Originally posted by xmotex
Then you are left with the simple calculation, is a given method (in this case torture) likely to lead to victory, or to defeat. We have seen the
strategic cost of torture. Where have we seen a benefit?
Your mention of strategic cost of torture is a reference to Abu-Ghriab? The costs were what? Bad publicity? World outrage? The issue of Abu-Ghriab is
whether or not the use of torture was a military policy or one that was committed by a few. Having served in actual frontline combat, having been in
the military, I can certainly vouch for the military that there is no policy for the use of torture. Thus what happened at Abu-Ghriab was an isolated
occurance, not a wide-spread military policy action. I can not vouch for the CIA or other intelligence services.
As for the benefits, the benefits of using torture go unknown, unspecified, and something the public will hardly ever hear or read about. So, for me
to give an effective response to what you ask amounts to simply me not having a factually valid response.
The distinction between war and politics is purely semantic. War is politics. Especially in a war such as this, where there is no enemy
"army" to be defeated, no enemy navy to be sunk, no enemy aircraft to be downed.
Correct, but in the same token, that unseen
enemy is held to moral standards how? Their moral accountability comes into play where, exactly?
I am not condoning the use of torture because our unseen
enemy uses it or because they act in immoral fashion, thus we must act as they do.
No....I am merely contending that morals and morality in war is contestable, if not found wanting, and that why is it that the US is the object of
torture scrutiny when torture is being used by that unseen
enemy? Is not a sin a sin, no matter who
commits it? As such, why NO topics
on what they are doing as being wrong? Is this simply an anti-war issue? Appears so. Again, here comes the moral highground arguments.
Again, ask yourself, what constitutes "victory" in this war?
Victory is when Iraq is able to secure its own nation sufficiently enough that the US and Coalition forces can be withdrawn. Victory is the continued
establishment of the Iraqi government, the continued improving prosperity, etc. of Iraq and the Iraqi people. Victory is not a measure of how many
terrorist acts that occur in one day in Iraq, as some here would think it does. Victory is when Iraq and the Iraqi people continue to persevere
irregardless of those continued terrorist acts and not give in or yield to the terrorists demands. Be assured that the terrorist or insurgents have an
agenda in Iraq, and it does not entirely revolve around removing the US or Coalition from foreign soil
And what strategies are most likely to produce it?
The strategies are already in play. Time will only tell whether they are successful or not.
[edit on 24-11-2005 by Seekerof]