Hi there, !
Today Sat 01/15/2005 Fri 01/14/2005 Thu 01/13/2005 Wed 01/12/2005 Tue 01/11/2005 Mon 01/10/2005 Sun 01/09/2005 Archives
Rantburg
533683 articles and 1861904 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 93 articles and 523 comments as of 21:25.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Zahhar: Abbas has no authorization to end resistance
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
0 [1] 
0 [] 
14 00:00 Zhang Fei [2] 
3 00:00 2b [2] 
48 00:00 Glerens Thimble7229 [5] 
9 00:00 lex [3] 
3 00:00 2b [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
8 00:00 Hupereger Clish6229 aka Jarhead [11]
2 00:00 Aquadextrous [1]
5 00:00 lex [2]
0 [5]
23 00:00 Eric Jablow [7]
3 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom [4]
0 [5]
1 00:00 BH [3]
0 [2]
12 00:00 smokeysinse [1]
3 00:00 John Q. Citizen [5]
0 [2]
0 [2]
0 [2]
1 00:00 Shipman [6]
1 00:00 2b [2]
1 00:00 Mark Espinola [3]
0 []
7 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [4]
6 00:00 HV [2]
Page 2: WoT Background
2 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [4]
2 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [6]
0 [5]
4 00:00 Zenster [7]
0 [1]
4 00:00 Frank G [7]
84 00:00 Zenster [4]
8 00:00 Anonymoose [5]
2 00:00 lex [2]
17 00:00 OldSpook [9]
5 00:00 2b [5]
3 00:00 Shipman [2]
4 00:00 Prince Abdullah [2]
3 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [2]
1 00:00 Mrs. Davis [7]
0 [6]
3 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
3 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
8 00:00 john [1]
8 00:00 OldSpook [3]
1 00:00 2b []
8 00:00 Mrs. Davis [2]
7 00:00 jackal []
0 []
3 00:00 trailing wife [4]
1 00:00 Angitle Fleth2925 []
2 00:00 MacNails []
10 00:00 Shipman [1]
12 00:00 Phil Fraering [2]
3 00:00 Crusader [1]
2 00:00 smitty031 [1]
2 00:00 Liberalhawk [1]
11 00:00 Atomic Conspiracy []
6 00:00 Captain America [1]
10 00:00 Phil Fraering []
1 00:00 Don []
1 00:00 tu3031 []
0 []
2 00:00 Shipman []
31 00:00 OldSpook [2]
9 00:00 Crusader []
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [1]
0 [2]
12 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
2 00:00 Anonymoose [1]
0 [2]
3 00:00 Shipman [1]
5 00:00 Bulldog [1]
4 00:00 Frank G [2]
0 [2]
1 00:00 anonymous2u []
19 00:00 OldSpook [2]
0 [1]
13 00:00 OldSpook []
2 00:00 John Q. Citizen [4]
0 []
0 [1]
5 00:00 OldSpook [1]
3 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
10 00:00 Secret Master [1]
0 []
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
3 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom [3]
3 00:00 BigEd []
20 00:00 John Q. Citizen [3]
2 00:00 Laurence of the Rats [7]
1 00:00 Dar []
Home Front: WoT
The War Against World War IV
Posted by: tipper || 01/12/2005 19:04 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


The Torture Myth
From The Washington Post, an opinion article by Anne Applebaum
..... I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
I served under Col Rothrock in a HUMINT detachment in Munich in about 1982-83. Our detachment's wartime mission was interrogation. He made a great impression on me.

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 01/12/2005 8:51:01 AM || Comments || Link || [5 views] Top|| File under:

#1  There is considerable disinformation being bandied about on this subject. First of all, "torture" is the infliction of physical pain: beatings, heat & cold, electrical shock, etc. It is done for the sadistic enjoyment of the torturer, as it is poor for getting cooperation. However, there are an enormous number of other techniques that are far more effective. Still grotesque, they are not "torturous". For example, pharmacopia: heroin, truth serum, endorphine blockers, psychoactives, etc. Psychological "torture" that inflicts no physical wounds. Surgical modification and implants, from transmitters to high explosives. Drug-induced hypnotic suggestion. Many of these are horrific, but they are hidden from the public. Instead, a straw man is set up. "See, we don't use thumb screws, therefore, we don't torture." Also, Gitmo and Abu Gharaib serves as Potemkin villages of terrorist incarceration, a focal point for those opposed to US efforts; whereas the real activity happens in perhaps a hundred different locations around the world.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 01/12/2005 9:23 Comments || Top||

#2  blah, blah, blah. Nothing in here we didn't know already - that torture will get a suspect to say anything and we have better and more humane methods to do the same.

The article is interesting in that it shows how liberals will believe anything in print, no matter how counterintuitive as long as it disproves a BGO. It's part of their inability to grow up and stop raging against the machine. That article, the other day, that said you should just leave the decomposing bodies, was a classic example of the kind of tripe that liberals love to suck up. It goes against conventional wisdowm, and it's in print, so it must be true. Whoda thunk it! Wow! It must be true.

Mike apparently is such a brilliant genius that, if a gang broke into his house and stole his wife and daughter took them to an unknown location to gang-rape them, he would be 100% confident that these low stress methods of interrogation would work just fine, were the police to capture some members who knew where the evil deed was occurring.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 9:37 Comments || Top||

#3  MS and the WaPo? I'm convinced.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 01/12/2005 9:44 Comments || Top||

#4  They’ll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

isn't that the point of torture?
Posted by: anon || 01/12/2005 9:45 Comments || Top||

#5  Article: Worse, you’ll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity."

You mean they might actually douse Americans with gasoline, burn them alive and mutilate their corpses? Or cut the throats of civilian stewardesses on their way to killing thousands of non-combatant civilians? Wait a minute - don't they already do that?
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 10:10 Comments || Top||

#6  I think your on to something 'moose. I believe half the problem is defining what "torture" is and isn't. Techniques that you and I would whole-heartedly condone would prolly be considered torture by the average "sensitive" liberal. AFAIC you can chop their hands off, or threaten to kaiser sozei their entire family if it gets them to talk.
Posted by: Jarhead || 01/12/2005 10:11 Comments || Top||

#7  "Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die."

-wait, what's the statute of limitations? I want an investigation into this. How come you didn't provide proper medical care for that wounded prisoner colonel?? And you let that poor vietnamese father of the year witness that!? He may be emotionally scarred for life! I'm appalled.

/sarcasm off

Posted by: Jarhead || 01/12/2005 10:17 Comments || Top||

#8  'moose says, "It is done for the sadistic enjoyment of the torturer"

If we are going to ever allow REAL torture for the purpose of gaining important information, we should not allow sadists to conduct it. Sadists have the goal of their own pleasure. The goal should be to obtain information. It's a conflict of interest and counter-productive to allow sadists to do the job. Once it is determined that the investigator enjoys it, he should be fired. If you put people who are adverse to torture on the job, they use the least torturous methods that work. Allowing sadists to do it is like allowing sadists to conduct research on animals - it's not the cure for cancer that they are interested in finding.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 10:28 Comments || Top||

#9  Mike has apparently been ignoring the more reputable (and better researched) stories saying that absolutely no torture has been used by US forces. Go read City Journal, Mikey, and learn some facts.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 01/12/2005 11:02 Comments || Top||

#10  There are two things at play, here. The first is the ability of American leaders to scheme in more than a linear manner. That is, most people are only able to conceive of events as being like a TV show, in which someone runs into the President's office and says, "Mr Clinton, we have a problem" (that he has never heard of before), and then he has 50 minutes to solve the problem one way or another before the next problem. Then the problem is forever solved. They think that events are just a push-pull linear affair, settled as much by emotional charisma as by actions. Then there are the more complex thinkers who imagine complex "linkages" (Bush 1 expression) between events. And these folks can figure out scenarios like "If we want to fight Iraq, while insulating the world oil markets, but the French betray us, then how can we attack Iraq, prevent oil from skyrocketing, and stick it to the French for their treachery?" And linkages can get pretty complicated, if you consider the thousands of mutual agreements and activities going on at any given time between the US, France, oil, Iraq, and the rest of the world.
Last but not least, Bush 2 has been blessed with individuals as advisers who can take linkages to their 3rd dimension: historically and philosophically. This integrates linear actions with their linkages, and the history of these linkages, *and* the projection into the future of linkages. Plans that might consider events 200 years in the past, and project 200 years into the future. Add to that the philosophies of democratic revolution, CATO Institute economics, Neo-Conservatism and technological breakthrough, and you have individuals who can play several games of 3-D chess in their head at the same time. Perhaps the most intellectually formidable cabinet ever assembled.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 01/12/2005 11:06 Comments || Top||

#11  The *other* point was that "How many science fiction movies have you seen?" America has access to astounding, and sometimes horrific technologies that make "thumbscrew torture" as archaic as it sounds. Psychotropic drugs, endorphine blockers, surgery, etc. There are no practical limits. If they don't know anything, what is to stop us from implanting a transmitter in them, then letting them go? What about implanting a C-5 explosive charge the size of a marshmallow in them that can level an apartment building? Turning them into drug-induced-hypnosis assassins? A chip that will make them think God is talking to them? Chemical tags secreted by their sweat so that anything or anyone they touch is marked? Genetic modification? What of this is "tortuous?"
Posted by: Anonymoose || 01/12/2005 11:16 Comments || Top||

#12  Good posts 'moose. I like the non-linear vs. linear concept - well said. Wheels within wheels, what effects one part of the spider's web ripples other parts as well. As for the techno advances and using them on terrorists, I'm all for anything that has good chance of producing results.
Posted by: Jarhead || 01/12/2005 11:29 Comments || Top||

#13  If the author is suggesting that torture doesn't work...well...fine, so be it. In that case I have to question why bother to take prisoners alive?
Posted by: Mark Z. || 01/12/2005 11:38 Comments || Top||

#14  2b: If we are going to ever allow REAL torture for the purpose of gaining important information, we should not allow sadists to conduct it. Sadists have the goal of their own pleasure. The goal should be to obtain information. It's a conflict of interest and counter-productive to allow sadists to do the job. Once it is determined that the investigator enjoys it, he should be fired. If you put people who are adverse to torture on the job, they use the least torturous methods that work. Allowing sadists to do it is like allowing sadists to conduct research on animals - it's not the cure for cancer that they are interested in finding.

People need to enjoy their jobs. If you send in people who are horrified by torture, you end up with head cases who go insane and become less and less effective as the war goes on. The correct way to implement torture as an investigative tool is to require specific authorization before it is employed. We don't authorize our investigators to summarily execute people on their say-so, or conduct bombing missions without specific authorization and we shouldn't do that either for torture. Torture sessions should be filmed in order to avoid abuses. Ultimately, however, the investigators who are authorized to employ torture - on a case-by-case basis - need to be people who won't go nuts because of the methods used. And this means that we need to employ people who enjoy the work, just as we employ soldiers who enjoy combat, but will use their skills only when authorized to do so.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 11:43 Comments || Top||

#15  Torture: "It was just a flesh wound." Monty Python
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 11:54 Comments || Top||

#16  Sadist or not, it doesn't matter - the key is measuring output. If a sadist gets more weapons caches confiscated and terrorists arrested, then he is the person to put in charge of extracting information from captured terrorists. Someone with a high rate of torture and a low rate of success needs to be reassigned. Again, it's all about measurements. Anyone who engages in unlawful torture, i.e. torture without authorization should be prosecuted in the same way as anyone who engages in unlawful killing.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 11:56 Comments || Top||

#17  True ZF, it boils down to efficiency & professionalism as in any field of work. Usually the shit birds in any organization can be quickly identified and removed. Such is life. Follow the sop's, produce results.
Posted by: Jarhead || 01/12/2005 12:02 Comments || Top||

#18  Before ruling that torure is counter productive, let's first try the real thing, cross reference the intel, and compare the results (speed and quality) with current methods of asking the terrorists nicely. Do not ever forget these "people" would not hesitate to genocide us in a minute if they could.

I have no need to respect the sensitivities of those who commit mass murder as shortcut to despotic power or a moon god ruled paradise with them as the interpreters of allah's desires. I also have no respect for those who would execute captured reserve Specialist Keith Malpin (Iraq) or Colonel Higgins (Lebanon). How many of you saw the body of Col. Higgins hanging from a rope after more than a year of torture by Hezbollah and the Iranian secret services?
http://operationhiggins.org/
On February 17, 1988, a month and a half after taking command of UN Observer Group Lebanon, LtCol Rich Higgins was captured by Hezbollah terrorists.

At some unknown later date, he was murdered by his captors. During his time in captivity he was interrogated and tortured, and at one point, his captors announced to the world that they intended to try Colonel Higgins for war crimes since he had served in Vietnam.

A year and a half after he was taken, his inert body was seen on television screens around the world, hanging by the neck. It was to be more than two years later -- December 1991 - that his remains were dumped on a Beirut street, to be buried with full honors in the National Veterans' Cemetery at Quantico, Virginia.
Posted by: ed || 01/12/2005 12:12 Comments || Top||

#19  Outsource!
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 12:16 Comments || Top||

#20  Agreed Ed. What the msm or the world thinks matters little to me as well. What is the most effective means of saving American lives is my only concern. If we have to exploit a level of barbarism, horror, or trickery wrt interrogations no one has seen before in order to save Americans then I would do it without losing any sleep in an instant.
Posted by: Jarhead || 01/12/2005 12:16 Comments || Top||

#21  There is this straw man that the media are putting out - that torture is going to become the tool with which our boys lead when they deal with terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone will still be accountable for the unauthorized use of torture. Commanders who authorize torture frequently will need to show that their results are commensurate with the frequency of these authorizations.

Here's the reality - the fact that torture is permitted will help our people get results faster. They can play the good-cop, bad-cop game at a whole new level of intensity, because the terrorists now know that we can go all the way. The issue isn't confessions - we're not interested in having them fess up about their activities for a conviction before a judge. What we need to know is who their terrorist friends are and where they're located, information that rapidly becomes stale as soon as it spreads around that the subject being questioned has been captured.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 12:28 Comments || Top||

#22  It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity."

One of the problems with this premise is the seeming assumption that the enemy is already acting within generally accepted norms with regard to interrogation. They aren't.

The other problem is the manner in which we are painted into a corner where we lose, regardless of the circumstances. If we engage in torture it endangers our personnel because it encourages reciprocity, but the enemy has no such reservations, and would likely torture captured U.S. personnel anyway. And if a captured U.S. soldier were indeed tortured, we were to even think of returning the favor, there'd likely be a groundswell of suggestions and admonishments of "not stooping to their level", "makes us as bad as the terrorists", blah, blah, blah, and any terrorists we subsequently manage to capture would be spared any harsh methods of interrogation.

All this wailing about the use of torture and what might constitute torture, to me, is all wasted emotion. The enemy knows we can exercise restraint (they call it weakness), but they should also know that we should be willing to forego our self-imposed limits if forced to.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 01/12/2005 13:01 Comments || Top||

#23  OK people

The French Army didn't lose the Algerian war. It didn't because at one point its paratroopers, ie the people who had been captured at Dien Bien Phu, gained the upper hand over the "old army" (BTW, hundreds of those paras had volunteered for jumping into the Dien Bien Phu well after it became obvious that the surrounded stronghold was a deathtrap). Those guys were determined to use the methoids they had learned of their VietMinh opponents. For instance by denying to the ennemy Algerian's hearts and minds. By development actions or by educatig and freeing women. But they also found a situation where Algeraisn were more in fear of the FLN (who tortureed and butchered farms and villages) than of the French Army. As an example, FLN had ordered a shopper's strike and made clear what would happen at those disobeying the order. Captain Argoud reacted by having a light tank firing a round into a shop's iron curtain and after that everyone reopened in the town. That, agressive hunting of the guerillas (instead of remaining in static strong points like the old army did), insuflating "para spirit" into regular units when para officers were transferred (see what Bigeard did with one particularly mediocre draftee regiment) and getting info from captured FLN people. By 1958 the conventional guerilla was put on the ropes and urban terrorism nearly eliminated.

But in 1958 De Gaulle returned to power and he was determined to release Algeria. Reasons were:

1) France was paying a high political price as the last remaining colonial villain

2) Given the birth-rate of Algerians he foresaw a demographic colonization of France unless Algeria was let go: he told "Colombey of the two Churches will become Colombey of the two mosques" (Colombey les Deux Eglises was his house's place). De Gaulle didn't foresaw his successors would be foolish enough to let millions North-Africans to come to France and let them bring their families.

3) Dozens of former colonies (but with puppet governements) would give France more international weight, specially at the UN

4) He thought that Algeria was a dead weight: not only it gave bad habits to French companies who made profits from captive market instead of increasing competitivity but he thought that French enginees and money should go to design planes, satellites and computers instead of building roads and irrigation canals in Algeria.

That is why De Gaulle negotiated with the FLN despite this having beeen virtually wiped out.
Posted by: JFM || 01/12/2005 15:53 Comments || Top||

#24  One nice story of the Algerian War is how a French officer (one who had been trained as a commando by the British during WWII) managed for a batch of hand grenades falling into the hands of the FLN. Except he had ensured they would detonate prematurely. :-)
Posted by: JFM || 01/12/2005 16:07 Comments || Top||

#25  JFM: Given the birth-rate of Algerians he foresaw a demographic colonization of France unless Algeria was let go: he told "Colombey of the two Churches will become Colombey of the two mosques" (Colombey les Deux Eglises was his house's place). De Gaulle didn't foresaw his successors would be foolish enough to let millions North-Africans to come to France and let them bring their families.

This is why democracy and imperialism are incompatible, especially when the conquered outnumber the conquerors. In the final analysis, this is why Churchill had to let the Jewel of the Crown (i.e. India) go.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 16:16 Comments || Top||

#26  Anne Applebaum is usually a good and insightful writer in her area of expertise (eastern Europe), but her claim that there's "overwhelmingly negative evidence" is suspect.

She betrays her hand when she says "the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works." Far more typical is her mindset, which believes just the opposite: that torture never works, which is to say that democracies need not make hard, difficult judgment calls when dealing with savagely anti-democratic murderers.

I'll wait to see better and more detailed evidence than hers before I make up my mind on this one.

JFM, anyone else-- any links to studies or accounts of the effectiveness of torture, in Algeria or elsewhere, would be appreciated.
Posted by: lex || 01/12/2005 17:18 Comments || Top||

#27  It's a major DUH! that torture works. As they say...it makes them say anything. If they know something, it works. That it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff is all part of technique.

The bigger question is how often should we use it and are there other ways to get really good information that fit with our ethos.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 17:34 Comments || Top||

#28  It's just so liberal...the idea that you can wish that torture doesn't really work and it makes it so.

I'm torn on the use of torture, but pretending it doesn't work serves absolutely no purpose in the discussion.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 17:35 Comments || Top||

#29  2b> If you are to argue that torture *does* work, then please supply the facts that verify it. Saying that "it's a major Duh! that torture works" isn't an argument.

And then I'd also please need datapoints on whether torture makes informers more or less likely to report suspects. The question isn't *only* what info the torture itself provides, the question is also what the fact of torture's existence does to your alternate sources of information.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 01/12/2005 17:59 Comments || Top||

#30  OK, Aris, bring forth your own studies that show it does not work.
Posted by: lex || 01/12/2005 18:03 Comments || Top||

#31  I never argued that torture doesn't work.

I'm not certain whether it does or doesn't.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 01/12/2005 18:04 Comments || Top||

#32  2b, I agree with you. "Torture doesn't work" is one of the leftist narratives constantly being spewed until it is accepted as fact by many. Other examples include "the (1991) recession is the worst since the Great Depression" and "Republicans want to cut Medicare." My personal favorite is "nuclear power is inefficient and cost-ineffective." Tell that one to the French, Belgians, and Japanese. Amory Lovins, in a famous Foreign Affairs article, first started that narrative in 1976. Others ran with it until it became the conventional wisdom. Of course when you make it too expensive to open a nuke though lawsuits, legislation, and protest, then it is cost ineffective. Lovins was so effective, that his approach became the standard.

I had to laugh when Carville openly admitted that the Bush team had a "better narrative." Of course they didn't, but it shows that the Dems are firmly wedded to post modern thinking.

I am amazed at how efficient the left narrative creation effort is. The grandhigh poobahs craft the narrative and legions of pundits, professors and activists jump on the bandwagon and spread it. Within days, trolls are here spreading it. And the foot soldiers are absolutely tenacious. I saw the effects of their tactics in 80's and 90's while on active and reserve duty. They just kept turning the screws. You can't use that range because of the California gray squirrel/desert tortoise/fill in the blank. You can't dig a fighting position without an environmental impact statement (I'm not kidding). You have to put drip pans under all the tracks 'cause otherwise the rain will wash the oily residue in to the surrounding soil. Of course, the environmental angle was just a smoke screen to cover up an even deeper pacifist agenda. I'm glad for the blogs. I'm glad we're finally fighting back.
Posted by: 11A5S || 01/12/2005 18:05 Comments || Top||

#33  11A5S - great post!
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 18:09 Comments || Top||

#34  Once again sorely lacking on facts, however -- no actual facts in support of the position that torture works, just mockery of the belief that it doesn't.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 01/12/2005 18:14 Comments || Top||

#35  If so called brainwashing as was practiced by the Chinese Communist on US POWs during the Korean Conflict can be considered torture, then there is a fairly extensive literature on the effects of brainwashing. The literature profiled who was susceptible to BW. These studies on BW helped the military outline acceptable conduct for POWs when subjected to torture.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 18:15 Comments || Top||

#36  Thanks 2b.

Aris: I would read the Gulag Archipelago for starters. Solzhenitzyn found that by talking to other Zeks that Soviet techniques caused over 90 percent of prisoners to break. He concluded that those that wouldn't break were in fact usually psychotic.

I would also investigate the Phoenix Program. After the war, the VC cadres estimated that it was responsible for eliminating 95% of infrastructure in some provinces.

There is no doubt in my mind that extended periods of sleeplessness, cold and hunger will cause most people to eventually break. While in Ranger School, I witnessed at least three major breaks with reality under those conditions.

After the break, it is really up to the interrogator. Those guys aren't talking, but if you want an example of where interrogators did use sleep deprivation to successfully extract information, read this City Journal article.
Posted by: 11A5S || 01/12/2005 18:26 Comments || Top||

#37  So you capture an Islamofacist terrorist jihadist. You know that he acquired a suitcase nuke (probably from the Russians or a former satellite) and planted it somewhere in NY City. You also know that you have a limited amount of time before it detonates. The question is: "What do you do?"
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 18:36 Comments || Top||

#38  Still way off climo data but.... pulling that litter Red 'n White Mirro Lure about 1 foot below the surface, with a little snap in it.
Posted by: Shipman || 01/12/2005 18:38 Comments || Top||

#39  Thanks for the City Journal article 11A58. Good read.

Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.

The jihadist boneheads were brainwashed in the mosques. Their faith sustains their resistance. The Korean War studies on brainwashing showed the same thing. POWs who had a strong faith base were also the most resistant to brainwashing and torture.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 18:52 Comments || Top||

#40  11A5S> "Soviet techniques caused over 90 percent of prisoners to break"

I'd like the meaning of "break" here. Break may mean "causing innocents to make false testimonies as the interrogators wish" or it may mean "causing guilty people, especially militants, to provide valuable info on their accomplices".

I have no doubts on the efficiency of the former, it's the latter that's on doubt.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 01/12/2005 19:16 Comments || Top||

#41  I have no doubts on the efficiency of the former, it's the latter that's on doubt.

That's why you're on jv.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 01/12/2005 19:24 Comments || Top||

#42  JQC: Good point about the brainwashing in the mosques. I hadn't thought about that at all when I read the City Journal article.
Posted by: 11A5S || 01/12/2005 19:25 Comments || Top||

#43  For evidence that torture works all you have to do is watch the show "24", Jack Bauer knows.
Posted by: jn1 || 01/12/2005 19:43 Comments || Top||

#44  I see a large number of PhD dissertation projects here! The Psychology, Medical/Psychiatry, Philosophy and PoliSci departments at minimum should be fighting over this like Ruggers ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 01/12/2005 19:49 Comments || Top||

#45  I'm reminded of Group Captain Mandrake's discussion of torture with General Ripper. Ripper asked if he talked, and Mandrake replied that of course he talked. Everybody talked. He didn't think the Japs were interested in what he had to say though. "They were just having a bit of fun."

It most likely does work. It should however be the job of pros, not just guys having a bit of fun.
Posted by: Weird Al || 01/12/2005 20:14 Comments || Top||

#46  Break may mean "causing innocents to make false testimonies as the interrogators wish" or it may mean "causing guilty people, especially militants, to provide valuable info on their accomplices".

Which is why the information given is checked out. If it's bunk, then the "pressure" would be ratcheted up another notch or two, or a different method employed. No one would be dumb enough to automatically assume that information provided under any level of interrogation is absolutely golden, since the possibility is very real that the subject may give false information simply to take the heat off himself.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 01/12/2005 21:49 Comments || Top||

#47  that's why God gave us ten fingers and toes...and 2 ears and eyes...redundancy for torture statement verification :-)
Posted by: Frank G || 01/12/2005 22:02 Comments || Top||

#48 
Re #2 (2b) if a gang broke into his house and stole his wife and daughter took them to an unknown location to gang-rape them, he would be 100% confident that these low stress methods of interrogation would work just fine, were the police to capture some members who knew where the evil deed was occurring.

That's quite a scenario, 2b.
.
Posted by: Glerens Thimble7229 || 01/12/2005 23:33 Comments || Top||


Southeast Asia
How not to help Thailand
Posted by: tipper || 01/12/2005 22:11 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Biting the hand that feeds you
Posted by: Leigh || 01/12/2005 12:57 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Three months is plenty. This is one of those moronic articles where the heading and the contents say two different things. We were never going to be there three months - it would affect our battle-readiness. As it stands, one month is too many. The Indonesian official talked about restrictions on the one hand and then pushed the date out three months. One day is unprecedented, never mind three. Three months is a probably little optimistic, given that I can't see our men being tied down there for months. It's certainly not what we pay them for, which is facing off against potential opponents. The way I look at it, the Indonesians have about a month to get things squared away, after which they're on their own.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 13:47 Comments || Top||

#2  OK, they want our help, on their terms. hers' the deal: you get the relief supplies, we get the air space. real simple.
there are other areas in the area that are in need of help and would welcome what the Lincoln can offer. Indonesia was a sh*&hole before, and it still is.
Posted by: USN, retired || 01/12/2005 14:33 Comments || Top||

#3  Amen, USN. This, confirming what I heard this morning on the news, is simply disgusting. Why did we make this concession?

In a major compromise, the Marines agreed not to carry guns while on Indonesian soil...
Posted by: Jules 187 || 01/12/2005 14:39 Comments || Top||

#4  USN: OK, they want our help, on their terms. hers' the deal: you get the relief supplies, we get the air space. real simple.

The people on the island want our help. The Indonesian government doesn't. Seeing our boys in action makes the government look bad - i.e. like the bunch of useless mouths that they are. Still, I think the technical issues they're raising give us the out we need. As far as I'm concerned, a month spent on humanitarian relief is a month not spent training, and therefore a month wasted.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 14:42 Comments || Top||

#5  Make all the restrictions you want. We're not their for our needs. No skin off our backs, no sir.
Posted by: BH || 01/12/2005 14:43 Comments || Top||

#6  *ahem* there.
Posted by: BH || 01/12/2005 14:44 Comments || Top||

#7  The two sides reached a compromise in which the Americans agreed not to set up a base camp on Indonesia or carry weapons.

If ANY U.S. personnel are attacked, especially military personnel, there will be hell to pay.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 01/12/2005 16:16 Comments || Top||

#8  I recall Jarhead commenting once, WRT airplane hijackers, that a couple of shoelaces knotted together and a sock full of change were perfectly adequate weapons, which made me glad he's on our side. I'm sure his boys'n'girls in Indonesia don't need guns with actual bullets to deal with those who would interfere with their work.
Posted by: trailing wife || 01/12/2005 20:12 Comments || Top||

#9  Hey, it's a US Carrier Group - they project force, remember? - so beaucoup assistance just over the horizon.
Posted by: .com || 01/12/2005 20:19 Comments || Top||

#10  Trailing Wife: They do need guns, because the bad guys they're likely to run into will have guns... or even clubs... and will probably show up in numbers larger than the group of marines they've decided to ambush. Keep in mind that Indonesia is the piracy capitol of the world, with the apparent acquiescence of the Indonesian military.

I think, right then and there, if I were running things, I'd have pulled everyone out. Take the Lincoln and the Marine group to Hawaii or California and give everyone some nice paid leave...
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 01/12/2005 21:07 Comments || Top||

#11  TW, actually it was two masterlocks in the bottom of a tube sock but you were on the right track ;)

18" of shark test line fishing wire makes a helluva gurrate (sp?) to btw.
Posted by: Hupereger Clish6229 aka Jarhead || 01/12/2005 21:36 Comments || Top||

#12  garrote and yes :-)
Posted by: Frank G || 01/12/2005 21:43 Comments || Top||

#13  i say just pull out now and help someone more greatful than those son of a bitches
Posted by: smokeysinse || 01/12/2005 22:09 Comments || Top||

#14  smokeysinse: i say just pull out now and help someone more greatful than those son of a bitches

Bear in mind that the Indo government is probably worried that outsiders will provide tons of aid to the Acehnese in an unsupervised fashion. Note that the Acehnese independence movement has a local monopoly on guns. Any surplus aid will be sold to buy weapons. And if cash is handed out - that makes it a lot simpler for the rebels to get lots of shiny new weapons.

That may also be the rationale for Sri Lanka to deny unsupervised access to its people by aid groups or the US military. They don't want surplus aid going to buy weapons for the Tamilian separatist movement.

Now, some might say that there ought to be a truce while the tsunami's after-effects are sorted out. But the reality is that the guerrillas will take every break they can get.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 22:35 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Americanism—and Its Enemies
Posted by: tipper || 01/12/2005 10:42 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The idea of an “American creed” has been around for a long time. Huntington lists its elements as “liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property.” I prefer a different formulation: a conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact creates two premises that create three conclusions.

The fundamental fact: the Bible is God’s word. Two premises: first, every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind. Three conclusions: every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.

----


No, no, no.

Equal in the eyes of the law, equal in the eyes of the Lord.

America is about equality of opportunity. You want to be Bill Gates, ok, you want to be a drug addict, not ok by me but it's your choice. I just don't want to pay for it. But starting out with the same basic HS education and making your own way in the world is how I see it.

We are not equal!

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it, as I have my entire life.
Posted by: anonymous2u || 01/12/2005 11:15 Comments || Top||

#2  These are the new talking points.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 23:56 Comments || Top||

#3  Where did that view of America come from? It came from Puritanism—Puritanism being not a separate type of Christianity but a certain approach to Protestantism

ignorant author.
Posted by: 2b || 01/13/2005 0:00 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine
What If Israel Did Not Exist?
From Foreign Policy magazine, an article by Josef Joffe, the publisher of Die Zeit, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and distinguished fellow at the Institute for International Studies, both at Stanford University.
Imagine that Israel never existed. Would the economic malaise and political repression that drive angry young men to become suicide bombers vanish? Would the Palestinians have an independent state? Would the United States, freed of its burdensome ally, suddenly find itself beloved throughout the Muslim world? Wishful thinking. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains more antagonisms than it causes. .... So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake without which the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, the establishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let's move from the past to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and "poof," Israel disappears from the map.

Let us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Would stillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv not to liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive power play by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they had been victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still would have been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's "liberation" of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assuming that Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.

Let us imagine Israel had disappeared in 1967, instead of occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which were held, respectively, by Jordan's King Hussein and Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Would they have relinquished their possessions to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and thrown in Haifa and Tel Aviv for good measure? Not likely. The two potentates, enemies in all but name, were united only by their common hatred and fear of Arafat, the founder of Fatah (the Palestine National Liberation Movement) and rightly suspected of plotting against Arab regimes. In short, the "root cause" of Palestinian statelessness would have persisted, even in Israel's absence. Let us finally assume, through a thought experiment, that Israel goes "poof" today. How would this development affect the political pathologies of the Middle East? Only those who think the Palestinian issue is at the core of the Middle East conflict would lightly predict a happy career for this most dysfunctional region once Israel vanishes. For there is no such thing as "the" conflict. A quick count reveals five ways in which the region's fortunes would remain stunted—or worse:
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 01/12/2005 11:06:17 PM || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  (What if)we could wave a mighty magic wand, and “poof,” Israel disappears from the map.
Have you checked any atlases in Muslim schools?
Israel ain't on any of those maps.
Posted by: GK || 01/12/2005 9:45 Comments || Top||

#2  Mike posted this? What gives, Mikey?
Posted by: anon || 01/12/2005 9:54 Comments || Top||

#3  Would the United States, freed of its burdensome ally, suddenly find itself beloved throughout the Muslim world?

I like to think of Israel as a strategic ally. Israel is a bastion of democracy in the midEast. This relationship drives the Islamofacists nuts. Think of Israel as a "finger" of Democracy from the West--you may choose which finger you choose to represent this finger of Democracy.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen || 01/12/2005 11:08 Comments || Top||

#4  EUropeans need to find another reason to hate Jews?
Posted by: gromgorru || 01/12/2005 11:30 Comments || Top||

#5  Israel offers Uncle Sam a guaranteed invasion route into the Middle East, if things go south in a hurry. No other country in the region is quite as reliable in this regard.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 01/12/2005 11:49 Comments || Top||

#6  Debka has some info on the Jooos popping some Hamas big wigs today. Any word on who?
Posted by: Rightwing || 01/12/2005 12:58 Comments || Top||

#7  What If Israel Did Not Exist?

God would have to create one?
Posted by: mojo || 01/12/2005 15:09 Comments || Top||

#8  BZZZT! Moho wins the duck!

Q: Why did gawd make jesus a jew?
A: He understood the value of an education.
Posted by: Shipman || 01/12/2005 16:31 Comments || Top||

#9  Thanks, Mike. An excellent article by a superb German jewish writer that makes clear that the Palestinian problem is primarily the result of yet another internal failure of the arabs that has been used to scapegoat the US. Shame on the Euros for pretending otherwise.
Posted by: lex || 01/12/2005 17:54 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks & Islam
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
Posted by: anonymous2u || 01/12/2005 00:28 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Sheer is a scum sucking dog. I can say no more.
Posted by: Captain America || 01/12/2005 2:01 Comments || Top||

#2  CA - There's Scheer Debunking and Lampooning Galore... here's a couple of fun articles about the "renowned author and columnist" (Lol!) Robert Scheer:
Stefan Sharkansky's Observations: Robert Scheer's Canard-o-Matic
Classical Values' Conservative Schism-o-Matic

And he's a prominent moonbat in several RB-posted articles where he's dismantled, dissed, and discarded by a range of people - hell, even Sullivan, before he relapsed into the muck... Scheer, as these articles demonstrate, has become as synonymous with inane political lies and memery as Fisk has with simple stupidity. Enjoy, if you've the stomach for it. A sampling...
9/28/2001 - Kaus Files
10/10/2001 - Sullivan
5/21/2003 - A host: Hewitt, Reynolds, Simon, et al
5/6/2004 - Stephen Zak
6/28/2004 - VDH
Posted by: .com || 01/12/2005 3:13 Comments || Top||

#3  The Canard-o-Matic is a riot.
Posted by: 2b || 01/12/2005 3:48 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
93[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2005-01-12
  Zahhar: Abbas has no authorization to end resistance
Tue 2005-01-11
  Abbas Extends Hand of Peace to Israel. Really.
Mon 2005-01-10
  Sudanese Celebrate Peace Treaty Signing
Sun 2005-01-09
  Paleos vote
Sat 2005-01-08
  Commander of Salafi Forces in Fallujah Killed
Fri 2005-01-07
  Abbas Calls for Peace Talks With Israel
Thu 2005-01-06
  Kerry Trashes Bush in Baghdad
Wed 2005-01-05
  Algeria celebrates the end of the GIA
Tue 2005-01-04
  Zarqawi in jug?
Mon 2005-01-03
  19 killed in Iraqi car bombing
Sun 2005-01-02
  Another most wanted found among Riyadh boomer scraps
Sat 2005-01-01
  Algerian deported from San Diego
Fri 2004-12-31
  NKors threaten to cut off contact with Japan
Thu 2004-12-30
  Ugandan officials meet rebel commanders near border with Sudan
Wed 2004-12-29
  43 Iraqis killed in renewed violence


Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.134.118.95
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (20)    WoT Background (41)    Non-WoT (20)    Local News (5)    (0)