Pro-war, Pro-torture?

In a world where (in Carl van Clauswitz’s words) war is a continuation of politics by any other means, by what other means may war continue? The torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib occurred, not out of spite, malice, or cruelty, but rather to ‘set the conditions’ for effective intelligence gathering for the war effort in Iraq. All it took was 2 bombs, one at the Red Cross, and one at the UN, to throw the post-invasion Iraqi reconstruction effort into a war (on terror) footing. As soon as the counter-insurgency ‘mop-up’ efforts of the willing coalition became an extension of the War on Terror, Major General Geoff Miller arrived at Abu Ghraib from Guantanamo Bay, interrogation guidelines in hand to ‘set the conditions’ for intel gathering.

The steps we are willing to take in the interrogation of prisoners are a function of the perceived need for rapid intelligence gathering from those prisoners. Torture is one available tool for rapid intelligence gathering, and perhaps the only tool available able to stop an urgent 'ticking time bomb scenario' for American troops or citizens. If we believe winning the next stage of the Global War on Terror to be vital to the survival of our nation, and the civilized world, we then have to ask: is it possible to be pro-war, but anti-torture?

Duncan
wordfight.blogspot.com