Originally posted May 8, 2008
On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to attend an event at the New America Foundation titled Beyond the Torture Debate. At first I wasn't really sure what to expect as the use of torture and the abuse of prisoners is tangential to the usual veterans' issues we deal with here in DC. As a former officer and professional soldier however, the issue is never far from my thoughts. Speaking at the event was Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the betrayal of American Values of which is the source for this months expose in Vanity Fair. Joining Mr. Sands was COL (Ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The discussion was both riveting and lively, as Mr. Sands has conducted on-the-record interviews with all of the major players involved and Col Wilkerson was able to give a perspective from inside the administration. Essentially, both men convincingly expressed the view that there was a conscious decision made by senior administration officials to reform the law allowing for harsher methods of treatment and interrogation. Furthermore, that this pressure to change the existing law came not from commanders in the field, but from senior administration lawyers, bypassing the normal established methods of decision making. In short, they changed the legal definition of torture and ignored Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention in order to interrogate and detain prisoners of the War on Terror. With the surfacing of internal memos relating to enhanced interrogation techniques -(many of which are considered torture by military field manuals), and the Supreme Court's 2006 5-3 decision that Common Article 3 does apply to the War on Terror, the House Judiciary Committee is now perusing action on several individuals to include David Addington (then council, current Chief of Staff to the Vice-President), and John Yoo (Legal council to the Department of Justice 2001-2003).
These decisions fundamentally altered the rules of acceptable behavior in wartime - a line that all leaders who have served in combat have had to monitor in one form or another. In a combat environment, it takes strong leadership to maintain discipline and prevent abuse. As soldiers operating on the streets, we are faced daily with decisions that can have moral and legal consequences far beyond the next engagement.
Early on in my deployment to Iraq, my platoon was patrolling regularly around North Baghdad. Four of my soldiers were on their second tour with only 6 months between deployments. We were in the middle of a combat zone and several of my soldiers were still dealing with PTSD from their first deployment. One of my gunners began to make mistakes. At first they were silly, but out of character for an outstanding NCO. As the weeks progressed, his attitude and his mistakes began to add up, until finally the full potential of this problem became clear.
We were searching a truck that was out past curfew and I noticed that the driver (a teenager) had a sticker of Muqtada Al-Sadr on his window. He claimed that vandals put it there and he hated Sadr. I could immediately tell he was lying to me, as he was wearing a Sadr t-shirt while professing his hate for the Mahdi Army leader. I told the platoon to search the truck and immediately heard the sound of breaking glass and popping tires. As I turned around to see what was happening, I saw my "problem" NCO vandalizing the Iraqi's truck.
I immediately stopped him and had a Section Sergeant supervise the search while I questioned the driver. After the patrol was complete, I talked to my NCO. Fortunately, his outburst was against an inanimate object rather that a detainee, but it became clear how easily one can succumb to the stress and anger of the moment. Luckily, we caught it before it became a serious issue. The decision was made to take him out of action for 30 days while he dealt with his issues and sought help.
My NCO sought counseling and did eventually return to duty. But the point of my this story is just how easily PTSD compounded by multiple deployments and little dwell time can affect our judgment in combat and further blur that line or right and wrong.
This is why the torture issue is so important to us as veterans and professional soldiers. As deployments continue to cycle and the numbers of troopers with multiple deployments continue to rise, it is up to all of us to ensure that we stay on the side of right. The key here is leadership, at every level of the chain of command. The last thing we need is our civilian command deliberately blurring the line, costing soldiers the credibility that they need to execute their mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment