More On Torture

As if you needed more reasons to oppose it, another government official experienced in interrogation and counter-terrorism, has publicly registered his disapproval of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – also known as torture.

Back in America, Back in Iraq

Today the Washington Post printed an opinion piece by an American officer in charge of interrogations in Iraq.

Matthew Alexander (a nom-de-plume for this homme-de-guerre) has conducted more than 300 and overseen more than 1,000 interrogations. His experience says: Abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual and the spirit of American freedom. Do not torture. We found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this way, it works.

But his experience is falling on deaf ears and obstructive bureaucracy. Top brass at the Pentagon and in Baghdad is not in the mood for ’soft’ interrogation.

Why? Because they are neo-conservative Bush Doctrine supporters? I suppose we will find out once the Obama administration takes the reins. Because they have existed in and propagate a culture based on aggression and the ability to dole out violence? Perhaps, but Mr. Alexander  exists in the same culture and is not so bent on using torture. While we debate the morality and motivations for torture, we are losing ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Janus previously addressed Victor Davis Hanson’s opinion that the Western war machine works because democracy is responsive to the public. But now we see the inevitable discord between ideal and reality: we espouse freedom, we bring torture.  Should we despise and denegrate our nation and our ideals because we can not live up to them?

I think not. Our ideals are still intact. We will probably never fully live up to them. We probably never have. Of course, we have our beautiful and ugly aspects. The liberty of the Constitution, the inhumanity of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The success of western expansion, the blood of native Americans and Mexicans. The triumph of the Second World War, the black mark of Japanese detention camps.

But neither should the knowledge that we will always fail our highest principles lull us into complacency. Are our leaders, in Congress, in the Supreme Court, in the White House, in the Pentagon – are they responsive to cries for justice? Will they stop torture, not only because it is ineffective but because it is wrong? Can we culturally and ideologically triumph over terrorism if we indulge in barbaric and anti-American practices? This antithesis between American freedom and American torture can only co-exist for so long before it mars our memory of this war, and more immediately hinders our ability to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Narcotics, Economics, and the War in Afghanistan

The poverty-crime cycle is well-known to the practitioners of the social sciences. It goes something like this:

Step 1: An area is impoverished for a variety of economic and social reasons.

Step 2: On account of the aforementioned poverty, residents start trafficking in narcotics to their neighbors, who use narcotics because of their impoverished condition.

Step 3: Narcotics trade attracts black market businessmen and violence to the area, which prevents property values from rising and thus overall equity remains low and the potential for high-end business, cultural establishments, and families effectively becomes nil.

So far, pretty simple and sensical. We have all personally witnessed this sort of process in American cities, and if we have not, it is certainly easy to imagine as happening.

Until…WHAMMY! Afghanistan defies all social science logic by actually following the lines of rational thought: Afghanis are gaining wealth by selling drugs. Afghani opium farmers are actually becoming prosperous off of the narcotics trade and supporting Hamid Karzai’s government. However, for many years the drug trade in central Asia has been represented as the recourse of poor farmers in the war-torn north. A recent UN report reveals that the largest opium estates are in the southern part of the country, which is relatively free of violence. Who could have guessed that being the number one exporter of opium could make you rich?

Thomas Schweich, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, details the fight against opium trading, its involvement in Mr. Karzai’s government, and its relation to the war in Afghanistan in this New York Times article. The recommendation? That we, and our allies (including Mr. Karzai and Europe), need to step up to the plate and offer some serious and consistent negative incentives to opium cultivation. Mr. Karzai may be funded by the narcotics trade, but so too is Al Qaida and putting a stopgap in their funding source needs to be a priority.