Battlefield Ethics

[Dr Jack]

On 4 May 2007 the Department of Defense released key findings from the latest Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT-IV) survey, the fourth in a series of studies since 2003 to assess the mental health and well-being of the deployed forces serving in Iraq... More than 1,300 Soldiers and nearly 450 Marines were surveyed. The commanding general of Multinational Force, Iraq, also requested a first-ever study of battlefield ethics with the participation of soldiers and Marines currently involved in combat operations.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...eleaseid=10824

The significant findings include:

* Soldiers who deployed longer (greater than six months) or had deployed multiple times were more likely to screen positive for a mental health issue.
* Approximately 10 percent of Soldiers reported mistreating non-combatants or damaging their property when it was not necessary.
* Less than half of Soldiers and Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior.
* More than one-third of all Soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine.
* The 2006 adjusted rate of suicides per 100,000 Soldiers was 17.3 Soldiers, lower than the 19.9 rate reported in 2005, however higher than the Army average of 11.6 per 100,000 soldiers. However, there are important demographic differences between these two Soldier populations that make direct comparisons problematic.
* Soldiers experienced mental health problems at a higher rate than Marines.
* Deployment length was directly linked to morale problems in the Army.
* Leadership is key to maintaining Soldier and Marine mental health.
* Both Soldiers and Marines reported at relatively high rates – 62 and 66 percent, respectively – that they knew someone seriously injured or killed, or that a member of their team had become a casualty.

The full report with annexes can be downloaded at the link below:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...iv/mhat-iv.cfm

[SWJED]

5 May Washington Post - Troops at Odds With Ethics Standards by Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson.

More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated...

[John T. Fishel]

There is a major debate about the efficacy of torture as a means of gathering information. Some argue that the person tortured will tell his interrogators whatever he thinks they want to hear just to stop the pain. Others say that it brings real and useful intelligence in a timely fashion. In the middle are those who say that "enhanced interrogation" produced intelligence can be useful but must be treated with great care in separating the wheat from the chaff. The Algerian War, particularly the Battle of Algiers, proves conclusively, to me at least, that torture can be tactically successful.

But it was the use of torture that cost the French their legitimacy at home and internationally. That, alone was the most critical factor in their losing the war. For all its tactical utility, torture lead directly to strategic failure. That, I think, is the lesson that must be taught throughout our military and civilian agencies. Nothing has hurt our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan so much as Abu Ghraib, the perception of mistratment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and the allegations of torture in secret CIA prisons. Whether the allegations are true or false - truth and falsity vary among these different situations - they have cost us dearly in the battles of the information war.

[Tom Odom]

John,

Where this debate draws fuel is when you get a "suit" like George Tenet describing himself as a "shadow warrior" and arguing that "rough treatment" was OK. I amreaing his book and it is a painful read. More to follow later.

Best

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

Tom--

Part of my comment was provoked by the Tenet interviews.

Cheers

John

[jcustis]

Having participated in a couple of these surveys, I'd like to see the questions. One of the weak points of them, like the question about using torture if it meant saving a buddy, can be because the question provides those surveyed with a sense of certainty. I imagine it reads something along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if it meant that information was produced that could save the life of another serviceman?" There is that degree of certainty in the question which would in turn make a lot of people respond with a resounding,"Hell yes!"

If it was worded just a bit differently, the replies could vary widely. I've looked through the 89-page product, but couldn't find the survey questions.