Torture and National Security
John H. Johns, Brigadier General, USA (Ret.) today criticized the military for punishing primarily lower level soldiers for the torture abuse scandal in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Claiming that it was the behavior of a ‘few rogue bad apples’ will blind the military to what has occurred.”
He charged that “a fundamental and profound consequence of this episode is damage to the moral fiber of the military. Focusing on lower level soldiers ignores the role of the systemic climate established by official policy, and the apparent acquiescence by the chain of command.”
Johns noted that opinion polls show declining American public concern over the torture scandal. “If we are not careful, the legitimate outrage at torture will disappear and we will avoid addressing the underlying causes of this blot on our moral fiber.”
Johns pointed to the damage the torture has caused to the United States war on terrorism. “The most critical aspect of this scandal, especially in terms of immediate implications for our national security, is the potential long-term damage to our war against those who are using terrorism as their primary means of violence.”
Johns called for Congress to establish a bi-partisan panel on the level of the 9-11 Commission, a panel that should demand a full accounting and to recommend corrective measures to correct the systemic flaws that led to the torture scandal.
TORTURE AND NATIONAL SECURITY
John H. Johns, Brigadier General, USA (Ret.)
The revelation of widespread torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan justifiably shocked the world community, including the American people. The stark photos of the degradation of the prisoners left little need for words to convey the implications for world opinion. The damage to our moral standing in the world—and support for our “war against terrorism”—was profound. Karl Rove was reported to have said that it would take generations to overcome the damage to our image in the world.
Polls showed that the American public shared the outrage of this moral breakdown and violation of the values we present to the world in our effort to promote human rights and dignity. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in May 2004 found that 54% of those surveyed were bothered a “great deal” by these acts and 25% bothered a “fair amount.” Only 9% were not bothered at all.
Many members of Congress expressed “outrage” and promised to get at the bottom of the matter. President Bush and other senior members of the administration, including the chain of command in the military, echoed this outrage and also promised a full accounting.
However, there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of those senior officials who expressed shock and outrage. In a series of memos written by members of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, culminating with a 42-page memo on 9 January 2002, there was a deliberate effort to justify “techniques of interrogation” that would yield more timely and valid intelligence in our war on the terrorists. The White House and the Defense Department endorsed the substance of the Justice memos. The entire process, from the Department of Justice to the senior officials in the field, circumvented international protocols as well as federal laws on the treatment of prisoners; in essence we waived the Geneva Conventions.
According to Justice lawyers, the “war on terrorism” was different than previous wars and justified new rules. Although the State Department reportedly objected to these decisions, President Bush rejected their views. Several members of the military legal team reportedly dissented, but were overruled. From what has been made public, no senior member of the military chain of command objected to the policy that was, in effect, suspending the international laws against torture of prisoners.
During the past year, several studies, all under the auspices of the Department of Defense, have purported to get to the bottom of the matter. All have exonerated most except low-ranking soldiers. Trials have been held for several of these, with some still in progress and more to come. Other than the reduction in rank of a reserve brigadier general, no other senior officer has been held accountable.
According to the latest polls, there is less public pressure for full accountability. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released in early May 2005 shows a diminution of public condemnation of the torture. According to this latest survey, the number of those bothered a “great deal’ by the acts has dropped to 39%. Those bothered “not at all” rose to 19%.
Taken together, these facts are of great concern. It is well established that military members have a duty to refuse to obey illegal policies and orders. This duty certainly applies to actions that violate the Geneva rules for treatment of prisoners. Thus, one can argue that the punishments now being meted out to those junior soldiers are justified. During the Vietnam War, the military punished hundreds of soldiers and Marines for atrocities, even though many of these acts were committed in the heat of battle where it was difficult to distinguish between innocent civilians and insurgents.
Limiting the blame to low-ranking enlisted personnel has serious drawbacks. This is a repeat of the approach used in dealing with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. The success of that approach, as it applied to My Lai and the current problem, in reinforcing a dedication to moral behavior for a professional military is debatable. Years later, LTG Ray Peers, who had conducted the investigation of the My Lai atrocity, wrote to the Army Chief of Staff that the systemic problems in the Army that led to the My Lai incident had not been corrected. The Army Chief of Staff then ordered an extensive educational process to strengthen ethical behavior.
A more fundamental and profound consequence of this episode is damage to the moral fiber of the military. Focusing on lower level soldiers ignores the role of the systemic climate established by official policy, and the apparent acquiescence by the chain of command. The behavior of these senior officials represents more serious violations than those at the end of the process. To exonerate them is inexcusable. There is a clear danger that the military officer corps will refuse to own up to what has occurred and learn from it. Claiming that it was the behavior of a “few rogue bad apples” will blind the military to what has occurred. One of the lessons learned should be the need to strengthen the willingness to give loyal dissent to policies that violate the moral code of the professional military. Surely there were senior officers, other than the military lawyers in the Pentagon, who objected to the policies.
There are also serious concerns at the societal level. The Gallup polls show that public outrage is waning. It is likely that some of this is a result of the acceptance of the rationalization that this whole affair was the behavior of those few bad apples. This is an understandable reaction; it is comforting to believe that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with our military leadership and our societal values and moral fiber. This kind of rationalization has worked for many societies, including those in Germany who had “no idea” of what was going on in the concentration camps. If we are not careful, the legitimate outrage at torture will disappear and we will avoid addressing the underlying causes of this blot on our moral fiber.
The most critical aspect of this scandal, especially in terms of immediate implications for our national security, is the potential long-term damage to our war against those who are using terrorism as their primary means of violence. Terrorism is not new; nations as well as non-state actors have used it. When used by non-state groups such as those now confronting us, those groups depend on at least tacit support of societies in which they operate. That support depends in large part on how those groups are perceived in regard to the justness of their cause, and that of the adversaries. In this sense, the war against terrorism is a war of ideas, with emphasis on who holds the moral high ground. From all accounts, the torture of prisoners has undermined our conduct of that war.
The overlying principle behind the torture scandal is the clear disdain of this administration for international norms of conduct. Unless our body politic, including the public, develops a greater respect for responsible membership in the international community, we will find it difficult to regain the moral high ground. Without that moral status, the war on terrorism will be unsuccessful. The rules regarding torture, like other international protocols, are a set of generalized principles and norms designed to serve the interests of the entire world community. At times, conforming to these rules may cause inconveniences. To dismiss them in a cavalier manner is a breach of trust. Trust is a precious commodity, hard to earn, easily squandered, and when lost, very difficult to regain.
Every country reserves the right to protect its national interests, especially its physical security, even if it entails the violation of international norms. Flouting these norms, however, should be rare and only after carefully weighing the costs. Experts in the art of interrogation differ on the efficacy of torture as a means of gaining valid intelligence. Whatever useful information gained from torture, the consequences in terms of the worldwide reaction and the damage done to our moral standing are incalculable.
We must take every reasonable measure we can to undo the damage of the torture issue. A necessary step is for Congress to demand a full accounting that is credible not only to the military and the American public, but to the world community as well. The botched investigations to date show that the Department of Defense cannot be trusted to give a credible account. There must be a bi-partisan panel on the level of the 9-11 Commission to perform that task. Rather than punish individuals, the panel must re-establish accountability while articulating measures to correct the systemic flaws that permitted this to happen.
————————-
Brigadier General Johns, USA (Ret.), PH.D., served 26 years as a combat arms officer, retiring in 1978. In his last assignment as Director of Human Resources Development, he had staff responsibility for the Army ethical development program that addressed the Vietnam atrocities. After retirement, he served as a political science professor at the National Defense University for 14 years, where he taught National Security Strategy and Professional Ethics. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Council for a Livable World in 2005.