortured in custody. Many are said to have provided valuable intelligence, intelligence that has foiled plots and saved lives. Some are said to have lied under duress to please their captors. (Ibn al-Shaikh al-Libi apparently fabricated the claim, then relayed by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, that Iraq had provided training in 'poisons and deadly gases' for al-Qaeda.) The United States has acknowledged the detention of many, but not that of others. The one thing all the detainees have in common is that the United States has refused to disclose their whereabouts and has refused to allow them access to their families, lawyers or the International Committee of the Red Cross.

These are not nice men, to say the least. They are alleged to have committed the most diabolical criminal acts. Why, some have argued, should we care about what happens to them? First, because despite the life-saving information apparently gleaned from some of these suspects, overall the U.S. treatment of its prisoners has been a boon rather than a setback for al-Qaeda and has thereby made the world less safe from terror. As the 9/11 Commission recognized, 'Allegations that the United States abused prisoners in its custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the government will need.' Second, because the U.S.’s torture and 'disappearance' of its adversaries invites all the unsavory governments in the world to do the same--indeed countries from Sudan to Zimbabwe have already cited Abu Ghraib and other U.S. actions to justify their own practices or to blunt criticism.

But the primary concern must stem, first and foremost, from the acceptance of methods which are antithetical to a democracy and which betray the U.S.’s identity as a nation of law. For al-Qaeda, the ends apparently justify the means, means which have included smashing hijacked planes into buildings and bombing train stations and places of worship. The United States should not endorse that logic.

Human Rights Watch: The United States’ 'Disappeared' - The CIA’s Long-Term 'Ghost Detainees'

Forced to stand on a box with wires attached to your fingers, toes, and penis all night long. Just something that Specialist Sabrina Harman dreamed up in Abu Ghraib prison? Think again.

This torture is well known to intelligence agencies worldwide. The CIA documented the effects of forced standing forty years ago. And the technique is valued because it leaves few marks, and so no evidence...

In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Wolff and Hinkle, who described the effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their size within 24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate increases, and some victims faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.

Forced To Stand: An Expert Torture

This paper draws on my forthcoming book, Torture and Democracy (Princeton 2005) that explores the disturbing implication of the truth that we are less likely to complain about violence committed by stealth. Indeed, we are less likely even to have the opportunity to complain. I use we to refer to modern democrats. Dictators generally have no interest in violence that leaves no marks; intimidation may require that bloody traces be left in every public square.

Stealthy torture is more characteristic of democracies for here public monitoring--though often uneven--is far higher, and the demand for covert violence correspondingly greater. The logic of this dynamic, of the incentives and disincentives created by the tensions between authority and civic power, is certainly thoughtprovoking in itself. But I go farther, arguing that, historically, civic power and violence by stealth have an unnerving affinity. Many common tortures today either originated in democracies or achieved their most characteristic form in that context.

Torture and Democracy Abstract by Darius Rejali, who also wrote Torture's Dark Allure and Does Torture Work ? for Salon as well as--

Torture cannot be rare. All the historical evidence indicates that occasional torture inevitably slides into more extreme, routinized systems of torture...

Torture cannot be done professionally. To think that professionalism is a guard against excessive torture is simply an illusion. Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram has shown that professionalism can serve to excuse ever more violent behavior, and Union College sociologist Martha Huggins brilliantly debunked the myth of professional torture in her award-winning book on Brazilian police torturers.

Torture does not yield any better results than regular interrogation. In the 1940s, the Supreme Court prohibited police from applying physical pressure on suspects. If torture was effective, U.S. crime rates should have risen after that. They did not. Police manuals taught a new range of psychological techniques that were just as effective, as Philip Zimbardo at Stanford has shown. "Tortured confessions are notoriously unreliable," says Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "People will say anything under torture."...

Torture cannot be done safely. For 50 years, physicians have gathered extensive clinical evidence showing the effects of torture. Torturers and their victims are left damaged and traumatized, their families broken or seriously warped. Many forms of torture leave no visible marks for the media to publicize, but the psychological trauma and scarring is well documented.

Advocates of legal torture like to ask: Would you not torture if you knew this man had information that could save lives? If torture does not work, if it cannot be rare, safe or professionally administered, this argument never gets going. Choosing to travel by car or plane is not a choice if the plane can't even get off the ground.

and Torturing Can't be Defended, Doesn't Even Work

See also The Question of Torture & Julia Lesage's Abu Ghraib Links
posted by y2karl at 11:12 PM on November 3, 2005

I really appreciate the effort you put into these posts, and I like your style and grace, y2karl. However, maybe you should post these links on a Monday morning. Statistics show it's the best day of the week for this kind of post.
posted by gsb at 1:40 AM on November 4, 2005

This was a great post, y2karl. I can't even begin to capture, in words, the depth of my horror that we could even be having this conversation about America.
posted by Malor at 3:02 AM on November 4, 2005

torture is a gift which will keep on giving

It seems obvious enough, yet falls on deaf ears in this admin. Have we no pride left?
posted by caddis at 3:42 AM on November 4, 2005

Paging dios, urgent torture defense required in aisle 46390.
posted by rxrfrx at 4:25 AM on November 4, 2005

Lovely as always Karl.
posted by wheelieman at 5:29 AM on November 4, 2005

This is a very well constructed cogent argument, per usual y2karl. Many of these points were made in a thread this week here in MeFi. I myself presented the blowback argument.

The only possible defense to these facts are arguments of faith, as in "I have faith that Dubya is doing the right thing."

I eagerly await our own local Defenders of Dubya and the usual contortions. [impatiently tapping foot]
posted by nofundy at 7:11 AM on November 4, 2005

FWIW, and I agree with the post, torture is first of all a moral issue, rather than a utilitarian one, and goes to the defintiion of who we consider human. People have always made a distinction between fully-human and less-than-equal-humans. The history of 'civilization' is in a sense the story of the expansion of who we consider to have the same rights as us: our family, our tribe, our nation, people who look like us, people who's language we can understand, men everywhere, men and women everywhere, children, poor people, etc.
Human Rights are predicated on one simple assumption: everybody is human. This includes dark-skinned people, people with strange religions, dissidents, people who don't pay their taxes, murderers, foreigners, rapists, terrorists, journalists and other people we don't like.
Human. Rights.
It's that simple.
posted by signal at 7:41 AM on November 4, 2005

A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)

U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq

"On their day off people would show up all the time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent.[1] In a way it was sport. The cooks were all US soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the fucking cook. He shouldn't be in with no PUCs."

—82nd Airborne sergeant,describing events at FOB Mercury, Iraq

"If I as an officer think we're not even following the Geneva Conventions, there's something wrong. If officers witness all these things happening, and don't take action, there's something wrong. If another West Pointer tells me he thinks, 'Well, hitting somebody might be okay,' there's something wrong."

—82nd Airborne officer, describing confusion in Iraq
concerning allowable interrogation techniques

Torture In Iraq
posted by y2karl at 8:13 AM on November 4, 2005

Another rendition of the if-we-were-not-mean-to-them-they-would-not-be-mean-to-us theory. Does not work in real world.
posted by StarForce5 at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2005

StarForce5: The point is not that they won't be mean to you anymore, the point is that you as a people can still look into your collective mirror and call yourself civilized.
posted by uncle harold at 8:43 AM on November 4, 2005

Re: Does not work in real world.

Elaine Scarry: One answer to that was given by a Colonel in the Air Force named Charles Dunlap, in a 1992 article in Air Force Journal. He talked about the fact that the United States has such vast military power that no country or group can confront it through symmetrical means, and therefore these other countries or groups have as their only option using asymmetrical, neo-absolutist practices, like breaking Geneva Conventions or using weapons of mass destruction. The import of the article was to say, we have to figure out how to keep using legal, above-board practices. In fact, he said even if we're attacked by Genghis Khan, we have to continue to be Sir Galahad, which not everybody will think is an accurate view of the United States. But what has happened is that the moment we were attacked with non-symmetrical neo-absolutist practices, we ourselves began to use neo-absolutist practices back, and that's the catastrophe.

Darius Rejali: So, does it work? Well, let me be clear. There are three ways you can use torture: to cause fear, to elicit a false confession, to get true information. Can organizations use torture to intimidate prisoners? Yes. Can organizations use torture to produce false confessions? Yes, absolutely, though it's hard. But these cases of torture working are not the important ones. The real question is whether organizations can apply torture professionally to produce true information better than other forms of intelligence gathering...

..."torture is the clumsiest method available to organizations to gather accurate information."

Don't take my word for it. That was a quote from a Japanese World World II manual for interrogation. It's possibly even clumsier, in some cases, than flipping coins or shooting randomly into crowds. The sources of error are systemic and ineradicable. We can go through the main examples of the apologists, the Battle of Algiers, the Gestapo, et cetera. But even in these ideal cases with generous assumptions, in operations in which information is gathered mainly through torture, we're talking about torturing and killing twenty innocent prisoners for every accurate hit on a guerilla or resistance organization member; not statistically random, but arbitrary in pretty much every other sense. That's your ethical choice.

The Question of Torture
posted by y2karl at 8:55 AM on November 4, 2005

StarForce5: Apart from that, the if-we-are-mean-to-them-they-will-not-be-mean-to-us doesn't make much sense either.

So if it's all the same either way, I conclude the remaining reason why torturing is a-ok would be "because we can".
posted by uncle harold at 8:58 AM on November 4, 2005

SF5: Define "they." The Iraqi's America is supposedly liberating? Or the ones being mutilated and killed?

The only time I'm tempted to employ torture methods (nothing beyond playing Toby Keith over and over) is when some asshat Amurican says "Why do they hate us?"
posted by bardic at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2005

Repeating the mistake in regard to Iraq could lead to even deadlier outcomes...

No question. The problem I have is with the tense of the sentence. The mistake has already been repeated and I don't think there is any "could" about it.
posted by spock at 9:27 AM on November 4, 2005

“The mistake has already been repeated and I don't think there is any "could" about it.”
posted by spock at 9:27 AM PST on November 4 [!]

Yes, but it could be remedied. It just hasn’t been. We’re still in this confused state which is really grinding the shit out of the ground pounders, because you can’t fight and win against guerillas without political support and maintaining order.

But of course, there are so many counterterrorism experts on Mefi who know that the best way to win hearts and minds and eliminate resistance is to torture the shit out of people, never minding they have families and friends and such - who really will shut up and behave if they know what’s good for them.

Yeah, that’s the best route to finding a guide in the field who won’t lead you into an ambush.
God, it’s so obvious to anyone who’s even been on an FTX that this is a complete dead end as a matter of policy.


Fucking idiots keep armchair quarterbacking with policies based half on fear the other half on ass.
We’ve got more than enough firepower and men to convert Iraq into a democracy given the policy is there.
Right now it isn’t.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:02 PM on November 4, 2005

uncle harry: I'm don't believe blowback theories in regard to terrorism. That does not mean I support torture. Blowback Theory and it's variant the Chicken Roosting Theory, suggests that were be no terrorism if all nations were isolationist. Not true. Shoplifters steal because they want to steal not because of the way the store operates.
posted by StarForce5 at 2:16 PM on November 4, 2005

Target Washington?
posted by homunculus at 4:21 PM on November 4, 2005

Shoplifters steal because they want to steal not because of the way the store operates.

This shoplifter disagrees.
posted by eustatic at 5:22 PM on November 4, 2005

Blowback Theory and it's variant the Chicken Roosting Theory, suggests that were be no terrorism if all nations were isolationist. [emphasis added]

Why does the world have to be black and white for some people?
posted by caddis at 7:09 PM on November 4, 2005

Not so much black and white as colorless and green furiously asleep in a bus station waiting room.
posted by y2karl at 9:22 PM on November 4, 2005