Are we Undermining the Safety of American GI's

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]322193[/snapback]</div>

The short answer is no. If we believe the enemy is willing to torture regardless what we do, the same will happen whether we torture or not. Remember, torture does not work to obtain reliable information. It might work to obatin the information you wanted in the first place, which is why Bush and Co. probably want it.

Our troops were put in harms way when 10 times less troops were used than what would have been required to secure Iraq. The joint chief of staff was forced to leave after pointing this out to congress and Rumsfeld had his way..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]322193[/snapback]</div>

Of course we're placing them in greater harm's way. Roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and beheadings of captured troops are proof positive of that. Being unable to tell the difference between a civilian and an attacker also raises the threat level.

"Do[ing] anything about it" depends on your definition. We can (and do) train them in specifics as the specifics are discovered - how to watch for potential roadside bombs, how to carefully watch for people who are acting "outside the norm" (profiling? oh no!), always travel in groups of at least two, etc. We can (and do) also equip them better - more vehicular armor shielding in the areas most susceptible to roadside bombs, better apparatus for detecting explosives, etc.

We cannot (as in "morally cannot", not as in "are physically unable to") lower ourselves to the level of the antics pulled by our enemy. Waterboarding a prisoner falls far short of beheading him.

 

Hah - another flamebaiting topic. The only thing that is undermining our soldiers is sending them into warzones without a clear mission, not ensuring sufficient force strength (Powell Doctrine), not making sure that they are sufficiently equipped (armor, etc).

/ But Clinton... (Just to head off the whining already)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 20 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]322230[/snapback]</div>

Well of course it does. But just because it doesn't kill him doesn't make it morally right, either.

I think Evan stated it very well. There are two goals that need to be addressed in the war on terror. One of them, obviously, is the leaders who keep inciting violence against us. That's the military arm of it. I may not like it, but I see the need for it.

The second is to show the average person that we're not "the great satan" that these boneheads claim. And that's where the argument against torture (torture-light, interrogation techniques, whatever you want to call it) comes in. Like it or not, if we appear to mis-treat prisoners, then we give the nutjobs in charge more fuel for their fire and more recruiting propaganda. We're not going to change the minds of the crazies. But we have the ability to sway the minds of the average person. And that's where our actions come in.

Am I saying prisoners should be given champagne, caviar & fluffy pillows? Hell no. But, like it or not, our actions have consequences. And our leaders need to be aware of that and take it into consideration.

Our GIs haven't been safe since they were sent into combat undermanned and underequipped. The crazies are going to continue doing what they do. We have to act in a way that impacts the non-crazies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]322254[/snapback]</div>

Let's see ... no one mentioned Bush, so that argument doesn't hold water. As for the answer to your question, Alric said "The short asnwer is no"; Glen said "Of course it does"; and Evan suggested you read the following line for a simple answer to your simple" question:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 20 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]322201[/snapback]</div>

So saying no one answered your question is a lie.

Unfortunately, you're going to continue to get long answers to your "simple question" because it's not a "simple" question. It's what's known as a "gotcha" question. If I say yes, then you'll say I should have no problem with waterboarding or any other torture-that's-not-really-torture technique. If I say no, then you ask me whether I think flowers & long walks in the moonlight will get us the answers we need.

For a simple answer to your "simple" question, though, I think our brave men & women will be in greater harm if we lower ourselves to the terrorists level. They'll use it as "proof" that we're evil and ratchet up their rhetoric.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 20 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]322193[/snapback]</div>

Answer is No the first question. Answer is N/A to the second question. Easy as pie.

 

Watch out for a RABID DOBERMAN

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 21 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]322805[/snapback]</div>

I thought you were looking for simple answers to your simple question. Which is it?