Tom--
Part of my comment was provoked by the Tenet interviews.
Cheers
John
Tenet
Tom--
Part of my comment was provoked by the Tenet interviews.
Cheers
John
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.
Last edited by jcustis; 05-06-2007 at 02:14 AM. Reason: omitted reference to "24" and looked deeper.
Let's not start yet another torture thread, and keep this to discussion of the MHAT study.
The subject of the ethics and efficacy of torture in interrogation has been discussed before on SWC, in varying contexts, here, here and here.
Please review existing discussion and debate on the subject before chiming in. Original commentary and thought regarding this issue is very welcome, but this post is all about avoiding rehashing the same thing over and over again.
Reaction to Battlefield Ethics
It is interesting to do a web search and see how this story is reported by the various news outlets --with their headlines and emphasis:
Long tours in Iraq may be minefield for mental healthLos Angeles Times
Mental Health Survey Shows Troops Need More Time at HomeU.S. News & World Report
10% of US soldiers in Iraq reported mistreating civiliansThe Muslim News, UK
Many troops in Iraq lack ethics, US findsInternational Herald Tribune
Study: Anxiety, depression, acute stress in combat troopsCNN.com
Pentagon studies ethical dilemmas faced in IraqCNN International
Many US soldiers endorse tortureWashington Times
“Most US soldiers won’t report civilian killings, torture”Aljazeera.com
DOD survey finds ethical struggle in warStars and Stripes
Interesting similarity between the Washington Times' title for the article and al Jazeera's.
SFC W
Last edited by Uboat509; 05-06-2007 at 11:49 PM.
Article Similarities (and Ethical Standards) ?
Uboat,
Exactly. Right up to the extremely disgusting (full of Sierra) end where the link for General Sir Michael Rose states
It is a medical issue hereGeneral Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, urged the U.S. and its allies to "admit defeat" and stop fighting "a hopeless war" in Iraq, according to the BBC's Newsnight program.
Sir Michael also said it was time for foreign troops to leave Iraq and go back home.
"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."
Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: "Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened.”
"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq," he added.
I've given the report itself a quick look. its interesting how the focus has been on some of the specific answers to questions and not the overall findings of the report.
From what I saw of the central findings, longer tours and more combat equalled, on average, more mental health problems. I believe that there also seemed to be a connection between the same characteristics of combat/tour length and increased the propensity for ethics violations.
I think that this report highlights an operational dilemma for COIN and other similar operations. There is always a refrain that forces need to be engaged longer in these types of operations so that they can really learn and understand the culture, environment, etc. This argues for lengthening unit deployments. The flip side, however, seems to be that longer commitment has the downside of greater "moral fatigue" and thus threatens to undercut the very advantages of prolonged engagement--which argues for shorter deployments. There's probably a sweet spot in there and its probably different based on the duties associated.
COIN is naturally morally degrading to the force. Outside of just the torture argument, without strong leadership attention, a force that is continually engaged in COIN is likely to slip down to the level of the foe wrt consideration of civilian casualties, etc.
One of the interesting findings is that transition team personnel tend to fair relatively better than their brigade combat team counterparts. I wonder if that's due to the level and character of their engagement with Iraqis--they are apt to develop a greater, less sterotyped regard for the people (people as in the Iraqi population) that they are fighting for.
The classic "men in combat" discussions emphasize that the troops really fight for one another, not for the stated national causes. In COIN, if taken to an extreme, this can be counterproductive to the mission itself. The bond of brotherhood can become more important than protecting, or considering, civilian lives. I would venture that the closer a unit operates within the community and with Iraqi forces, the more chance that those elements (population and allies) will be considered closer to the scope of the brotherhood to be treated with a similar emotional bond.
Full report and appendices at this link.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks