Troop Withdrawals

The US is on schedule to withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by June.  City boundaries are being re-drawn so that current US bass are outside of them and units are being re-imagined as something other than "combat troops", but we are on schedule.

Counter-insurgency buffs will find this troubling (my emphasis):

While those principal Baghdad bases will remain, the United States military has been rapidly erasing its footprint everywhere else in Baghdad. The so-called troop surge added 77 small bases, known as combat outposts, patrol bases and joint security stations, spread throughout the city’s neighborhoods to get United States troops closer to the people. At the height, in 2007, there were nearly 100 such bases. All of them will have been turned over to the Iraqis by June 30, and many already have been, General Perkins said. He added that in many cases the Iraqis would choose not to use them for their own troops.

Presumably the US leaders have been generous with their advice and the Iraqis are proceeding wisely, but the obvious risk is that neighborhood security goes back into the wastebasket.

Comments

[clarice]

Fear not--Hillary said today that the big bombing yesterday in Iraq is a sign of progress..It means the thugs are trying to cover up the fact that they've lost(or something). I was so startled to learn that all of a sudden violence in Iraq means we are winning when from the start of the war there we'd been hearing that every tossed grenade was a sign we were losing.

I am so confused today.

[anduril]

It's late and this is a new thread--maybe this is a good time and place to link a discussion on the nature of torture itself, from a Catholic perspective. This is a very complicated and technical issue, from the standpoint of moral philosophy, and emotions rightly run high. The Church's position, generally speaking, is that torture is intended to break down a human beings mental integrity and dignity--surely an evil. But is there more to it? Deal Hudson, in the piece that I link, draws a comparison to just war theory and, in the context of Catholic teaching, suggests that a distinction should be drawn between torture for the purpose of extracting a confession of guilt and torture for the purpose of extracting information. Sound like an artificial distinction? Well, read Hudson's piece. Hudson takes encouragement in his view from the Catechism of the Catholic Church's description of terrorism, which rightly (to my mind) appears to draw a parallel with torture, in that the intent of the terrorist is precisely to break down the dignity and integrity of mind of the terrorized person or population, i.e., to torture and thus dehumanize his victims. The question could then be framed as: what duty is owed by civil society to the person who has renounced his/her ties of humanity to other persons? I offer this link with the idea that, while torture is abhorrent to any normal person, we can only be helped by a discussion that identifies key issues rather than issuing facile condemnations. I invite all to see what they think, to see if this clarifies their thinking at all. I believe it was useful to me. I hasten to add that, while the author is writing as a Catholic for Catholics, the perspective is based on natural law--that is, on a reasoned analysis of what is good or bad for human nature: Is Torture One of the Church's Non-Negotiables? I'm not deluding myself that I've identified all the issues in this brief post.

[clarice]

"Deal Hudson, in the piece that I link, draws a comparison to just war theory and, in the context of Catholic teaching, suggests that a distinction should be drawn between torture for the purpose of extracting a confession of guilt and torture for the purpose of extracting information. Sound like an artificial distinction? "

Doesn't sound particularly artificial to me though I grant you it could be--say if the person being questioned were a serial killer and the interrogator were as concerned about preventing another murder as he was in locking up the perp.
No?

[anduril]

A personal note: my view has long been that the strongest argument against torture is the affect that it is likely to have on the person who is inflicting the torture. However, I cannot say that I have ever seen a person who opposes torture under all circumstances truly come to grips with the problem of terrorism v. the good of civil society. The discussion, to me, usually seems to take place as if the only parties involved are the torturee and individuals who authorize and/or inflict torture, with little reference to broader issues. That's my impression. Treating a terrorist as a victim, pure and simple, as this type of argumentation seems to do, to me lacks moral seriousness.

[anduril]

No, I don't think it's an artificial distinction, either. A better example might be the case in Georgia (right?) in which an innocent was being held concealed somehow and was believed to be still alive. Do you remember that case? Again, to stand on a righteous position that refuses torture in any and all circs seems to my mind to lack moral seriousness. Note that in that case I mentioned, you have your perp, so the purpose of the torture would not be so much to prove guilt (although location of the victim would undoubtedly add to the proof) but to save the innocent who is, in effect, being tortured by being kept in close and dangerous confinement (underground, if I remember correctly).

Well, good night.

[Pofarmer]

This is a very complicated and technical issue, from the standpoint of moral philosophy, and emotions rightly run high.

It's simple. If it's us vs them, I pick us, period.

There was a caller on a local show last Friday clamoring that Militant Islam had a long view, and they were looking 100 years down the road, so we had to not take the short view. So, my question is, how does not getting intelligence now help us in the long run?

Oh, and Catholics LOOOVVVEEEEE to make simple things complicated. Maybe if the heirarchy had something better to do?

[anduril]

doggone it: "effect"!

[narciso]

Agreed Po, one forgets that Spain fell to the Moors, less than a hundred years after
the Death of Mohammed, and they occupied it
for seven and three quarters of a centuries.
Talk about "Occupied territories' not long after that was the battle of Tours, Vienna in 1683 was the last big incursion, although
there was obviously some penetration in Bosnia; and that was under the relatively civilized Umayyad (Syrian)regime. It took about a century, for Saladin's Saracen successors to drive the crusaders from the Holy Land.

[Mickey]

I definitely agree with the above sentinment - "If it's us vs. them, I pick us, period." I would not allow one American to die because I don't want to pour water on someone's face. I just posted an article to this effect on my blog.

[clarice]

I feel the same way about those who oppose all war--they lack moral clarity.

[PeterUK]

"This is a very complicated and technical issue, from the standpoint of moral philosophy, and emotions rightly run high".

Moral philosophy takes on a different edge when it has a bayonet on the end of it".

[anduril]

Most of us seem able to draw a distinction between 1) unprovoked murder, 2) accidental or unintended death during, say, surgery, or even in traffic, and 3) killing in self defense or in a just war. The law has developed a lot of technical vocabulary to describe these distinctions, but somehow all this goes out the window with "torture," and our reasoning suffers from an excess of emotion along with a reliance on loaded terminology.

And yet, for example, few would maintain that all intentional infliction of pain is intrinsically evil--many countries still provide for corporal punishment. I, like many or most, was physically punished by my parents--but not "tortured." Capital punishment is not condemned as per se evil by the Church nor is war--although moral teaching on both is hedged round with distinctions, qualifications, etc. The subtlety of just war theory, which Hudson cites, is an example of what it is needed because it provides the type of clarity we need. That clarity still doesn't make for easy decisions all the time, but is preferable to the usual posturing and search for a moral high ground from which to condemn political opponents.

I say being waterboarded 6x/day for a month is "torture," as surely as shooting a rapist armed with a knife is "killing." My question is, is waterboarding ever justified? I believe the answer is a qualified yes, in certain circumstances and for certain reasons and purposes. I think it's clear that I am among the overwhelming majority of people. I linked to Hudson because I believe he provides at least a beginning to the type of analysis that can persuade our fellow citizens, or take them beyond a mere "instinctual" or "gut" conviction. And beyond moral paralysis.

[narciso]

I get tired of this Anduril, what would you consider the proper punishment for the person who helped plan the extinguishment of 3.000 lives, when would you have stopped,
before he gave up Iyman Faris, who would have taken down the Brooklyn Bridge, or any other number of plots outlined. I understand
Deal Hudson's concerns, but this passivity we are inducing where it is better not to take any aggressive measures, and let some
atrocity go forth is sheer lunacy.

[Pofarmer]

I linked to Hudson because I believe he provides at least a beginning to the type of analysis that can persuade our fellow citizens,

The ones who aren't persuaded right now ain't gonna be.

[Pofarmer]

as surely as shooting a rapist armed with a knife is "killing."

That would be "self defense"

[Bosslowrider]

I personally don't think waterboarding alone is torture. It WILL scare the bejeebers out of you, but inflict pain? No.

Now, if at the same time somebody takes a cane and smacks the bottom of the feet of the person being WB, that's torture!

[anduril]

narciso, stop smoking that stuff and your reading comprehension may improve.

[anduril]

Different strokes...

[Ignatz]

-I say being waterboarded 6x/day for a month is "torture," as surely as shooting a rapist armed with a knife is "killing."-

That doesn't seem an apt analogy.

Reasonable people, including me, can reasonably argue that waterboarding can be so applied as to not qualify as torture as it is defined in law.
It would be fairly difficult to reasonably argue that a dead rapist wasn't dead.

There is no grey realm in which one is neither dead nor alive. There is a grey realm with no distinct boundaries in which interrogation and torture meet.

[lurking]

Two demerits for anduril at 10:05.

[narciso]

Caffeine, is my only major addiction, Anduril, are you going to say it impairs my judgement, in the same you can't tell when Russia was the aggressor last summer. So I ask, where is the cutoff point, and I cite some examples, so your answer is to say I'm deluded. Just like apparently we can't mention the horrible legacy of the Itijihad,
the Young Turk's crusade against the Armenians, which actually inspired Hitler's efforts, because it is undiplomatic, it reflects more on the Kemalists interestingly
not Erdogan's AKB.

[lurking]

By the way, Clive Crook has a nice analysis of this whole mess, at RCP.

[lurking]

Heh, narciso, Russia is massing in Georgia as we speak. This time Obama isn't going to charge guided missile cruisers and air war capability through the Bosporus.

[lurking]

And then, once that sole pipeline not under Russia's control falls under Russia's control, then Europe is helpless. And we know the authoritarian soul of Putin. It's there in his eyes.

[narciso]

No he's not it's 1921 all over again, or 1799 if you take Czar Paul's annexation of
Georgia. Funny having read Lermontov's A Hero in our Time (in translation)he doesn't focus much on the freedom of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples, why is that, oh, because there wasn't any.

[lurking]

One stupid missile could have taken out that tunnel between North and South Ossetia, and still could, but Obama is going to allow Putin his liebensraum, for peace in our time. Hey, we deserve to be humiliated for our prior arrogance. And the Georgians? Well, they were pretty arrogant, too. Now they are going to be pretty dead. And a chokehold on Europe's energy. Obama, we hope you'll change, but we know it is a vain one. We've looked into your soul.

[anduril]

lurking, the demerits I can handle. Waterboarding 6x/daily for a month, probably not.

Ignatz, "waterboarding can be so applied as to not qualify as torture." may or may not be a true statement. The reason I posted as I did above was to get beyond word games and to get to the heart of the moral issues. But to descend to that level for a moment, I specified "6x/daily for a month" and your "can be so applied as to not qualify as torture" doesn't address that. There is such a thing as cumulative effect. ("effect" Hah!) My point is, call it whatever the hell you want to call it, the question is, Is it morally justified? If you think it is, or if you think it's not, provide your analysis--whatever your position may be, don't just toss around legal definitions because I have no interest in legal definitions per se. The reasoning behind the legal definition, maybe.

narciso, clarice got my point, and from what she's said I'll bet she drinks more and stronger coffee than you--plus nicotine! So where'd you get those beans?

lurking, as for pipelines and such-like, here's a link to an article I posted on another thread: US promotes Iran in energy market.

[lurking]

anduril, would you have someone waterboarded in order to save your own life?

Just think, if Obama lets Iran have nuclear energy there will be just that much more Iranian hydrocarbons to promote in the energy market. Looks like a win-win to me.

[Danube of Thought]

I don't think you can define it solely in terms of the activity, without regard to the purpose behind it. If I told you that I had repeatedly jabbed a prisoner with a needle, you would say that I was torturing him. If I said it was for the purpose of inoculating him against influenza, bubonic plague, tetanus and typhoid, your reaction would be different.

If I slice open a man's abdomen without anesthetic, torture. If it's done to perform an emergency appendectomy to save his life in the field, different aswer. Suppose I did it merely to save your daughter's life, and the hell with his?

I would buy all these statutory definitions of torture if it were made clear that we were talking about pain or distress administered simply to punish or, worse, for the amusement of the torturer. But under the circumstances where one is trying to obtain information that is reasonable likely to save innocent life, I wouldn't use a term as inflammatory as torture.

But in any event, any time a democratic society begins to discuss publicly the horrible things it must sometimes do in the aim of preserving itself, it is going to come out a loser every time. This is what the ACLU and Obama have wrought. I don't think Obama understands this, and I don't think the ACLU cares.

[anduril]

So it's a dialogue--they talk to each other! Obama Talks To Teleprompter -- Speed Up!

[lurking]

Self-defense is primal. Lofty idealistic ethics are not.

[narciso]

well only some will be,lurking, most will be serfs like in the time of the last Great Czar, Alexander 111, which seems Putin's model, which means the Europeans will probably lose the half of the BTK pipeline. Serves the Europeans right, hey they're trying to cut their carbon footprint, this will make it easier. Now when the Siloviki go after Rutul and Belokani, our 'beloved leader' will clearly tell the Dagestani and
Azeris that they were at fault, none of the unpleasantness suggested by that Denzel Washington film, about a decade back.

[anduril]

Thanks, Danube. Precisely the point that Hudson, and I, want to discuss--and which the nation should be discussing if we're to have a great national debate on "torture."