The Redhunter

War is war. As Sun Tzu pointed out, the goal is to win. Morality doesn't enter into the reality of the battlefield.

Snake Hunter Sez,

In defence of enhanced interrogation, 'We do not not give up the "moral high ground" with vigorous
questioning of three sub-human individuals that were eager to kill thousands of innocents, and strap bombs on their own women and children, with the ultimate goal of world-wide domination.'

This is not a conventional war; the enemy has been an indoctrinated robot, and is a fractional part of a kill-culture existing for 1400 years.

reb
___ ___

What about the government and police interrogators who say they believe enhanced interrogation techniques don't result in reliable intel, because subjects will say anything to get out of the situation?

Well, what about them? Name names, cite sources, make an actual argument for whatever it is you're trying to say, and stop behaving like a drive-by troll.

Please read the comments policy at upper right before responding.

Sorry - I was actually interested in your opinion on that. Thought you'd heard about it. Here's a quote from an interview quoting Gen. Petraeus:

"General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines."

And Gen. Powell in a CNN interview:

"The president of the United States, who has a responsibility to protect the American citizens, felt that, in that circumstance, waterboarding was appropriate, and as he clearly said, approved it and takes responsibility for the approval of it," Powell said. "I think subsequently, as you kind of go down the years and take a look at what has happened over the years, I think it could now be called torture."

to avoid your response of "Petraeus and Powell aren't interrogators," I should rephrase my original post - what do you think of top military policymakers who view enhanced interrogation as ineffective?

It's a valid question - reasonable people can disagree. You seem to enjoy writing about foreign policy, so I'm truly just wondering what a conservative blogger thinks about this.

Much better, Anonymous! Now those are comments I can respect. Keep it up and you'll be in fine shape here.

I would only ask that you give yourself a name. "Anonymous" is... not right. I want a name to call to address you by if you don't mind. It's so much friendlier that way.

I respect Petraeus, as regular visitors to Redhunter know. I'm not so keen on Powell, but ok he is certainly someone to listen to.

But I do wonder if you actually read the post before commenting. The evidence that enhanced techniques worked is pretty well laid out, and that they helped lead us to bin Laden Are you denying this?

To your question; senior generals, policymakers, "experts," are split. They are not all one way or the other.

But Powell's statement that "...take a look at what has happened over the years, I think it could now be called torture." is bad. It's oh-so-easy to play Monday morning quarterback, get on your moral high-horse, and pontificate about what should have been done. The fact is that we faced a huge threat, and worse we didn't know how bad it was, and the men and women in charge did what they thought was right to protect our country and it is wrong to second-guess their techniques

No that doesn't mean anything goes but no way do I see the techniques used as going overboard.

The issue of waterboarding and enhanced interrogations is a complicated one and reasonable people can disagree. There are a few issues here

1) What constitutes "torture"
2) How far is too far in an "enhanced interrogation"
3) Do these techniques get additional information that we would not have gotten otherwise?
4) Even if "yes" to #3, are they still worth it?

My thoughts on each

1) "Torture" is a term that has been thrown around all too loosely by the left. I don't think waterboarding meets the definition, nor to the techniques approved by Bush/Rumsfeld, but reasonable people can disagree. That said, Eric Holder's investigation of CIA agents is unconscionable.

2) I don't have time now to go through the whole thing, but it needs to be understood that the enhanced techniques were not used willy-nilly during the Bush Admin, but under strict control and only when superiors approved, going all the way up to Rumsfeld.

3) Absolutely they worked. Only three terrorists were ever waterboarded; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and all three talked

4) Yes, depending on the situation. In other words, "it depends." It's a complicated situation, but CIA DCI Gen Hayden says they worked as do others and that works for me.

Now question for you: If we close Gitmo, where do the terrorists go?

Obama has not closed Gitmo because he has come to realize it's a damn fool move. No other country in the world wants them, we can't release them, and no state in the U.S. will take them either.

Ok, I have to go and do other things. Remember what I said in my comments policy, I don't like long never-ending debates. You can have the last word if you want it, but then let's move on.