| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| "I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq" | |
| 2008-11-30 | |
| |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #13 This phrase got me, "showing cultural understanding". How the hell do you show "cultural understanding" to people whose only reason for being is to murder and torture? I know one person who is still tortured by what he saw over there and it wasn't anything US troops did. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-11-30 18:04 |
| #12 This article is something of a red herring. There were several strands in the Sunni "insurgency" (ex-Saddam, holy warriors, Sunnis insulted by individual Americans, etc), and each needed a different interrogation method. The fact that some had legitimate grievences and could be "bargained with" to turn on Al Qaeda is something our generals were aware of, and is the origin of the Sons of Iraq. On the other hand, some "insurgents" were nothing but a bunch of serial killers masquerading as defenders of Islam. These guys can't be bargained with. A "one size fits all" approach will not work in Iraq or anyplace else. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-11-30 14:26 |
| #11 Steve, I agree food for thought if tyhe same shit hadn't been recycled through the MSM since 2005. The guy is obviously selling a book so I question his motivations. So I searched on a couple of his highlights and there are alomst word-for-word of other published articles. Check it out yourself. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-11-30 14:13 |
| #10 I think when we take options off the table and the enemy knows it then that is wrong. Each enemy combatant is an individual at the end of the and one must take the approach necessary to ween info. If that means giving them a sub sandwich and coffee to get info - then do it. If that means pulling out the waterboard - then do it. I don't think there is a one size fits all approach to gaining info, and therefore I disagree w/him in parts. However, I disagree w/anyone saying that we have to take certain options off the table. His plug at the end for Obama lost me - probably a big reason this got put into print - besides openly lambasting his senior leadership. His talk about foreign fighters coming to iraq after abu ghraib is non-sense - those assholes were there way before abu g. The beginning of his article talks about local sunni insurgents, I agree to a point, but then again understanding the motivations of the tribe was always the key. I agree in a sense that a lot of our sr leaders never grasped that, I was frustrated often w/the ignorance some of our field grades and flag officers showed to pegging this concept. I remember one of my CO's (thankfully now retired) openly disdainful of the iraqi cultural training package prior to us going there. I remember thinking, I can't wait to see this guy dealing w/the local strongmen. He'll set back relations 10 yrs. Bottomline is - anyway you can get them to playball, do so. |
| Posted by: Clererong Oppressor of the Algonquins aka Broadhead6 2008-11-30 11:59 |
| #9 Nobody seemed to mind much about Abu Ghraib when Sadaam ran the place. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-11-30 11:59 |
| #8 And I am shocked! SHOCKED I SAY! To find out that he's selling a book..... Seems to me that different prisoners might require different methods. For some waterboarding will turn the trick (and save lives...) while with others a 'softer' approach might be more effective. The trick is the know which is which. And no I am not an expert in this things either. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-11-30 11:57 |
| #7 Fisk away, OS, I'd like to see it. Seafarious is right: it's food for thought. There is one major point in this that rings true: that for some captured opponents, at least, getting into their heads, understanding how they think, and then using that as leverage to get information will work better than waterboarding or outright torture. I don't claim any expertise whatsoever in this. I don't claim to know when one should use what methods. I have the same discomfort about borderline tactics and rough handling of prisoners that any other sensible person has. Mr. Alexander lays out a cogent case. If there is someone here who can point out the problems with his thesis, than by all means, fisk away. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-30 11:26 |
| #6 Traitor or psycho not shure which. He is projecting himself into every front page story about abuse. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-11-30 11:18 |
| #5 So many ways this is off, I can hardly start - this needs a full fisking. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-30 10:28 |
| #4 I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Thank you, Main Stream Media, for conducting your feeding frenzy in public. I guess OBL's push to drive the infidels from the Land Between the Two Rivers had nothing to do with it. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-11-30 09:52 |
| #3 Nothing like having one's priorities right! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-11-30 09:31 |
| #2 I'm a liberal by the standards of the Burg and this to me smells of agenda peddling. I'll point out the main error of his position. What matters is results from interogations - I agree 100%. Some interogation techniques are counter productive - I agree, but which in what circumstances. His error is to assume his opinion about what is moral and what is effective constitutes evidence, and never mind proof. But then that pretty much defines a Liberal. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-30 07:47 |
| #1 Moonbats and Troofers have swarmed to the comments like moths to flame... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2008-11-30 04:04 |